Yeah, the water off the coast of California is suppose to be warmer this year. I guess warm ocean water has substantially reduced krill and thus has affected marine life. Nice having The Professor on Maher. And I'm glad the price at the pump is rising--buy a fuckin' bike and make bike lanes and stop whining about the price of gas.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not listening. The jury is still out there. I'm not hearing you. Da-da-da-da-da. Hm-hm-hm-hm.

Surprise, surprise. More disinformation from the 'global warming' myth campaign.

Direct question: "Was this hurricane the direct result of global warming"

Answer: Pandering to the audience, and a dodge of the question.

Funny that nobody asked why a MORE INTENSE hurricane hit the coast 30 years ago. Of course not. That would undermine the liberal agenda.

"We're increasing the intensity of hurricanes. That's been demonstrated." Blatantly FALSE. No proof given. "We're increasing the heat in Europe." Blatantly FALSE. No proof given. These are simple, specious 'arguments' with absolutely no factual basis provided or even offered. You either believe it or you don't.

Could Bill Maher have been any more sanctimonious and obsequious?

The guy couldn't even give a numbers-based answer to the question of how many scientists believe the myth of global warming. More dodging and avoidance.

Not ONE fact mentioned in this entire interview. Just hippie propaganda and a shameful attempt to capitalize on the death and misery of others. Shame on everyone involved.

For the people who don't want to research their beliefs, here's some scientific research for you (Dow Jones, 1997):

"The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity."

From later in the report:

"So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases."

This is just one of many studies which have completely discredited the concept of 'global warming', yet the hippie propaganda machine rolls on. Incredible.

Dow Jones (1977)? Research? Let's ask ourselves a couple of questions. Human factors contributing to climate change is a fact accepted by a HUGE majority of the scientific community. Any research refuting global warming claims is generally sponsored by petroleum industry interests. They have something to gain by doctoring research to fit their needs. What does the "hippie propoganda machine" gain by showing photos of glaciers melting and temperatures rising? Believe who you want, McGoo. I'll throw my lot in with the scientists instead of the oil companies. Their stdies overwhelm the opposing view's "research."

Dear Canadian McGoo,

Have you really held on to that Dow Jones article for 8 years and still think that it is factual, current, and unchallenged? And, what a source, Dow Jones! We can really count on their findings over that of experts in the field of climate change today?

I'm interested to know if you have more current, scientific-community information that really challenges what Prof. Schneider said? I'm willing to be challenged, but by intellectually honest material. Bring it on.

Ah Norm, you shouldn't have. ; )

Now may I go back to work on Mcgoo?

Mister myopic Mcgoo, you keep saying there was another stronger hurricane once.

Prove that. Provide a link to something credible. Here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille

Here's a quote from it:

"Camille retained the record for the highest storm surge measured in the United States, at over 24 feet (7.3 metres) (see storm surge profile) until Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

So your credibility is a little damaged in my eyes. However, I'll humor you, and go through the rest of your post. It's almost entertaining.

Global warming is not part of the "liberal agenda". Haha, silly joke right? Try to keep your issues separated, it will help us try to fix your mendacity. Do you mean the liberal scientific agenda? The hippie agenda to move away from polluting, global warming disease causing fossil fuels? Don't spend too much time in your carport with the car engine running Mcgoo. Guess what? The fumes that come out of your SUV are toxic. Toxic is a big word, that means something akin to POISONOUS. That's what those damn liberals are up to. They just want to keep you from getting high on ground level ozone. They ruin all your fun.

Oh, and in regards to your little article. Part #1 You need to find out some more. Sure things have been getting warmer since the ice age, that might be why we don't live under a glacier. It hasn't been as dramatic though since the burning of fossil fuels. Good information yes. Debunking global warming no.

Part #2 Oh the conclusion! Nice, I don't know we arrived at that but now I'm rested assured. We don't have to worry. Good! I'll just put my head back into the sand. Probably in the sand of some desert oil war! Thanks Mcgoop! Hydrocarbons are yummy. Radiation is good for you! Trees sprout like wildfire in warm conditions. YEAH! Hydrocarbon rationing may adversely affect the environment? OH all those hippie environmentals must be mistaken. What were they thinking? They should support more fossil fuel consumption. After all "The Dow Report" (hushed silence) said "we needn't worry".

I'm beginning to think McGoo is not really an authentic poster. You're putting me on right? Who is this?

