Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

icecap.us — "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming."

Bury

Xuvious 190 days ago, made popular 189 days ago

1577 diggs
digg it

685 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

Isidore, on 11/13/2007, -162/+243Weigh the qualifications of the man above versus the vast majority of climate scientists who do believe humans are changing the climate.

The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC

“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”

National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... (2001)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... (2005)
For the comments of other scientific bodies http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ...

The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.

No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.

Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...

New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
- blackhawk919, on 11/09/2007, -64/+16You need to update your sources.
  - Frei, on 11/13/2007, -17/+74Yeah the weather channel guy is the cutting edge source now.
    - blackhawk919, on 11/09/2007, -44/+19He's not unique. More false data is being debunked all the time. I think this facade is finally coming to an end.
      - ncairns, on 11/10/2007, -11/+36John Coleman is a meteorologist - the polite word for 'weatherman.' He is NOT a climatologist.
      - Terr01, on 11/09/2007, -4/+13Yeah, like that NASA data that was "debunked". Why don't we look at the before-and-after graphs to see how this totally, utterly discredited the theory of anthropogenic warming by changing the warmest year from 1990s to the 1930s, shall we?
        
        http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/16/must-read-fr ...
        
        Oh, darn, you can't even see the change on the global data.
      - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -4/+17"More false data is being debunked all the time"
        No, it's not. In fact, the more time passes, the better we understand that GW is real, and that humans play a big part in it.
    - humperdeath, on 11/09/2007, -5/+11Who watches the weather channel anyways?
      - cdahlkvist, on 11/09/2007, -20/+5Your mom while I give it to her doggy style.
      - Barclay1188, on 11/10/2007, -2/+17Wouldn't that mean that you're boring her out of her mind?
  - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -2/+28The easiest way to update sources would be for you to provide a list of your own, wouldn't it?
  - Delphium226, on 11/09/2007, -11/+2your words are empty
  - blackhawk919, on 11/09/2007, -8/+9The last two links don't lead to anything specific which is what their description implies. The youtube link is simply "Joe nobody" has changed his mind. The top two documents linked are from 2001 and 2005 -- which is almost irrelevant with much of the science that's come out more recently. You are correct that I should have sources which there are, but it's nothing that I keep at my fingertips and can quickly link you to.
    
    -In August, it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S.
    It shouldn't be too hard to find a source on that if anyone is interested.
    
    -Here's an actual link for you on New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab:
    http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc0M ...
    
    -06/07 Having testified before the U.S. Senate ,paleoclimate scientist, Bob Carter said that global warming has stopped. There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979
    I have no source but it shouldn't be hard to find.
    
    And there is really plenty more that is easily available. You pretty much have to be willfully blind to not know about it.
    - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -4/+14David Attenborough, a "Joe Nobody"? And who the hell are you, exactly?
      Stephen E. Schwartz works for the National Environmental Policy Institute, which is funded by Exxon and Shell Oil.
      Bob Carter is on the IPA, an organization that is also funded by Big Oil. He also writes articles for Tech Central Station, which receives money from Exxon.
      
      Can you find *one* credible GW-denier that is not on some oil company's payroll? Yeah, didn't think so...
      
      "You pretty much have to be willfully blind to not know about it."
      
      ...says the guy who willfully drinks the Big Oil kool-aid...
      - blackhawk919, on 11/09/2007, -7/+6I see, you can instantaneously discredit a climate scientist based on your substantiated or unsubstantiated source of their studies funds.
        
        Basically saying (something I'm becoming very familiar with around here):
        "They're not saying anything that I want to hear so it's not true."
        
        I can tell you right now, because in fact you already answered your own question to me, that I will never be able to find someone that says something that you disagree with with whom you think of as credible.
        
        There are many other sources of real science that argue against almost everything that the GW-alarmists are screaming about.
        
        But back to my original point. The OP's links lead nowhere or are completely out of date ( I couldn't find a date for the David Attenborough vid so perhaps I spoke to quickly on him, but I have a feeling it's more than a year old). And there has been much science and revision of old data and questioning of old data since 2005.
      - weeeezzll, on 11/09/2007, -4/+4So what you are saying is that you have no real rebuttal for archisteel? You've been owned, please step aside...
      - KMye, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4Ad hominem attacks < the scientific method
        Especially in this case. Scientists supporting alarmism are receiving huge grants because of the "urgency" and cache of the issue. Scientists who offer contradictory or skeptical arguments are immediately attacked and vilified by the entire extreme environmental movement. Are you claiming there's no bias in these others' cases?
- tonicboy, on 11/11/2007, -17/+37Yeah, and what are YOUR sources? And what are John Coleman's sources, for that matter? Any jackass can give an opinion without offering any evidence other than "Trust me, I know".
  - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -6/+39And what are YOUR sources? And what are MY sources for questioning your sources?
    
    The ultimate source for this information is called that Scientific Method. It is a protocol designed to reduce the risk that we fallible humans do what we're excellent at, which is see patterns where they don't exist and draw inappropriate conclusions.
    
    One of the benefits of this system is that the data and exact experimental methods are published for peer review or review by anyone who wants to look. Don't have the resources to mount your own climatological study? Then have a look at the data that's already published, crunch a few numbers yourself, and see if you draw the same conclusions.
    
    But when people don't publish their data, or go to the press before having their conclusions reviewed, then that's suspicious. And you should be rightfully suspicious because the one thing you shouldn't do is confuse science with polemics. You need to learn to tell the difference and not just throw up your hands in frustration. Why is it important? Because there are people in this field who are specifically trying to confuse the message, to get you to throw up your hands, often for political or financial gain.
    
    So even though this Joe Coleman document is a ridiculous, unsupported, and pointless rant, and as such has no place in a serious discussion of Global Warming, I am willing to reserve judgment. If he'd like to re-publish citing reputable original or third-party science that supports his points then I'm ready to listen. Until then he's just another person muddying the water and wasting our time.
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8The most intelligent comment in the thread so far. Wish I had more accounts so I could keep digging you up
  - tonicboy, on 11/09/2007, -8/+5WTF? Thanks for the 7th grade science lecture, teach, but I don't need any sources because I'm not making a scientific claim.
    - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -3/+13Any way I can help kiddo, but you missed the point.
      
      I wasn't suggesting you provide sources, I was suggesting that you go look at theirs. This was prompted by your questions/challenges about what everybody's sources were.
      
      I was instructing you in the nature of the Scientific Method to remind you that many of the organizations making these climate change claims use this convenient Method and, as a result, not only publish their claims and conclusions, but also their methods and original data. You can run the whole experiment over again if you want, and see if you get the same results.
      
      So I was answering your question: Yes, any jackass can give an opinion without offering any evidence, but just because you can't believe them doesn't mean you can't believe everybody. Just keep going after original sources until you get to an original study, and that's how you find the source.
      
      Did that answer your question? I hope so, because I think you'll find 8th grade to be a delight -- we start on the Periodic Table!
  - brad3378, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1I'm undecided on the Global Warming debate, so I'd like to offer a challenge to people on both sides of the issue.
    Please reply to this message with the ONE most convincing website that supports your argument for or against Global Warming...... and please don't send me some long rant about why I'm stupid for not fully buying into your side of the issue. I believe the best way to stay objective is by listening to both sides of the issue.
- Lythium, on 11/11/2007, -17/+98I have said it before, and I will say it again:
  Science is not about consensus.
  - TrevorBradley, on 11/10/2007, -8/+35But this isn't like religion, where we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways. There actually *is* an answer to this question, and what that answer is is rather important.
    
