In response to all the global warming threads, who thinks its a myth, or true?

[star]

A lawyer. Now I see why you're so tenacious. Too bad you're in another state. I may have considered you to manage my business affairs based on this exchange.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution released a research report which found that the science behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk assessments in four current environmental policy questions is inadequate. Singer was the chief reviewer of the research report. The entire actual report is contained in this link.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451315-1387.html

I'm aware of how things are spun. Unfortunately a vast percentage of humans swallow such information whole. That's exactly why I asked the question concerning Iraq and why your response is valued by me.

I do not disagree that the climate goes through transitions of warming and cooling trends. The land that I own is very hilly in an otherwise notoriously flat state. These moraines were caused by glaciers. The striking, most persuasive thing is that these climate transitions haven't been documented to occur as fast as we're currently witnessing. That's the basis of why I believe we're severely messing with the primordial cocktail from which our planet/atmosphere has arisen. I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to suggest that such a rapid warming trend has occurred in the past. Are you?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to suggest that such a rapid warming trend has occurred in the past. Are you?

I don't believe a rapid trend is occuring. I've seen the charts showing where we are on the temperature curve going back tens of thousands of years, and we're right on the curve.

[star]

Here's a graph constructed by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration that says differently.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...mann2003b.html

I recognize the uncertainties of ancient temps due to newly recognized variables but this trend doesn't look "normal".

I know you're not going to like this link based on the source, but do consider that the graph was derived from peer reviewed data and considered "sound".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

In either of these cases, we are warming much faster and to a much greater degree than has been recorded in the past.

What do you have? This type of data seems especially hard to come by based on the fact that certain variables were not quantified in the past.

Oh, and I also stumbled across something that served to debunk the latest "fad" that the sun is amplifying the warming trend. The latest solar max was in 2000 and since these usually occur in 11 year cycles, I don't see how one can tie this event to the fact that this year is shaping up to be the warmest year on record globally.

Judging by the poll results, it truly doesn't matter. People can be presented with all the data available and are not going to open their minds to even a possibility that we can be contributing to this. I say this because the majority of posters are absolutely certain, without a doubt, that the climate is not changing.

It's a myth! A profit making scheme! Meanwhile, we're far behind other nations in the r&d of alternative energy sources. After the increase that Bush just authorized for funding of same, we will spend approx. $771 Million for this research. China has earmarked several Billion dollars for such projects. Seems that in addition to the goods and services being imported from China, we can soon add alternative energy solutions to the list. Profits for whom, I ask?

[MarineHawk]

whooooo, it's getting sooo hot soooo fast:

"It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.

The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science. ...

Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: 'Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years,' read its front-page story, 'capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.' Funny, but we thought 'unprecedented' would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.'" http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...RIAL/108150004

That's scary!

[MarineHawk]

Watch this. Seriously:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/013117.html

Reminds me of this:

Originally Posted by Washington Times

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority," Marcus Aurelius opined, "but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." An even worse fate would be to end up in minority status and an asylum. Recent developments suggest this might become the destiny of climate change alarmists.

Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 ? and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.

Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland's ice sheet indicate just 400,000 years ago the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today. Land area temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have declined slightly over the last few years. Since 1998, sea surface temperatures over much of the world have decreased slightly, while globally averaged atmospheric temperatures have shown no change. Many U.S. temperature gauges are near air-conditioning exhausts, hot asphalt and other heat sources. Their readings are thus too high and must be revised downward ? along with claims about rising temperatures.

Over the last 650,000 years, global temperatures almost always rose or fell first ? followed centuries later by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

More scientists are citing solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds as determinants of climate ? and saying CO2 plays only a minor role. Over the last year, dozens have publicly switched from believers to skeptics about climate Armageddon theories.

Eight eastern European countries are threatening legal action against European Union decisions to restrict their emissions, as they work to grow their economies after decades of impoverishment under communism. China and India refuse to sacrifice their economic growth to climate chaos concerns.

China has surpassed the United States as the world's leading CO2 emitter. And EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased faster since 2002 than those in the United States, where both population and economic growth have been substantially higher than in Western Europe.

The response of climate alarmists is fodder for psychological textbooks. Greenpeace says cataclysm skeptics are "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials." Robert Kennedy Jr. says we should be treated like "traitors." And Rep. Jim Costa walked out on a witness who noted that proposed legislation would raise energy and food prices, cost millions of jobs, and severely hurt poor families ? while doing nothing to stabilize global temperatures.

Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus" it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 billion that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990 from governments, foundations and corporations [no bias there, huh?]. Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson called the article "highly contrived" and based on "discredited" accusations about industry funding.

Alarmists have blamed global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes, malaria and even the Minneapolis bridge collapse, teenage drinking, terrorism, suicides and "irritability" in mice. By combining far-fetched speculation with various computer-generated temperature projections and worst-case scenarios, they concoct even more ominous auguries, like this amazing tale from London's Benfield UCL Hazard Research Center:

If CO2 levels keep rising, global temperatures could soar, ice caps melt, oceans could rise dozens of feet ? and all that extra water pressure could destabilize Earth's crust, squeeze out magma and cause volcanoes to erupt. The volcanic gases and dust could then cool the Earth, and cause a new ice age.

A 1993 blockbuster movie used a similar what-if pyramid scheme to generate terrifying encounters with raptors and tyrannosaurs. But when the lights came up, people knew it was just a movie.

When it comes to climate change, however, many seem unable to separate science from science fiction ? or even distinguish between headline-grabbing pronouncements, preposterous disaster flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow," and pseudo-documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The 11th Hour." Instead of fostering rational discourse and responsible action, alarmists insist we "do something" immediately to prevent climate cataclysm.

Al Gore is buying carbon offset indulgences. Leonardo DiCaprio is replacing his incandescent light bulbs. Cheryl Crow promotes one square per trip to the ladies' room. Cate Blanchett will wash her hair less often in her new $10-million Australian mansion. Cameron Diaz promotes "indigenous" lifestyles in Third World countries. But they all support laws mandating greatly reduced energy use and economic growth ? outside of Hollywood and Nashville's Belle Meade area.

In response, Congress has introduced a half-dozen "climate stabilization" bills ? and state legislatures are reviewing 375 more. These bills would cost American consumers many billions of dollars a year. But they would reduce average global temperatures by a tiny fraction of the 0.2 degrees F that scientists say the Kyoto Protocol would accomplish by 2050 (assuming CO2 is a primary cause of climate change).

It's time to ask: At what point do symbolic gestures and political grandstanding become actually "doing something" about climate change? At what point do they amount to insanity?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...109120009/1012

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Watch this. Seriously:

Swallowing it whole. It's not even funny. We're so seriously screwed.

Regarding the rest of your post:

NASA's data does not confirm what's reported in your source paper. Below is the link. NASA continues to report that the periods subsequent the 1980's remain the warmest years on record globally. While the data indicates that the U.S. recognized warm years in the 30's, as are recorded as of late, one cannot merely look at regional data when looking for global climate trends.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Instead of just listening to what the paper reports NASA's findings to be, I can see for myself. And the data continues to reflect significant warming trends of our globe, especially since the 80's.