For what it's worth, here is the excellent article on diminished plankton off the coast of California due to a lack of 'coastal upwelling':

http://nature.berkeley.edu/pipermail/consbio/2005-July/000069.html

Exceprs from the article for those interested in the phenomenon:

"Some are calling it an El Niño Norte; others think it's some sort of anomalous intrusion of warm offshore blue water onto the continental shelf," he said.

A recent study indicated the phenomenon may be long term, and linked to global warming.

Last week, Fisheries and Oceans Canada -- the federal agency dealing with Canada's marine and inland waters -- released a report saying 2004's spring and summer ocean surface temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska and off British Columbia were the warmest in 50 years.

The study concluded the record high temperatures were caused by abnormally warm weather in Alaska and western Canada, as well as "general warming of global lands

Listen to your scientists, not preachers.

As usual, no scientific replies. Just attempts at slander: "That's old knowledge", with no new knowledge to replace it. "That's suspect data", with no data to oppose it.

Some more choice stuff debunking the myth of global warming:

"Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure- ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years."

From the National Center for Policy Analysis (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html).

As far as the disinformation about Camille - from Weather.com:

"Hurricane Camille was fast approaching, its strength unsurpassed by any storm the region had ever seen. With wind gusts of 200 mph and a predicted surge of up to 20 feet, forecasters knew Camille would cause catastrophic damage along the coast"

"On August 16, another Air Force reconnaissance team flew into the eye of the hurricane. The information they relayed back to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) sent chills up the spines of forecasters.

Camille was now a Category 5 hurricane, with top sustained winds of 160 mph. There was no question the monster storm would strike the U.S. Gulf Coast. The only question was where?"

You only cite storm surge at landfall, which is a pathetic attempt at disinformation.

Also, you might be interested to know - from the same Wikipedia article - that the most destructive storm in the Atlantic on record was in 1780!

When will the campaign of disinformation end from you guys? Look at the facts before trying to sell us your snake oil.

THE CURRENTY CONCEPT OF GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH.

I wouldn't worry about global warming. Remember the dinosaurs, mother nature sure pulled a number on them.....lol And nature will continue with or without us. Just think, if we are not carefull with our resources and our environment and with our weapons of mass destruction....(God writig this is depressing, let me grab a beer before i continue).... in 200 million yrs from now, we will be oil for some other "intelligent" life form that will evolve, by intelligent design, of course, to take our place.

Mcgoon, In regards to your "chicken little" comment. That might have done well for awhile, but a large piece the sky just fell on New Orleans.

So while it's quaint for you to parrot good sound bites from moronic pundits, you have to consider the context in which you repeat them.

BTW everyone, Mcgoop is my pet troll. I know it's pathetic to pick on someone who came to came to an intellectual discussion unarmed, but some ignoramus has to play punching bag for my frustrations. McGoogle is doing nicely.

Obviously CURRENTY should be CURRENT.

But I also had to chime in on this particular bit of idiocy from Reality Biter:

"The fumes that come out of your SUV are toxic. Toxic is a big word, that means something akin to POISONOUS."

Guess what? Oxygen is toxic. It's a big word, something akin to POISONOUS. Who will save us poor ignorant people from oxygen?

Reactionaries.

"You need to find out some more. Sure things have been getting warmer since the ice age, that might be why we don't live under a glacier."

See? That is called common sense, something your religious zealotry is missing.

"It hasn't been as dramatic though since the burning of fossil fuels."

How ... predictable that you didn't cite a source for this.

"In regards to your "chicken little" comment. That might have done well for awhile, but a large piece the sky just fell on New Orleans."

So all the facts cited do nothing to dissuade you from your dogma.

Really, I understand your mental disorder. I do. It's quite common. Someone believes something so firmly and deeply that fact cannot shake the foundations of their beliefs. Strangely, it's exactly this type of thinking that has caused just about every conflict in the history of mankind. So you're part of the problem. Because you think you're part of the solution, without any factual basis whatsoever.

Your behavior is particularly disturbing because you call it out in everyone else - dismissing 'fundies' and the like - while exhibiting the exact same characteristics. This is why, for example, you can be so adamant that global warming exists when there is no proof whatsoever, yet in the same breath yell at someone for being religious, or yell at the president about how stupid it was to go into Iraq without proof of WMD ... do you recognize the pattern? You require more from your opposition than you require for yourself. This is a common form of self-delusion. You consider your beliefs to be self-evident. All others are suspect. It's a mild form of paranoia.