    Science is about research and provable results though. At some point we have to relegate the no-evidence "flat Earthers" along with creationists and other crazy people.
    
    Right now the science seems to indicate with high confidence that human made CO2 is the source of much of Earth global warming. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, we should work with that theory for now. By all means continue to investigate alternative theories, that's what science is all about.
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -5/+8"But this isn't like religion, where we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways. There actually *is* an answer to this question"
      Without a doubt. But the point is that the answer is likely to be very complex, and I've read any number of items which indicate that CO(2) - human-produced or not - is actually not the primary cause of the current warming cycle. So yes: we should definitely continue research, and we should definitely look to cleaner sources of energy. Unfortunately, many diehard proponents of the human-made global warming hypothesis (it does not, in my opinion, deserve the designation of "theory" at this point) want to stiffle all discussion. I'm sure I don't need to name names.
      - archiesteel, on 11/09/2007, -1/+8Suggesting that CO2 may not be the primary cause of GW is not the same as denying that AGW is happening. In fact, you'll find that scientists on the IPCC and other who are warning us about GW are open to discussing the possibility that CO2 may not be the main culprit. HOWEVER, it would be foolish to think that the *huge* amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere - about a hundred times that of the planet's entire volcanic activity - has *no* effect on climate.
        Those who opposed GW-deniers do not want to stifle discussion; rather, it is the deniers who want to muddy the waters, either because they're naive or (in the case of "experts") because they are on Big Oil's payroll.
    - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1"Science is about research and provable results though. At some point we have to relegate the no-evidence "flat Earthers" along with creationists and other crazy people."
      I'd wholeheartedly agree - does that mean you support the idea that the Anthropogenic Global Warming concept is little more than demagogy and is being used to usher in a new epoch to a compliant and petrified but ignorant public?
  - spiffyman, on 11/09/2007, -9/+16"Right now the science seems to indicate with high confidence that human made CO2 is the source of much of Earth global warming."
    
    Much? Are you sure about that? Your statement implies that human activity is responsible for 50% or more of global warming. I have never seen a study which stated this. Most state that some warming may be traced to human activity, or that human activity is "likely" increasing global warming. Nothing about that the majority of global warming being caused by human activity.
    
    Think about it, the earth has been warming and cooling for millenia without any human effect. Now that it's warming this time, it MUST be caused by humans? Evidence is needed, not hyperbole.
    - TrevorBradley, on 11/10/2007, -2/+10It's practically impossible to debate that the recent 200 year spike in CO2 levels (today about 50% above norms from before the industrial revolution) isn't the result of CO2 in the atmosphere. There's simple math here, CO2 taken out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, and gas, and burned to make CO2. We have a pretty good sense as to how much this is.
      
      As for correlating CO2 increase with temperature increase, the correlation is certainly there, even in the pre-industrial period. (http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-03-28-02.all.html ... We have some pretty good data modeling (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ... of effects of CO2 increase over the next 100 years. No, these models aren't perfectly accurate... in fact consistently they've underestimated temperate changes. One of the biggest problems with understanding the climate models is that they're not simple to model and even harder to explain... even supercomputers can't cruch all the numbers.
      
      Please don't lump us in with the "It's too hot in my city today, it must be global warming!" types. I'm not out to hug a polar bear (They're nasty and are probably already screwed). Things like the drought in Georgia are likely mostly the result of cyclical weather patterns and the fact that no storms have hit the US this year. I know there's variation, we know that weather is regional and cyclical. But there is dramatic observable change in regional weather in certain areas like the arctic circle that isn't cyclical in nature. Climate change is the best theory at the moment explaining what the hell is going on.
    - archiesteel, on 11/09/2007, -2/+6"Think about it, the earth has been warming and cooling for millenia without any human effect. Now that it's warming this time, it MUST be caused by humans? Evidence is needed, not hyperbole."
      The Earth has *never* warmed up as quickly has it has over the last century. CO2 levels have also never risen at such rate as they have over the past 100 years. Is understanding this simple fact too much to ask?
    - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -3/+3"t's practically impossible to debate that the recent 200 year spike in CO2 levels (today about 50% above norms from before the industrial revolution) isn't the result of CO2 in the atmosphere. There's simple math here, CO2 taken out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, and gas, and burned to make CO2. We have a pretty good sense as to how much this is."
      
      It's only "impossible" if one believes the popular misconception fostered by the media that every association is a CAUSAL one. Both yourself and Mr Gore ought perhaps to take a few courses in discrete mathematics and logic and dump the CNN/FOX TV politics.
      
      Apart from that - the phrase if it is "pratically impossible" - is a particularly relativistic term which exposes your leftist/post-modernist/relativistic logic. I'd agree the real world is made out of a huge number of IORs but discussing categories of XORS isn't amongst them. Either it's possible to debate the subject or it isn't (XOR).
      - GeneralFault, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Ok smart guy, I know something about correlation (I write economic forecasting software). It seems by the data that I have seen, that the coefficient of CO2 levels to average annual temperature is greater than almost any other coefficient in the data set and has a relativly small stderr to boot. The only larger effects would be from solar activity or geothermal activity, neither of which are particularly abnormal at the moment. As a result, their activity does not account for the observed temperature change. Most importantly, the temperature is following predicted values given the computed coefficents of CO2 much better than any models that do not take human generated CO2 into account.
  - humperdeath, on 11/09/2007, -14/+2I light my farts in your direction! Now go away before I taunt you a second time!
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2Way to introduce more methane into the atmosphere. ;)
      - humperdeath, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1not if it is 'lit up!
  - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -1/+9It is about repeatability, however, which is at least a form of consensus, building a confidence level around a result. Repeatability meaning, of course, that an experiment generates statistically equivalent results when repeated. Not, as often happens, when scientists read about one experimental result and then immediately get interviewed for "Nova" about how it's changed the way we look at the universe, without the requisite "if this is confirmed," or "if this proves to be true."
    
    I think, even though I feel that the science is irrefutable indicating Global Warming to be true, scientists have bandwagoned quite a bit more than usual around this topic, and that has made the argument more vulnerable. It seems like everyone with any scientific credential whatsoever has jumped in directly on this one, instead of putting the force of their support behind the climatologists, who can speak directly and with real authority to the science.
    
    I understand the urgency, but we're up against the Bush Administration allied with Big Oil, Big Coal, and the Auto Industry, among others. Not an insignificant opponent. I think we need a much more focused and credible attack than the pig-pile so far.
    - LimeParrot, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1"I understand the urgency, but we're up against the Bush Administration allied with Big Oil, Big Coal, and the Auto Industry, among others. Not an insignificant opponent. I think we need a much more focused and credible attack than the pig-pile so far."
      So true =(
  - SuperMoses, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4No one is saying science is about consensus, but if you were to create a policy on environment, wouldn't you want to know what the consensus is among scientists? Why would a politician go with the minority point of view?
    - hamandcheese, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Of course consensus =/= truth, but an informed consensus has much more validity then a lone meteorologists opinion. My main question for this person, and the other GW deniers, is how can the earth NOT get warmer via an enhanced green house effect, if we in fact pump out green house gazes? It seems like basic physics to me. You cannot increase the amount of c02 in the atmosphere without also increasing the global temperature.
    - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Errmm.. You're absolutely 100% wrong there. The AGW brigade are constantly harping that this (science) is about consensus. Perhaps you've not watched TV for about 5 years?
      As for asking why a politician would "go along" with a minority point of view let alone foster, encourage, patronise or subscribe to one when it suits their agenda, idology or mindset shows your own political naivity.
  - weeeezzll, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Actually consensus is very much part of the process. First the scientific method is used to conduct your experiments. Once you are finished, you publish your finding for peer review, and if a consensus is reached, then the finding are accepted as an accurate depiction of their subject matter. Consensus is the very important final step of the scientific discovery process.
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Tell that to Galileo ;) There must always be room for dissenting voices; be very, very suspicious when anyone says "case closed." Even the theory of evolution is constantly being subjected to tests and clarification.
- dimitrisokolov, on 11/11/2007, -29/+22The evidence is simple. There has been global warming and ice ages on planet Earth long before humans even existed. It doesn't matter if humans even exist the temperature will change dumbass.
  