But please, keep thinking that you're in the right. You really do no harm, because you have no power. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you by any means have the factual, moral, or intellectual high ground in this debate. You're simply engaging in ancient bullying techniques to try to silence opposition. How like your so-called enemies you are.

Hah hah! Hah ha ha haha haha ha! Oh my. Owned by a Canadian! I never thought I'd see the day.

I think McGoo is coming from about the same area I am - centrist, thinking people who are tired of reactionaries running the dialogue be they left- or right-wing. And it's particularly lame to see the way the bandwagoners jumped on this catastrophe to try to push their own agendas. Vultures.

Go McGoo!

BTW everyone, Mcgoop is my pet troll. I know it's pathetic to pick on someone who came to came to an intellectual discussion unarmed, but some ignoramus has to play punching bag for my frustrations.

You haven't refuted a single point, so what are you bragging about? Name jokes and empty theatrical rhetoric doesn't count as "intellectual discussion".

Owned by a Canadian! I never thought I'd see the day.

Hey, watch it or we'll frown politely at you.

Look Goo.

You said: "Hurricane Camille was fast approaching, its strength unsurpassed by any storm the region had ever seen. With wind gusts of 200 mph and a predicted surge of up to 20 feet, forecasters knew Camille would cause catastrophic damage along the coast"

And I say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

215 mph (344 km/h)

Sorry. If you are going to argue something try to figure out if it's actually correct first. Kat was a category 5 too. My Kat beats your Camille.

All this is, of course, besides the point. The whole argument is a red herring to the real point.

"Storms feed off warm water. Was this storm on steriods because of global warming?".

Listen to the video clip. PLEASE. Try to learn something rather than wasting my time educating you. I WILL go to the site and read it. I will try to find the agencies funding sources. See who is making this point, and what motivations they might have. Actually there are more credible anti-global warming sites than this one. Often they are conservative think tanks that are linked to the oil industry. I can see how you are fooled. Nice logo on the site, some official sounding things. Maybe even some real science. I counter it all with this: http://www.ipcc.ch/

This post was a better effort. You actually tried to counter my points with information. Congradulations, your progress. But I will look at your little link. As to your second post, bunch of blather. Yawn.

Keep to facts if you still want to play. Joe, you stay out of this, it's got nothing to do with you bub.

Look Goo.

You said: "Hurricane Camille was fast approaching, its strength unsurpassed by any storm the region had ever seen. With wind gusts of 200 mph and a predicted surge of up to 20 feet, forecasters knew Camille would cause catastrophic damage along the coast"

And I say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

215 mph (344 km/h)

Sorry. If you are going to argue something try to figure out if it's actually correct first. Kat was a category 5 too. My Kat beats your Camille.

All this is, of course, besides the point. The whole argument is a red herring to the real point.

"Storms feed off warm water. Was this storm on steriods because of global warming?".

Listen to the video clip. PLEASE. Try to learn something rather than wasting my time educating you. I WILL go to the site and read it. I will try to find the agencies funding sources. See who is making this point, and what motivations they might have. Actually there are more credible anti-global warming sites than this one. Often they are conservative think tanks that are linked to the oil industry. I can see how you are fooled. Nice logo on the site, some official sounding things. Maybe even some real science. I counter it all with this: http://www.ipcc.ch/

This post was a better effort. You actually tried to counter my points with information. Congradulations, your progress. But I will look at your little link. As to your second post, bunch of blather. Yawn.

Keep to facts if you still want to play. Joe, you stay out of this, it's got nothing to do with you bub.

you know...even IF "the juries still out" on global warming, our pollution of the atmosphere is still fucking up plenty of other things. but of course the hardcore christians believe it is humanities right to destroy this planet.

Okay so I checked your little site out. haha. It actually uses the IPCC to make it's argument.

I suggest you read one of the reports from the IPCC. Try "The regional impacts of climate change".

This is just one of many studies which have completely discredited the concept of 'global warming', yet the hippie propaganda machine rolls on. Incredible. Posted by: Canadian McGoo on September 5, 2005 11:35 AM

That "study" by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd, Cave Junction—now, there's an address to inspire confidence!—is in fact an op-ed page article and not a peer-reviewed publication in any reputable scientific journal.

Below are a couple of responses to it:

Op-ed Science A Myth: Global Warming Is Happening

Global Warming: A Letter From Sherwood Rowland, Nobel Laureate, And Others

The first-cited one is by climatologists with records of research and peer-reviewed publication in the field. In contrast, note the following observation in the letter by Rowland et al.:

A computer search for the names of the authors of the op-ed article [Messrs. Robinson and Robinson] does not turn up a single publication by either of them in any area of science pertinent to global warming. (emphasis added)

Read more about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and its 6—count 'em, 6—faculty members here.

As for the "Myth" of global warming. I could do better, but for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

'The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"'

This was interesting. There is a small minority global warming skeptics that are indeed legitimate scientists.

Some of them are hired by the George C. Marshall Institute.

From Wikipedia: "The George C. Marshall Institute, named after George C. Marshall, was established in 1984 "to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy". On the issue of climate change it is generally regarded as skeptic, and two noted skeptics (Sallie Baliunas and Frederick Seitz) are on its board of directors. The Institute is also a strong supporter of the Strategic Defense Initiative. It receives funding in part from the petroleum industry."

[bold mine]

Gee Goo, how do you function? I can find so much information so easily. You MUST actively TRY to avoid it.

From Wikipedia:

"In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the US' National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus."

I'm going to go around shitting in people's beds and I will get paid very well for it.

Continuously repeating inflammatory statements not based on fact does not prove anything, Biter. You still have yet to debunk the National Center for Policy Analysis FACTS which clearly show that global warming is a myth; you have not shown how Katrina is by any means the result of a 'global warming' trend, much less one caused by man; you have not given any FACTS which show that the 'majority' of scientists believe your lies.

In the meantime I have provided FACTS which show that the majority of scientists do not believe in the lie of 'global warming'; I have clearly illustrated that worse storms have happened, some in recent history and some hundreds of years ago; I have provided proof that the current warming trend is natural.

You seem to fail to understand your burden, so let me explain it in clear terms. You are proposing that the current state of industry is bringing about a global catastrophe. You want to enact major change based on this assumption. Thus, the burden is clearly ON YOU to prove your point, not to browbeat people, or to insist that a poisonous gas you dislike is the cause of all the Earth's woes.

You are operating backwards: you have already reached your conclusion and you are looking for sound bites, snippets, and opinion pieces which will support it. Which is why your position is so clearly flawed.

"Below are a couple of responses to it:"

Unfortunately your 'responses' do nothing to debunk the paper, they simply say it is wrong. The scientific claims made in these responses are uncited.

"Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

Perhaps you should actually look for contradicting evidence and dissenting scientific opinion, rather than unsubstantiated fear-mongering:

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels" - NCPA

"Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use." - NCPA

"More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence." - NCPA

"While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions." - NCPA

Feeling foolish yet?

"It receives funding in part from the petroleum industry"

And this means what exactly? Because a scientist receives funding from the oil industry makes their factual, documented data somehow tainted? Who do you think pays the bills of the people you are citing (none of whom offer facts, by the way) - liberal causes, anti-capitalism movements, and other biased positions. It is up to the scientific community to bring together and analyze all the found data and draw a conclusion. Every time they have done that, the consensus has been that GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH.

"The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus."

Sure. Let me rebut that POLITICAL opinion with SCIENTIFIC observation:

"More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence." - NCPA

"You know...even IF "the juries still out" on global warming, our pollution of the atmosphere is still fucking up plenty of other things"

This is true, but it is beside the point. Allowing people to make up bogeymen and fairy tales to get what they want by any cost is ridiculous. It's like saying Michael Moore's tactics are okay because you agree with his end result. Propaganda and lies are propaganda and lies, no matter what your intention or ultimate goal.

If you want to fight pollution, fight it on its own terms. Don't make up some fairy tale about how the gulf stream is going to shift and pacemakers are going to stop and all that Hollywood liberal nonsense. Stop lying about the 'plight of the spotted owl' and the 'decline of the forests' in the United States. In short, stop acting like a reactionary and form an educated, balanced opinion.

"100 people said so" is not a scientific observation. Particularly if those hundred people are rather tremendously outnumbered by people of the opposite opinion. The facts have come down quite clearly; global warming is happening. There has therefore been a retreat; the only terrain left to (rationally) fight is whether that warming is actually caused by human activity. It's easy enough to invent another explanation ("the aliens are aiming more zappers at us,") and difficult to refute those explanations ("& I challenge you to find even one alien who has zapped us less this year than last"). More and more evidence WILL however continue to mount in favor of the theory that human created greenhouse gases are warming the planet-- because that theory is in fact true.