  But the Al Gore types run around with their agendas and retards like you believe them.
  - ricksite, on 11/10/2007, -11/+10Kinda like acid rain in the 80s.
    - OralCavity, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3Ask the chinese and indians what they think of acid rain.
      we shipped our manufacturing over there and now they have to deal with the ecological consequences.
    - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Funny how we don't hear about acid rain now even though we still have coal-fired power stations with the Chinese opening 2 major coal-fired power-stations every week and caring little for scrubbing technology. Of course the "ozone hole" issue has likewise been pretty well forgotten now we have AGW/CO2 to scare the public with - given recent fluctuation no one seems to be able to agree whether its mending, getting worse or simply exhibitng natural cycling effects. If you get your facts from CNN then anything's possible.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6769 ... - China and Coal Fired Power Stations
  - MWeather, on 11/10/2007, -2/+12"The evidence is simple. There has been global warming and ice ages on planet Earth long before humans even existed. It doesn't matter if humans even exist the temperature will change dumbass."
    
    Just not as rapidly or from the same causes.
    - cdahlkvist, on 11/09/2007, -2/+4How do you know? Were you there? They have a limited amount of data...not more than a couple hundred years that is accurate (if even that).
      
      Sure, there are all the claims of ice cores. One problem with ice cores - If there was a major climate change and the glaciers melted then that means the ice cores are inaccurate since they do not record the times when the glaciers melted away.
      
      Climate change is happening. And I would bet that humans are having a measurable effect on the speed of change but we are not the cause of global climate change, just a factor.
      
      Gore is spreading FUD. It cannot be denied. He is out to do 1 thing and 1 thing only. Scare you into buying more of his books and crockumentaries.
    - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2@cdahlkvist "How do you know? Were you there? They have a limited amount of data...not more than a couple hundred years that is accurate (if even that)." -
      
      Oh dear oh dear - you've blown the AGW argument right out of the water since they use the same data sets to support climate modelling which they claim "proves" the concept of AGW due to CO2 emissions.
      
      "Gore is spreading FUD. It cannot be denied." TRUE
      
      " He is out to do 1 thing and 1 thing only. Scare you into buying more of his books and crockumentaries." - absolutely, 100% false. Check out Gore's credentials as a Globalist and see how his demagoguery fits into the Global plan (sorry, this involves work).
  - archiesteel, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3One shouldn't insult others when one's position is as weak as dimitrisokolov, who should learn a bit more about science before calling others dumbasses and retards.
    - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1And the strength of your position relies on which unstated evidence???
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/09/2007, -3/+7wow these digg values really flip-flopped in a dramatic way in a very short period of time... seems a bit fishy
  - EtherGnat, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3What makes you think there's a unified set of Digg values? There are and always have been a large number of Diggers on both sides of this (and any) issue. Although I vocally disagree, it should come as no surprise that the occasional anti-global warming side gets an occasional front page story.
    
    My only problem with the story is it contains nothing of substance. It's one weather man's rant with no factual backing.
    - preisler, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Pretty sure he means number of diggs..
- rabidmonkey1, on 11/10/2007, -11/+25Thus Sayeth THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH!
  
  Don't you see the absolutely fundamental problem with the "logic" of not questioning these people?! Science is as much a money-fueled industry as anything else. The IPCC reports are severely edited and censored. Any scientist that did not agree with the findings was kicked off the panel.
  - Delphium226, on 11/10/2007, -3/+9Link?
  - EtherGnat, on 11/10/2007, -1/+7I'm a smart guy but I'm still not smart enough to make conclusive sense of all the science related to global warming. I'll bet you're not, either.
    
    Regardless of whether global warming turns out to be true or not, however, I'm sick of people attacking the scientists as money grubbing radicals. I work for an organization that does environmental research and education, and the environmental scientists I have met are some of the most intelligent, hard working, and sincere people I know. My boss is one of the most conservative people I know, and even voted for Bush twice (although I believe he regrets it now).
    
    They're not doing it for the money, either. Our scientists are frequently offered several times their salary by companies like Monstanto to return to the commercial sector. They do what they do because they believe in it. By all means attack the science--that's how knowledge progresses--but don't attack the scientists.
  - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -3/+5"Science is as much a money-fueled industry as anything else."
    Which is why *all* GW-deniers "experts" are funded by Big Oil...That's the weakness in your argument: tere's much more money to be made denying Global Warming than saying it's real.
    - MrFunions, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2actually I'm not sure that's necessarily true when you take into account the up and coming energy industries who want to get government subsidies. E Ethanol anyone?
  - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2As far as I've seen the scientists concerned with the truth rather than a career left the IPCC of their own accord or refused to sanction relevant parts of the report. There have been enough people who have left the panel and enough media publicity for everyone not to be in denial about this particular issue.
    @archgiesteel
    "Which is why *all* GW-deniers "experts" are funded by Big Oil" - and the weakness of your own argument is premise that the opposing view (which you support) is not funded by other vested finanical interests such as the UN, Global Bankers and other groups which can make either long or short-term financial gains from the AGW "fud factor".
    
    The "Big Oil" claim is just the same-old tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that the "untroofers" such as Hermiker, JCM et. al. in the Digg bury brigade would normnally be frothing about.
    
    Funny how the opposing/leftist/modernist/Pro-Globalist camp can talk about conspiracies till the cows come home but they have some kind of perceptual gap which allows them to spot the conspiracies of others but never their own.
    
    Use of the implied Holocaust association as an attempt to gain credibility really doesn't help your cause either. Calling people "climate deniers" when you intend "Holocaust deniers" is only really useful when you have a gun pushed in someone's face and they aren't able to fight back. Nice try.
- democracysucks, on 11/10/2007, -11/+6Your post is a textbook example of ad hominem argument. You are arguing the validity of an argument based on the proponent.
  
  This is fallacy. Even if this guy had never been to college, that doesn't mean his argument isn't true. Either argue facts, or GTFO.
  - darienphoenix, on 11/10/2007, -4/+8WTF? So if someone with NO credentials says "no, it's not true", then his argument has merit?
    
    You're a flat-earther, aren't you?
    - DashingLeech, on 11/09/2007, -4/+5Other way around. Credentials do not provide merit. Science isn't a democracy and consensus isn't science. It was a patent clerk that failed his first college entrance exam and got passed over for promotions for not mastering "machine technology" who corrected all the top physicists' consensus on the laws of physics.
      - SuperMoses, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3It was that same patent clerk that later in his years lost touch with the new discoveries in physics as he became less active. Einstein was a brilliant man, but he is proof that no matter how smart a scientist may be, when they are no longer completely active in their field of science they miss out on the progress that is made, which is what happened with Einstein and the progress made in quantum mechanics. The scientists quoted in the original comment are scientists active in climate science. The scientists often brought up by global warming deniers are usually retired scientists.
        The former is the correct use of appealing to authority, the latter is a fallacy.
      - BigBlueCarbon, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1@ Supa moses:
        realclimate is the hockey stick liars under a new name.
        wtf does einstien have to do with this?
        is steven hawking too old too?
        
        retired scientists don't need to have their pet project funded so they can be honest.
      - SuperMoses, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1@BigBlueCarbon
        It's not a matter of age (although that plays a factor too), but it's a matter of how active they are in the current climate science research. My point was that if they are not fully active but rather 'out-of-retirement' scientists, their work tends to be outdated. Einstein was brought up by the poster I responded to.
        