I think it's ridiculous going off about our switching from oil being too "costly." It's a marginal opinion that global warming isn't caused by human activity-- but it's positively wacky to think that oil is not a limited resource. There is therefore no "if" about switching to some other source of power. Costly or not, it simply will have to happen, and I can't see how it's going to be any less costly if we wait a few years. This is terrible procrastination, and it may prove deadly. It may, of course, the universe being a large strange mysterious place, NOT prove deadly-- but it's a simply terrible gamble. On one side of the wager is a few more years of not bothering to burn fuel efficiently, a few years of blessed laziness-- and on the other side of the wager is the fate of the entire goddamn planet.

<3

Right on, Mungojelly.

Here's a fact, smog isn't healthy and it kills you. Even if global warming isn't happening I certainly would like to go outside for some fresh air once in a while without shortening my lifespan by 20 years.

I think what needs to be said that hasn't been said is that it doesn't matter whether global warming is human activity induced or part of a natural cycle caused by solar activity (which, by the way, the mayans and incans knew about solar activity and its effect upon male sperm count and the ability of the royalty to sire more children - so there were distinct cycles in the number of concubines that a royal had to keep in power).

What matters is that the climate and the planet is truly changing and it really doesn't matter to the thousands of dead from the Boxing Day tsunami and from Hurricane Katrina what is causing all of these calamities... they just know that the world of reality has definitely shifted for them... Don't go all religious on me - I am just saying, they aren't here anymore.

In regards to previous global catastrophes, we really have no idea why they happened - unless you were on hand. We have some records - both historical and geological and our abiilty to interpret that data is based upon bias and information that is changed from generation to generation as we acquire more information about our present. However, we do not know how rapidly things changed - we can only base our suppositions on how we interpert issues with current data and our idea of what someone else was trying to say thousands of years ago.

Language is not a good way to communicate - doesn't work very well. And I speak five languages and many times cannot get my point across. So how can we expect to understand the complications of ancient language?

Everyone know the whispers game - tell the guy next to you that the Earth is round and by the time 100 people hear and repeat the message and it comes back to you, the earth will either be square or several new facts will be told.

It is good to vent and rant and beotch about how phuqued up the world is and it is "our" collective fault, helps gain clarity - my question is: Once you have vented and gained some insight, what are you personally doing today to effect a change?

As for me, one thing I am doing is converting all of our autos to a hydrogen fuel system as soon as it is available (http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm) and we are now walking or riding bicycles as much as possible and using public transport when we can.

We repair or reuse or make a new use of things we used to throw away or recycle - when the item has lived its full use life, then we recycle it.

BTW, there is technology available to reduce emissions and toxic crapp and make the world a better place - it just isn't as profitable for the big guys and special interests.

As you will notice on the swith to hydorgen site, it used solar power and home water to fuel your car - how can Shell, BP and all the rest charge you for that? And how will those poor little Middle Easterners get on without all of the oil revenues? Heaven forbid their ego projects (such as The Palm and World - communities so big and ostentacious that they are visible from space) would flop. No resentment - just tried of all of the profiteering when so many other people are hurting.

Be the change you want to see in the world and YOUR world will change.

There's is just one thing I'd like to point out here and I'm surprised it hasn't been made yet.

Canadian McGoo seems to think that the existence of ONE hurricane in the past that was bigger than Katrina disproves global warming or that it is the figment of the imagination of scientists and "liberal propagandists". When it comes to global warming we are NOT talking about SINGLE INCIDENTS, rather a SERIES of single incidents, that is TRENDS.

The trends are that we are getting stronger and stronger hurricanes. The reason? The planet, in this case the Atlantic Ocean is getting warmer and warmer. The reason for that? The fumes and waste we are putting into atmosphere.

Sure maybe there was a stronger hurricane in 1960, but nowadays the average hurricane is stronger that the average hurricane 40 years ago. Same thing applies to the temperature. The hottest years in the last century have been that last 10 years in a row.

Galileo in Brecht:Der Sieg der Vernunft kann nur der Sieg der Vernünftigen sein.

The victory of reason will be the victory of people who are prepared to reason, nothing else.

in response to one of the points in mcgoo's early comments: "...global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years."

see this (somewhat) recent article: "[previously] Only one scientific team... had attempted the difficult process of correcting the satellite data to take orbital drift into account until now... When Mears and Wentz reprocessed the temperature data with a new, improved orbital correction, they found that the troposphere had warmed instead of cooled."

Look McGoofball,

If you can't understand the conflict between funding from the oil companies and global nay-sayers... I grow tired of arguing with you. You are starting to remind me of the knight in that Monty Python sketch that get's his arms and legs lopped off. Look go back to watching home shopping network, make yourself a mayonaise sandwich, or have sex with your sister. Your arguments bore me. It is you that fails to understand the burden to disprove. Fossil fuels are plaguing our economy now, and twits like you have impeded progress toward energy efficiency and oil independence.

You know sometimes in an argument, one side is just plain wrong. They believe the wrong people, buy into the wrong "facts". Just because you lay claim to the "facts", doesn't mean you are right . I'm not arguing with you to change your mind, actually it is only my intention to ridicule you. Thanks for the fun, and I hope I didn't get your Mcgoat too much. Have a nice day.

Also when we have Hurricane Zed, maye then, something might just be wrong.

None of this global warming or pollution or deforestation or fishkill makes any difference at all, because the end times are near. Who needs to care for the Earth when the Rapture is coming? So there! So don't talk to me about all your scientific mumbo jumbo that I can't understand even if you explain it to me, because I don't care. I don't have to care. I don't have to think. All I have to do is believe. I am saved!

But just in case I'm wrong about the rapture, AND I manage to make a few million dollars before I go to meet my Maker (I bought one of those prayer shawls that the guy on TV said everybody that bought them hit the lottery or got a big raise or found an oil well under their house), let's abolish estate taxes so my children can have it all and not pay taxes on it.

Posted by anon at September 6, 2005 05:04 PM:

"...the Rapture is coming? So there! So don't talk to me about all your scientific mumbo jumbo that I can't understand even if you explain [global warming] to me, because I don't care. I don't have to care. I don't have to think. All I have to do is believe. I am saved!"

The chances of your 'rature' being true are 1 in infinity as imagination is virtually infinite. But that means you don't have a chance in hell. I can only assume you are joking about the rature. And if not joking, don't try to understand how your toaster oven works or how the bread you toast came to be. It's ALL pretty complex to the unquestioning mind.

Excuse me, the telephone is ringing, but should I answer something I don't really understand...Oh, I know you are kidding.

Recent Free Air Concentration Enrichment (FACE) studies at the University of Illinois-- that's studies where they actually pump out CO2 to plants in a field, to see how it affects their growth-- suggest that previous estimates of possible increased crop yields due to atmospheric CO2 were probably too generous. So there's another tick against the "global warming will be fun" side of the argument.

Goddamn science, always going along reproducibly generating uncomfortable facts...

Canadian McGoo wrote:

Unfortunately your 'responses' do nothing to debunk the paper, they simply say it is wrong. The scientific claims made in these responses are uncited.

The first of the two responses I linked to, Op-ed Science A Myth: Global Warming Is Happening by Thomas R. Karl, Kevin Trenberth, and James Hansen, was submitted to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) as a response to the WSJ op-ed piece by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, the one which you rather curiously cite as "(Dow Jones, 1997)" and which you variously and disingenuously describe as a study, a paper, and scientific research. This is explained in the second link:

We are enclosing with our letter a response to this [Robinson and Robinson's] op-ed article from three of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, which refutes in detail its arguments. This letter was submitted to The Wall Street Journal on December 18, 1997, by Drs. Karl, Trenberth and Hansen, and is as yet unpublished.

The response by Drs. Karl, Trenberth, and Hansen does not include a list of references because it was intended for publication in the op-ed/letters pages of the WSJ and other newspapers, and these do not typically include such lists of references. Indeed, the original WSJ op-ed piece by Robinson and Robinson which you cite so assiduously does not include a list of references either, but you, unsurprisingly, did not seem to mind this.

But if you insist on technical citations and references, the place to look for them is in research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like Science, Nature, and PNAS. Certainly, you may find contrarian research findings and opinions expressed in these journals. But that is the beauty of scientific scholarship: hypotheses and evidence are presented, critiqued, and defended in peer-reviewed journals and technical conferences. And somewhere in the midst of this, the truth, or at least some degree of scientific consensus, emerges.

One item that you won't find in the pages of these scientific journals is the pamphlet circulated by Robinson et. al. This pamphlet was never published in any scientific journal. If you wish to play in the scientists' sandbox, you have to play by the rules and submit your ideas and hypotheses to peer review. If you don't, you have no right to be taken seriously as a scientist.