        As for your claims that they are "hockey stick liars" it first assumes that if there were large inaccuracies in Mann's paper that his intentions were to purposefully deceit his readers..provide me a shred of evidence of this. Second of all, your claims that the hockey stick graph has been proven wrong is deceitful in itself
        
        http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
    - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Be honest, you think he's conspiring against you don't you?? Get out your tin hat! lol
  - SuperMoses, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6You have a terrible misunderstanding of the meaning 'ad hominem'. Ad hominem is attacking the persons character NOT their credentials. One's credentials is important when using them to support your argument.
    - simpleid, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4i disagree with the perspective that credentials are as important as most believe.
      
      i consider how the information was gathered and analyzed to be important. because someone without formal education can teach themselves anything, and do anything they want. and if they are so inclined, they can learn what you know, and do better than you.
      
      "correct knowledge" isn't exclusive to the "university environment." they use the same books i can buy anywhere. the only thing i'd miss out on is some professors personal experiences or methods, that doesn't imply a person still can't succeed.
      - SuperMoses, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3@simplied:
        You're confusing "appeal to authority" fallacy with appropriate use of appealing to authority. The arguments you made are correct when appealing to an authority who has credentials, but nothing to do with the related field. http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/authority.htm ...
        
        You see, those of us who point out the consensus are not appealing to authority in a fallacious manner because these scientists are active experts and in the specified field related to global warming. Those who deny GW most commonly bring up retired scientists. This is an appeal to authority since they not currently active in the current climate science or have contributed any kind of peer reviewed research to current climate science.
      - SuperMoses, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Fixed link: http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/authority.htm ...
- preisler, on 11/10/2007, -3/+3http://digg.com/environment/Right_Wing_Trumpets_Gl ...
- SuperMoses, on 11/09/2007, -3/+5Great first post and it's sad that you actually have significantly less diggs than the posts below. Despite large bodies of science all coming out in support of the IPCC conclusion, it's as if people don't want to accept positions and simply digg you down. Reminds me of creationists disgruntled that the scientific facts contradict their faith-based beliefs.
  - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1I need to add a correction to that as you misquoted the true nature of these "bodies"...
    "Great first post and it's sad that you actually have significantly less diggs than the posts below. Despite large POLITICAL bodies all coming out in support of the IPCC conclusion, it's as if people don't want to accept positions and simply digg you down."
- insllvn, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5OK, so first of all I have seen credible data that indicates that the earth is getting warmer. I, for one, don't dispute that. The issue at hand is why. Either something mankind is doing is warming up the planet, or it is something else. The major argument for, as I understand it, is we are producing CO2 in record high amounts, and logging in the rain forest and other areas has resulted in significant deforestation. As a result of these two factors, there is exponentially more CO2 in the atmosphere, and this causes a greenhouse effect. The arguments I have heard against, are that the temperature on other planets in the solar system have also risen, but a little research turned up this refutation of that argument: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-g ... others say that this is one of the natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate. I would like to snidely agree with others in this thread that science by consensus isn't, but it isn't that simple. To verify a theory, it must make predictions which are testable by experiment, or be supported by peer reviewed evidence. We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. We are releasing more CO2 to the atmosphere in greater numbers than ever before. Now it seems to me that, whether or not scientists believe it, if we are adding something to the atmosphere that heats it up, and we observe that it is heating up, we might just be causing it. I rather like that idea that popped up a few weeks ago about seeding the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of algae that would absorb that CO2. I also think it is an absolute imperative for us to move away from fossil fuels to renewable and carbon neutral fuels. I think working towards a cooler planet is important regardless of whether or not we are causing it. The earth, it is my understanding, has undergone drastic climate change, both with and without us. We, as a species, will benefit from stabilized global temperature.
  - nycmac247, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2seeding the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of algae
    --- can you explain how this would not be harmful to life?
    - insllvn, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1I will give it a shot, but only if you will first take the time to explain the environmentalist obsession with maintaining the status quo. Species go extinct. Deal with it. We are a part of nature and have every right to have an effect on our environment. I just think we should do it responsibly. I have no problem with the idea of manipulating the environment to benefit humanity at the expense of another species. We just need to consider all possible outcomes. So my question to you is, would it be bad for some life, or all life?
    - brentinkc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+0It was to stimulate the growth of kelp forests specifically, the volume of which has been declining over the last twenty years. More kelp forests equals more oxygen in the air plus less carbon dioxide.
- simpleid, on 11/10/2007, -4/+6i do believe that the earth may be heating up, i'm sure its temperature on average is affected by environmental factors such as the sun.
  i don't believe the human race has drastically altered the temperature of the earth or its atmosphere, at least not to the extent expressed by the media.
  if 70% of scientist on earth said we were responsible, they could still be wrong. it depends on how well they can interpret the information they gather, and if they're even gathering the information correctly.
  - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Given the planetary variance the entire notion of a global mean average temperature is pretty absurd and of little use to anyone other than a politician who wishes to scare the public into submission. The Earth will always be either heating up or cooling down but the chance of it remaining static are minimal. What those who are vested ideologically in AGW need to ask themselves is where does their notion that the Earth has always been "perfect" and static arise from? Digg deep and you'll find religious tenets at the foundations of this particular house-of-cards rather than objective scientific ones.
    
    This is akin to the leftist belief in the "static" perfection and purity of man (and all consequent projections of manipulability) which they seldom acknowledge as arising from the Judaeo-Christian [sic] Creation Myth. The notion that God created man (and the Earth) perfect, whole and unchanging and that we "sinning" humans are "spoiling it all". Something which possibly underpins the psychology of a collective desire for apocalypse. Few people can spot the paradox that leftism is working hard to support a predictive myth of self-destruction whilst claiming to be creating a "paradise on earth". Most clever "Diggers" seem to swallow it whole.
    
    This is not science. It is myth. A collective delusion. It's time the indoctrination was shed and humanity grew up. No, I'm not an advocate for Humanism either. Just start asking some awkward questions - particularly of what you see on TV.
    
    http://www.paradise-engineering.com/ - (not my site BTW - I detest this fool)
    http://www.hedweb.com/ - (two out of the 100 or so domains should suffice - I don't want to publicise this moron too much)
- br0ck, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3Add Bush's top science adviser and his top climate adviser to your list. "The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact. Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame. Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not stop increasing carbon emissions. In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760. ...
  - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2God-dammit - If the US Government says it's so then we had better listen before the bomb the truth into us. What's really sad is that I'm not even using satire here. :(
- snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1Vast minority I think you meant to say. Regardless this is an illogical appeal to authority.
  argumentum ad verecundiam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
  
  CO2 would matter if it's energy affect was exponential rather than logarithmic and it's energy absorbtion spectrum didn't overlap significantly with that of H2O. Inconvenient truths.
  - JimintheOC, on 01/01/2008, -0/+0Global Warming is part of nature. But don't believe me, believe that the vast right wing national geographic.
    
    http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/gl ...
    