Finally, lend me your ear as I praise Frederick Seitz, the past president of the National Academy of Sciences whom you keep referring to. Seitz is honored for his research in solid-state physics. Together with Eugene Wigner, he gave his name to the Wigner-Seitz cell, beloved of physics students everywhere. His book on solid-state theory sits on my bookshelf and review articles from the series Solid State Physics, which he co-edited, line my filing cabinet. But Seitz is not a climate scientist and cannot be said to have made his bones in this area of scientific research. I would pay as much attention to Frederick Seitz's pronouncements on global warming as I would have to William Shockley's views on eugenics.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. —Arthur C. Clarke

For anyone who is interested, here is an accessible article on climate change from a recent issue of a popular science magazine:

James Hansen, "Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb," Scientific American, Vol. 290, No. 3, 68–77 (March 2004) pdf file

Canadian McGoo wrote:

In the meantime I have provided FACTS which show that the majority of scientists do not believe in the lie of 'global warming'; [...]

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels" - NCPA

Firstly, note that the NCPA's stated goal is "to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control . . ." Being such an advocacy organization, the NCPA is hardly likely to be an unbiased source of information on climate change and global warming.

Secondly, the NCPA doesn't even bother to tell us when this Gallup poll was taken (I suspect in order to leave open the suggestion that this might have been a recent poll). Nor does the NCPA provide a detailed citation for the source of this Gallup poll (since you are so keen on matters of attribution). Why is that?

In fact, the poll was taken more than a decade ago, in 1991. The body of evidence in support of the hypothesis that human-induced greenhouse warming is occurring has grown significantly since then, as a casual perusal of the scientific literature would indicate.

Furthermore, the "17 percent" figure quoted above by the NCPA does not concord with any of the results in the 1991 Gallup poll (see below for the full citation). Instead, it appears to have been a fiction perpetrated by George Will.

(continues . . .)

(. . . continued)

From the Environmental Defense web site:

Rush [Limbaugh] FICTION: "[...] However a Gallup poll of scientists involved in global climate research shows that 53 percent do not believe that global warming has occurred, 30 percent say they don't know, and only 17 percent are devotees of this dubious theory." [22]

Scientific FACT: These numbers, apparently lifted from a George Will syndicated column of September 3, 1992, [23] are supposed to reflect the findings of a Gallup poll taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions of research scientists concerning global warming. Even though polling is of doubtful relevance for determining the scientific truth of any proposition, it should be pointed out that nowhere in the actual poll results are there figures that resemble those cited by Will or Limbaugh. Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the scientists polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global warming was already occurring. Only 10 percent disagreed, and the remainder [24 percent] was undecided. [emphases added]

[...]

—————————

22. [Limbaugh, Rush,] See, I Told You So, [(New York, NY: Pocket Books) 1993,] pp. 162-63.

23. Will, G.F, "Al Gore's Green Guilt," The Washington Post, September 3, 1992. Will's erroneous summary of this poll has been quoted so many times that it has become gospel for the proponents of the environmental backlash. [emphasis added]

24. The Gallup Organization, A Gallup Study of Scientists' Opinions and Understanding of Global Climate Change, November 1991, pp. 5, 8. Available from the Center for Science, Technology & Media, 6900 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD.

If you are skeptical of anything from the Environmental Defense web site, here is an alternate source, Wikipedia's Scientific opinion on climate change:

According to a 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, 60% thought global average temperatures had increased, 25% did not know, and 15% did not think so. 66% were of the opinion that human-induced greenhouse warming was occurring, 24% did now know, and 10% did not agree. Of this 66%, 63% (or 41% of the total) said the current evidence substantiates the phenomenon, 32% said it doesn't and 5% didn't know. The poll was conducted for the Center for Science, Technology and Media. [emphases added]

Canadian McGoo wrote:

Feeling foolish yet?

You may wish to pose that question to yourself.

The position that the climate of the Earth is warming is backed up by two of the biggest scientific, peer reviewed research projects ever. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. So far the naysayers have yet to provide ONE scientific peer reviewed article to debunk the scientific consensus.

Even Bush at the recent G8 had to finally concede.

I think any blatant denial of climate change and the human causation belongs in the same camp as the flat-earthers and creationists/ID advocates. However in the current US political "climate" these folks are getting a scary amount of attention from Bush et al. Their tactic is to spread doubt - because that is all it will take for people to do nothing maintain fossil fuel addiction.