    "The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone."
- Aroundtown27, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Has anyone ever read the book "The life and death of planet earth"? It's a fantastic read and really puts this whole global warming junk into context.
- jimmyclyde, on 11/10/2007, -1/+3ORLY?!?
  
  "After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
  
  --Christopher Landsea, PhD, Hurricane Research Division, NOAA
- shoover, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Why does so much of this sound like Y2k all over again?
  - dr3d, on 11/09/2007, -0/+0that are you talking about ? .. doesnt sound anything at all like Y2K ..
  - JimintheOC, on 01/01/2008, -0/+0Just one more scare tactict.
- JimintheOC, on 01/01/2008, -1/+0The drastic measures proposed to theoretically cool Earth’s climate by two degrees Celsius could cost as much as $26.5 trillion, almost nine times the entire federal budget. Given the enormous scientific uncertainties about how natural forces warm and cool our planet, we could bankrupt the world’s economies and inadvertently make the climate worse, not better. Glenn Beck
  
  Residents in Argentina and Brazil are wondering if this winter will ever end. Buenos Aires recorded this Thursday (November 15th) the lowest November temperature in 90 years. Temperature in the Downtown weather station reached 2.5C. Since records began more than a century ago, only two days had colder lows in November. It was in 1914 (1.6) and 1917 (2.4). And ninety years ago the urban heat island effect was much less pronounced than nowadays. In Brazil's southernmost province Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil temperatures fell to 2.3C. In Sao Joaquim Monday's (Nov., 12) the temperature was -1.2 C with frost. Reason McLucus 16 Nov 07
  
  Global warming is just another way government can separate people from their money.
  INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY October 02, 2007
  
  "Kyoto's proponents acknowledge that even were it implemented fully, universally, and perfectly, it would have no detectable effect on temperature increase. Kyoto MIGHT delay by six years projected future warming of an undetectable few-hundredths-of-one-degree Celsius by 2050." Chris Horner "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”
  
  Three-quarters of the total expense of the Kyoto Treaty would fall upon the United States. MARLO LEWIS, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
  
  The Oregon petition was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who DON’T agree with the idea that we are causing climate change. ROY SPENCER, PH.D, FORMER SENIOR CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NASA
  
  “Environmentalism has replaced communism as threat to freedom” Czech President Vaclav Klaus March 21, 2007
  
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -Mencken (prominent newspaperman, book reviewer, and political commentator)
crazywarthog, on 11/14/2007, -122/+307If you you really think the average politician cares about you, "the children" and the earth then you are a fool of fools. They see man made global warming as a new age Boogie Man to scare the masses. They see trillions of dollars in new taxes and the government agencies see billions of dollars of funding research grants. Furthermore, there's so much money at stake the politicians can feather their nest and their supporter's nests too !

It's about $$$, power and control. The perfect scam. After all, who doesn't want to save the earth !
- rcook18, on 11/13/2007, -26/+73The companies doing the polluting don't want to save the earth.
  - norman619, on 11/09/2007, -21/+13LOL!!!! First you have to prove that our activities are in FACT driving global warming. Until you can do that I will have to keep my skeptic's hat on. There is lots of SCIENTIFIC data that seems to say global warming is NOT driven by CO2 and that it's NOT man made. Why is that info being ignored? Even the contradictory data which comes from NASA is ignored. Why is that?
    - mickman17, on 11/09/2007, -6/+12Would you be so kind to share that information? As I understand right now there is pretty overwhelming evidence to counter your claim.. see the youtube link above as it is pretty evident that there is a direct association with the rise of average temperatures and human activity..
      
      Why do people fight this so much? It amazes me that people wish to contradict global warming.. Even if we are wrong what the hell is wrong with be better stewards of the world we live on? It is greed? profit? what the ***** keeps people from being such naysayers...
    - MWeather, on 11/10/2007, -6/+5"First you have to prove that our activities are in FACT driving global warming."
      CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
      Humans are releasing CO2 from underground stores.
      2+2=?
    - archiesteel, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1"There is lots of SCIENTIFIC data that seems to say global warming is NOT driven by CO2 and that it's NOT man made."
      Actually, there isn't. Even the NASA data, which seemed to contradict the model, was later reconciled to be consistent with GW. The scientific data is OVERWHELMINGLY supporting of AGW.
    - insllvn, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1The reason data from NASA is being ignored, is that it was widely reported that Bush and his administration were firing people who agreed with Global Warming.
- Frei, on 11/13/2007, -6/+34Perhaps you haven't heard about the "War on Terror?" Anyway, are you implying the current use of resources isn't profitable?
  - 5urr3al5am, on 11/09/2007, -20/+2Global warming didn't fly planes into our buildings in NY and kill thousands of people
    - klco, on 11/10/2007, -2/+13No but neither did an abstract term. Operatives of the Tterrorist organization Al-Qaeda did.
    - norman619, on 11/10/2007, -4/+5Hey global Warming made me late to work. At least that's what I tried to tell my boss today.
    - Adoxos, on 11/09/2007, -1/+10Neither did Iraq or Iran. The point is that the government uses true catostrophic events, such as global warming or 9-11, as a fear generator to profit off of and destroy peoples liberties. Global warming is not a scam, the government is.
- ashmael, on 11/13/2007, -17/+64The fact that politicians can profit off of global warming doesn't change whether or not its happening. Disasters have always been profitable for someone.
  - thebaron2, on 11/10/2007, -6/+5So has war. Are you ready to embrace all of the defense technology companies making bundles off of Iraq right now? Are you ready to start listening to Big Oil and any reports/research that they fund? Or does money as an incentive suddenly stop when it comes to climate research firms and politicians?
    - SuperMoses, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3It does if global warming is a legitimate concern (which the majority of scientists believe it is). Iraq was not a legitimate concern.
- MammasMilk, on 11/13/2007, -14/+48People make $$$ of picking up our trash and sanitation... oh no! Beware the evil garbage scam! SCAM I tell you (Yes I did use all caps... watch out!) trash and liter don't exist and it's a scam because someone's make money off of it.
  - fordfox, on 11/09/2007, -11/+2Global warming is a great money-making idea. Fear of global warming causes consumers to purchase "eco friendly" versions (at a small premium, of course) of the items they already have. Who wins from this? Corporations and governments. Make no mistake about it, there is a lot of money to be made in "saving the environment".
    - jezsik, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6Right and the Board of Health is another money making scam, too, eh? The government declares that a drug must meet a high level of purity and the pharma companies must improve their quality and therefore they have charge more, right? Who wins from this? Why government and corporations, of course! Make no mistake about it, there is a lot of money to be made in "healthy consumer products." Sheeeeesh.
    - thedavidmartin, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3perfect jezsik
    - InfiniteNothing, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1What next, automobile companies charging more for "premium" cars with seatbelts.
- cespee, on 11/09/2007, -11/+3I think we're going to switch from neo-con war fascism to environmental fascism. At least the war's "over there", and people can move to countries without war. But once this global environmental fascism kicks in, you won't be able to move away from it since it will be everywhere. You won't be able to take showers, you won't be able to buy things without having a garbage tax, you won't be able to go anywhere without gas limits and limits on your travel, and we'll all be forced into cities with overflowing sewage because everything else will be a "protected" park. Toilet paper will be one ply, toilets won't flush right, everything will have to be handwashed, including clothes, in soap that doesn't work, houses will be very tiny, and rent will be sky high. If you water your grass, your neighbors will bitch. Meanwhile, since you live on top of your neighbor, they will be spraying for pesticides, and your health will ironically be worse because of the environment. Your food will have more antibiotics and pesticides and fertilizer than ever because of the type of farming the government subsidizes.
- vastrightwing, on 11/10/2007, -2/+5Just don't forget to pick up a six pack of Carbon credits today before it's too late!
- rupaw, on 11/10/2007, -7/+16Hi crazywarthog,
  I invite you to visit me here in Austria. We can drive to the glaciers over the weekend. Let's see what you say when I show you where they were 10 years, 20 years and 50 years ago. And on the way home we can stop by at my grandparents and they can tell you (I will translate) how different the weather is now compared to just 20 - 30 years ago. People here in Central Europe trust their own eyes more than the fancy schmancy widely published opinions of weather channel founder millionaires or nobel prize laureates for that matter.
  
  It's happening my friend, and very visible as such. Maybe not for you latte-drinking self-declared experts who never leave the urban areas like New York City or L.A. but definitely for the rest of the world.
  
  Scam? I think NOT!
  - brad3378, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3To be objective & fair, that only proves that the climate has changed in that region.
    I've read data on other websites that shows temperatures have dropped in other regions in recent years. (I think I read it on an ASU.edu website)
    The trick is to prove that the average climate of the earth has been increasing AND is a significant result of human behavior.
    It's a very complex problem to mathematically model due to thousands of complex variables (such as a variable output of the sun) and that is why I'm very hesitant to believe anybody FROM EITHER SIDE of the debate that thinks they have it all figured out with 100% certainty.
  - thebrokedown, on 11/09/2007, -0/+0Ok, I am a believer that there is no way that humans can effect so many changes in our environment without a change to our Environment. I think that global warming is most likely happening, and sadly, perhaps past the point of no return, so I agree with you, Rupaw. However, I do want to point out that what you say isn't really proof at all. The timeframe you are talking about is infinitesimally small, and the changes that you use as an example could be mere momentary and normal fluctuations in climate. Not that I don't think there is a major problem (for humans, at least), but your argument won't convince the nay-sayers.
- Smiths, on 11/10/2007, -2/+6Because we all know that the only reason "scientists" get into to science because of the crazy $$$ made in the "research" racket. Even they can tell you "crazy old man" > "national academy of sciences."
- sgglynn, on 11/10/2007, -1/+5Anyone who doesn't want to save the earth is a terrorist
  - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Hmm.... Isn't a "terrorist" a person or group who has a distinct ideological framework and who wishes to achieve social and political change by surreptitious means which includes guerilla warfare, disinformation, bombings, kidnapping, rendition, torture, executions and attacks on their own compatriots in order to sway public opinion. (i.e. achieve political ends through fear?)
    
    Funny, but that's the definition I learned at school so you can call me old-fashioned for not keeping up with your CNN-BBC-inspired reality here. The definition actually meets that of the US government and it's politics 100% over the last 40 years - but only as long as you take time out to source your information from more reliable sources than the television.
    
    Maybe you should "Digg" a little deeper? - The Left-Wing Fabian Society - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society (the Wikipedia entry is far too kind)
    "The group, which favoured gradual creeping change rather than revolutionary change, was named — at the suggestion of Frank Podmore — in honour of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). He advocated tactics involving harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal Barca."
    
    You may want to look up prominent Fabians and the links between the incumbent British Labour Party and the Fabian Society as well as links between the most senior British Labour Party members and the British Communist Party.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=gordon+brown+addres ... (now what would he be doing there?)
    
    You may also ask yourself what strategies of "terror" are now in force to wage this war of attrition against the world public in order to advance this "revolutionary World Change". Terrifying the public with the idea that the sky is falling would seem a pretty effective technique. It's certainly had it's effect on you and many other "Diggers".
    - sgglynn, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1whoa, I was making a joke dude. No one seriously uses the excuse "Anyone who XXX is a terrorist" Politicians used that line to death. I didn't bother reading your entire statement, so i'm not sure what point you were making, mainly because it was way to long of a response to a joke.
- kerzhaw, on 11/10/2007, -2/+8Er, I think you're overlooking the fact that big industry is the one making the loudest objection to climate change theory - they have a vested interest in continuing to pollute the planet and ignore the issue. Its an odd strain of reality you live in if you really believe hoards of scientists are out there trying to rip us all off, and the poor little oil companies are only just managing to scrape by in the search of an honest living :-(
  
  FTW!
- snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3One of the most important words to learn for the early 21st century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
Maninthemiddle, on 11/14/2007, -84/+199When scores of eminent climatologists, paleo-climatologists, atmospheric scientists - people within the field of study - present viewpoints in variance, there is not a consensus.

There is a debate - and a growing one.

Does not mean we should not be vigilant and active. But to say that it is a consensus - debate over - is simple not true at best, and zealotry at worst.
- chicofaraby, on 11/10/2007, -44/+39Scores = more than 20.
  Number of scientists who study climate change = thousands.
  
  There is no real debate within the scientific community. The guy this article refers to is a former tv weather reader and dance party show host. You can say there is still some debate, but that doesn't make it true.
  - Lythium, on 11/10/2007, -6/+21You can say there is no debate; that does not make it true either.
    If there is no debate, why are eminent scientists still bringing up the issue? If the IPCC is all-knowing, why are some respected scientists suing (sometimes litereally) to get their names taken off the report?
    I don't know what the truth of the matter is; I am not a scientist, and I would add that the field of global climate is too broad for any single scientists to cover fully. I have informed opinions, and so do you, but that does not make them facts. Neither does the scientific "consensus." The point is that anyone who says that it is a non-issue, a closed case, that there is no debate, is being foolish. If there were no debate, we would not be having this....debate.... right now.
    - mickman17, on 11/10/2007, -10/+2Names please - I am sick of all the naysayers stating all of these facts about scientists backing off their original opinions... Pony up some names or shut the ***** up
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -2/+5To mickman: I didn't have an option to reply to your post, so I am doing it here. Blame digg, not me ;)
      Names? Here's one: Paul Reiter. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/23error ... The one you're looking for is under "Error 21" - in the interests of brevity, I won't quote the whole thing. If you want to see more, Google "IPCC + scientist + name off"
      BTW... you really don't need to be rude, you know. Just because you disagree doesn't mean the other person is pulling stuff out their arse.
      - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2From http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1279
        "Reiter is listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until very recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group."
        One of DCI's main clients is Exxon. Follow the money...
    - 01l0, on 11/10/2007, -3/+4Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology. Please post the names of some of these eminent, respected climatologists that disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming.
    - Lythium, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2"Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology."
      Swell. You clearly know more about this than I do. So tell me: why the hell did the IPCC recruit him in the first place, then? If he has nothing to do with global warming research?
      - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -5/+3The IPCC didn't "recruit" him, more likely he was member of a scientific association that participated in the panel's discussion. Also, don't you think it's normal that a small percentage of the IPCC participants were skeptics/deniers?Or do you think the fact that less than 1% of the participants disagree with the panel's conclusions is sufficient to invalidate them?
        There is a broad consensus. Deal with it.
    - mnocket, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1To mickman17: Why the language?
    - jbella, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2@Lythium
      
      medical entomology is the study of how insects affect human health. Climate Change has far reaching effects, one of which is the spread of insect borne tropical diseases, such as dengue fever to more temperate climates. Having a specialist in this field is useful when trying to assess the dangers of Climate Change.
    - mickman17, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1Sorry about the language but the GW argument is just as silly as the Intelligent argument... Why are people taking a political side to this? If the world is heating up then lets see if we can change it by changing our ways... If we are wrong then at least we become better stewards of the world - If we are wrong then at least we will have cleaner air, less impactful technologies for our selfish lives, etc etc....
      