For good and very up to date scientific info on climate change check out realclimate.org.

Canadian McGoo--

Clue to the clueless------

Your source you use for "the myth of global warming" is biased. I checked out their website and their Chairman of the Board is from the Thompson Petroleum Corporation.

Surprise, Surprise.

See if you can find a study that isn't sponsored by unbiased source. I seriously doubt you can.

Im going to jump around a little here because my head is swimming with controversy(the way I like it, it keeps me fresh) so here it goes:(also i dont spell well) Mark Twain once said "If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to stop and reflect. The mentality of "everyone says it so it must be so" or "the government says it so it must be so" has caused alot of problems throughout history. What everyone needs to think about is who benefits here. Remember Freon? Well even though freon is HEAVER THAN AIR and therefor cannot make it into the atmosphere, the gov banned its use citing the effects on the ozone layer. They banned a very useful chemical based on theory. THEORY. what? The company that produced it coincedentaly had its patent run out that year, introduced a new substance and stands to rake in billions from the ban. Dupont made money from the ban, That is a fact. Freon depleting ozone is just THEORY. See my point? I am going to cut this short and not touch on the specific topic, just wanted to give you all something to ponder.

Hey Matt-

gimmee sources on your freon claim that I can check out for myself.

On your overall point: Are you saying politicians make up things to benefit their supporters? That they'll politicise science just to win elections?

Shocked! Just shocked ; -)

Gosh, I think the politicians are at it again with intelligent design!!! With those falling poll numbers they've got to be desperate to get every last fundie vote in the bag.

Great point you made, Matt. ; -)

Just found this site last week cos i'm a fan of the daily show, we get it over here(Wales) though CNN.

Global Warming was taught in Science Class when i was in school and that going back 15yrs back so kids over here know about Climete Change as we call it here. So we have hevy tax on our fuel and transport a liter o gas is $1.65 so thats $7.45 a gallon and ppl in the US complain about gas going up 50c a gallon!!!

. . . freon is HEAVER THAN AIR and therefor cannot make it into the atmosphere . . .

Macroscopic air currents, e.g., convection currents, the jet streams, Coriolis flows, and Hurricane Katrina, as well as the microscopic random motion of gas molecules, as evidenced by Brownian motion, and diffusion are sufficient for the uptake of denser gases such as CFCs and radon into the atmosphere, and for their persistence therein. (For much the same reason, the denser water and less dense ethanol stay mixed in my brandy, whether or not I am swirling it around in my snifter.) Otherwise, most of us would be asphyxiating ourselves on denser gases such as carbon dioxide and argon at the bottom of the atmospheric ocean.

Freon depleting ozone is just THEORY.

But what a theory!

alright, first i owe you all an apology for jumping in without solid facts, thats the exact thing i hate. It seems the whole patent thing is a myth perpetuated by "people say it so it must be true". Dupont issued a patent for the first air conditioning unit in the 30s called the atmospheric cabinet, and did not specificaly mention R-12 or what we call freon, and even if it did that patent expired in the 50s. Dupont just owns the name freon, but several companies produced it before the ban. Also, i thank techer for pointing out specific on molecular movement, and now that i think about it common sense dictates we would suffocate on the numerous atmospheric gases heavier than oxygen if it couldnt go "up". Now that i have that out of the way, dupont gained billions post-ban, though the conspiracy theory of the patent have been officially debunked. Its always good to question motives, and as I found out question all information, from both sides because everyone seems either to be lying or in my case just plain ignorant on the subject. Now lets delve into this ozone business a bit more, and catch me if i say something wrong. It is a fact that CFCs break down to chlorine in the atmosphere and that deteriorates the ozone layer i think it is safe to say. It is also safe to say that the ozone constantly goes through a cycle of depletion and rejuvenation. Now the question is if CFCs and other things realeased by man will speed up the depletion so much that it wouldnt have time to build up thus enlarging the hole. The natural enviroment constanly produces ozone depleting gases, but do we create a significant amount compared to nature? for instance rice emits a small amount of methyl halide gas when grown http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001103071346.htm
which wouldnt amount to too much, but how many source of ozone depleting gases come from nature.but to tell you the truth, the more I research th emore i dont want to take a strong stance on freon. I guess i should have stayed on topic to begin with. Climate change: I am going to go do research before i get into this heavy so i dont state misinformation again and lose what little credibility i may have left, but expect to see a post soon unless i lose interest.

you all are total douches