      I did google Reiter and I got the ExxonSecrets links showing that he is funded by Exxon supported groups...
  - wagedomain, on 11/10/2007, -4/+12That's just untrue, though, there are thousands of people who are against it as well. It seems that people who currently believe in human-caused global warming etc. are doing so emotionally, and hiding behind the word "science". I'm not saying there isn't scientific findings suggesting that the earth might be warming, I am merely saying that most people I've encountered (not online, mind you, where people seem a bit more informed) simply think it's true because "how could it not be true" or "it just makes sense to me that the earth is warming" without any kind of stats, figures, evidence, proof, nothing. Just that they feel it is true based on someone telling them. And to an extent, that's true of many scientists as well. There's a lot of controversy over the IPCC. People who work there admit that the studies they reported on started with a conclusion and not a hypothesis, taking information for granted while never actually testing it. To paraphrase Christopher Landsea, we can't actually say that humans are causing global warming because it's still an untested hypothesis that everyone is taking for granted because a big science group told them to.
    
    Could there be human-causation behind global warming? Of course there could be. Is there evidence of this? No, because it's not being tested for, it's being assumed. Anyway the point is, there is clearly not a concensus. Not to be somewhat tinfoilhatty but many times the opinions of scientists who do not believe it, or think further study is required, is usually overshadowed by the extremist and alarmist cries of the very vocal community that is basically doomsaying the entire planet while pointing fingers like crazy. I personally can't wait for the day when those people shut up, and studies are actually done instead of wild hypothesis and manipulated statistical data. My favorite was a graph that said, literally "Indisputible proof of human caused global warming". The proof was a graph. The graph was a linear graph (claiming to be exponential, but it was linear) of "rising CO2 levels".
    
    Okay, I thought, how does that prove it's human caused? The graph was from 1900 - present, which I thought was odd because as I mentioned before it was linear. So the increase in CO2 apparently didn't speed up as we industrialized, according to this graph. I checked the source of the graph and it said that all CO2 readings were done in Hawaii.
    Okay, kind of weird to localize CO2 readings to such a small area, but whatever. Next display over from this graph was something about the last period of global warming. It said that it was caused by the massive amounts of CO2 spewed forth from volcanoes. Hmm. Global warming caused by volcanoes? And our CO2 readings of "indisputible proof" of humans causing global warming taken from the top of a volcanic island? Anyone who can look at something like that and not take a step back and say "that's not scientific" is not really thinking about science, but rather using science as a way of justifying something that they want to believe in. This display was in Harvard, by the way.
    - 01l0, on 11/09/2007, -7/+1Don't embarass yourself by trying to have a scientific debate when you clearly are no authority on the subject, and neither is anyone else here. We non-experts have no choice but to rely on what the actual experts say, and until someone can prove me wrong, there are close to zero climatologists who have taken your position.
      - wagedomain, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3The problem is that people who "believe" in global warming don't usually actively seek out contrary opinions, and when faced with them actively reject them on the basis that it doesn't align with what they already believe. If you really think no climatologist believes what I do, well, then there's a lot of people claiming to be climatologists that aren't. There are plenty of people who disagree with global warming. Wikipedia even keeps a list of "notable" opposition.
        
        Again, Landsea is a great example, someone who was actually a member of the IPCC who refutes their findings on a purely scientific basis. The problem is many people hear that and assume it's untrue, or that it means nothing.
  - insllvn, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Scores = multiple groupings of 20
    1000's = a number divisible by 20
  - kindwarrior, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1List of 500 environmental Scientists (with their institutional affiliations) who have written papers at variance with anthropogenic Global warming (I think that's about the most neutral language I can use):
    
    http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm? ...
- div2n, on 11/10/2007, -9/+42As I understand it, there is no scientific debate that the Earth is warming. The debate is whether human activity:
  
  A) Is the primary cause
  B) Is a contributing but not primary cause
  C) Plays no role
  
  From all that I've read, most scientists fall into category B at a minimum. By my observations, it seems to be folks in denial and neocons that fit into C.
  - dougsa, on 11/10/2007, -4/+3Most climate scientists fall into either a, or between your a and b.
    A 1/2) Is the most likely primary cause.
    B implies that they have another root cause in mind, or believe the root cause is yet to be discovered, which is just not the case for a significant number of scientists.
  - RearNakedChoke, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2dougsa is correct. The consensus is that humans are the cause of climate change. Read the IPCC reports yourself. The variance is to what degree humans are responsible, but make no mistake, the scientific consensus is that humans are responsible.
    
    Now you can choose to accept their conclusions or not. Thats your choice. But don't spread complete and utter ***** that climate science rejects anthropomorphic global warming.
    - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2The consensus is quite that - but only if you are selective in choosing your consensus...
      
      You may need to read all of the reports and not the summaries and then explain some rather anomalous variances in it's content. The IPCC is a political body with a political agenda. Truth is lower in it's range of priorities than expediency. The UN is an organisation for effecting world change with some rather insane individuals as it's spiritual guiding lights. A few dots for you to join should you be inclined to take a "scientific" view on investigating human motivations...
      
      http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+%22alice+bailey% ...
      http://www.google.com/search?q=%2BUN+%2B%22lucifer publishing%22
      http://www.google.com/search?q=%22united+nations%2 ...
  - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1No, there *is* debate. Unless you believe weather and long-range weather cycles = climate
- Mekun, on 11/10/2007, -8/+0.
  - ChooseReality, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1You might as well say the same thing about evolution. People believe things for different reasons. Look at the science... look at the DATA. It paints a pretty clear picture despite how it may be spun. This is true for both so called 'debates.'
    - kelly, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Apparently one man's "clear picture" is another man's chaos.
- TrevorBradley, on 11/10/2007, -4/+10There's no consensus on evolution either, yet from the perspective of scientists in the field the debate is over, and no longer worth debating.
  
  Really now, what's the difference? Science is science, you don't get to pick and choose just because someone out there disagree with current theory.
  - kelly, on 11/08/2007, -3/+3That has to do more with simply coming up with an answer, ANY ANSWER that runs contrary to creationism. What happened is that one theory managed to gain a semblance of widespread acceptance, so without hesitation it was immediately adopted as science gospel to counter creationism.
    
    If you analyze the response from most scientists when faced with creationism, theirs is not one that is open to it as a possible theory but are instead vehemently against the idea. That indicates that they are singling out options based on personal feelings. And even though there's certainly enough scientific evidence (not requiring faith) that supports creationism to warrant it as being a theory worth considering. That's not how science works and any "scientist" that adopts that type of overly aggressive attitude ought to be quickly discounted as he allows his personal feelings to cloud his judgement.
    - TheInfamousOne, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Funny, i haven't seen anything that indicates any type of god in my life. Coicidnces pushed into maricles, natural phenomenons turned into siguls of a God, and 2 thousand emails saying god is watching me does not = scientific evidence. At least evolution has been proved on a micro level, showing that yes, it does happen.
      - drachemorder, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1What's to say that a coincidence isn't meant to have happened by God? Who's to say that a natural phenomenon was not timed by God to occur at exactly the right moment? If God exists then He designed the entire universe from beginning to end to work exactly the way it does, including those things that are coincidental. Just because we can explain how something happened doesn't say anything about why it happened.
      - kelly, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2If you're looking for miracles as the sole evidence for creationism no wonder you believe in evolution. Regardless, this is not the evidence I was referring to.
        
        Here's an excellent reference to look at... and I would recommend observing it with an open mind lest you be just as guilty of not considering another worthy theory as all the other scientists I referenced.
        
        http://www.drdino.com/
        
        Regarding the micro-level evolution... its important to recognize changes that happen as a result of it already being part of an organism's DNA as is the case with your DNA example and "evolution".
      - TheInfamousOne, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1@drachemoder
        
        Ah then your actions are not your choice, how convient for you. if thats the case, then god made me an atheist and its his fault that I'll burn in hell for all eternity.....
        What a dick...
      - skulljar, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Yes and no. God both made you knowing your salvation and possibly to die and be punished for original sin, and he also made you with a free will. How this works out is beyond mortal understanding. That's where faith comes in. You don't know God's plan- so don't sit in the corner pouting because you feel left out. Open yourself to the gospel.
    - RCourtney, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1maybe because creationism tries to answer who created the system, which is unknowable and untestable while evolution tries to answer how everything went after whatever or whoever created it and how it all works now. most scientists are intelligent enough to realize the difference and not try to confuse the stupid sheeple by involving an unknowable (creator) into a study of something we can know (whatever was created). "God created it" doesn't tell me jack-***** about how it all works. Maybe some people are happy with ignorance and just want that answer... personally, I want to know the truth.
      - kelly, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Consider the possibility that in fact God did just create it and that that is all there is to know. Don't you see then how trying to invent alternative theories to explain things can do people a dis-service?
    - TrevorBradley, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1"there's certainly enough scientific evidence (not requiring faith) that supports creationism to warrant it as being a theory worth considering."
      
      I'm more than open to see any such evidence. I've yet to see any that hold water, or aren't better explained with evolutionary theory. Please provide information and I'll have a look through it and see if it's any better than the rest. :|
      - kelly, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Sounds like you're like all the scientists... you've already made up your mind before getting all the facts.
        
        Here's a good resource:
        
        http://www.drdino.com
    - TsuruchiBrian, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5You are right, scientists are biased against unscientific claims.
      They immediately reject them simply upon the basis that they are unprovable, not reproducible, and don't answer any questions even if they were right.
  - Humptydank, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4It's not worth debating to many scientists because many scientists feel, not all, that creationism was so settled as a scientific issue, in such complete and unequivocal terms, that discussing it is a complete waste of everybody's time. And not a fun waste of everybody's time like Pictionary. It's like when someone comes out with a perpetual motion machine -- we're not only sick of the claims, but were sick of playing pretend that it just might work. It's just not a fun game anymore.
    
    The scientific fact is that The Scientific Method takes creationism apart like a wood chipper. That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it has nothing do with our profession. Our profession is, first and foremost, based on the responsible application of the Scientific Method, and believe me, I've seen it wood-chip a lot more solid theories than creationism.
    
    So the question is, why to you keep coming to us for approval? Why do you keep trying to conform your philosophical belief to our Method? And why, when it gets wood-chipped, and we don't care because we've seen it do the same thing to things we thought were pretty awesome too, do you have a fit and call us names?
    
    Are you going to go down to an accounting firm and try to get creationism to conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and when it's disallowed by the IRS say its a government conspiracy, and sue to have creationist accounting taught along side "the theory" of regular accounting? Wait, don't actually do that. I'm sorry I brought it up...
    
    Most religious people, even those who believe in creationism, seem very earnest and nice, but is there any chance you could you lose scientists' phone number? We're trying to get some work done, and we have enough trouble with the Scientific Method without you making it all mad.
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Wait, hang on, you're telling me that it's _not_ the scientists' job to prove that each and every mythology on this planet is scientifically viable? =P
  - snowball69, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3The last time I checked the meteorological and climatological phenomena was not something which has evolved from a simpler to a complex system or evolved a complex system from simpler building blocks.
    
    Nor is it an adaptive system performing any kind of stochastic hill-climbing or exploring any sort of state space to produce entirely new phenomena. Wheres both climate and weather are chaotic phenomena and inherently unpredictable and non-linear and many orders of magnitude less-suitable to definitive "consensus" of any sort, both in terms of cause and effects.
    
    i.e. evolution is, without argument, (relatively) deterministic compared to both climate and weather so your comparison is somewhat spurious
  - delmar14, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Right, but name a real scientist (not a fundamentalist retard) who actually disagrees with evolution. the difference here is that many real scientists including the father of climatology himself, believe that global warming is still up for debate.
    
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Father_of_Climat ...
- drshorty, on 11/08/2007, -3/+0Hmm, consensus doesn't mean the debate is over. Actually, in this instance
  b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
  So take it as you will. I guess I just see the definition of consensus for what it actually is, instead of making totally useless points by not actually checking what I'm saying. Actually, I lie, I did make a totally useless point, because it's rather useless have to argue a useless point.
  And then again, div2n makes a useful point, but where's the fun in being logical.
- zenerdiode, on 11/10/2007, -11/+10Tobacco Industy:
  1950s - Smoking is unrelated to lung cancer
  1960s - Heavy smoking May facilitate conditions that may lead to lung cancer, but "Social" smoking is completely benign.
  1970s - Smoking May lead to cancer, but it's a personal decision. Second hand smoke has no effect on others.
  1980s - Smoking and second hand smoke may lead to cancer, but those are personal decisions and we have nothing to do with it.
  1990s - Yeah, we knew smoking kills, but you dugg your own grave...so don't sue us. Here's a couple bucks to make some "truth" commercials to satisfy the feds, while we drop millions into Hollywood to continue to glamorize smoking.
  
  Oil Industry, Neocons, and Global Warming Deniers:
  1980s - Global Warming doesn't exist
  1990s - Maybe Global Warming does exist, but it's a natural cycle of the earth.
  2000s - Maybe Global Warming exists and maybe human activity has a small effect to it, but even so, the but there's nothing we can do anyways, so why bother?
  2010s - ????
  2020s - ????
  2030s - PROFIT!!!!
  
  The thing is, I could give a ***** if a smoker gets lung cancer...but I certainly do give a ***** if your Hummer ends up causing me harm down the road.
  
  I wish there were a registry RIGHT NOW where we can sign up to be a Global Warming Believer OR Denier. In 20-30 years when the ***** hits or doesn't hit the fan, you either get to live here, or get shipped off to Libya to experience some naturally occuring global warming. Let's see where people would put their faith in then...Weathermen and Big Oil or Climatologist and Environmentalists.
  - jerbaker, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5Are you kidding? There isn't a neocon alive that will willingly accept responsibility for their actions. They must be forced into it by law. They do, however, like to get on TV and bitch and moan about the lack of personal responsibility in society these days.
- RCourtney, on 11/09/2007, -2/+5the digg community cracks me up. a week ago someone says Al Gore's movie is factually inaccurate and all the comments are slanted towards believing in global warming being caused by humans - any skeptical viewpoints were buried. now the big guy at 'the weather channel' (which sucks as a weather channel, I might add) says its all BS and all of a sudden the general digg community is digging up skeptical comments. the wishywashiness of this place makes me dizzy sometimes.
  - drachemorder, on 11/09/2007, -0/+7Well, Digg is made up of individuals who have individual opinions, ya know. I know I certainly disagree with the majority on quite a few issues. It all depends on who's interested in a particular article.
    - Lythium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Yep, you also need to check back when a larger number of people have seen the article: over the course of the day, we kept getting more and more "typical" digg views posted, so it's not indistinguishable from the other posts ;)
Iconoclast25, on 11/11/2007, -37/+7@Maninthemiddle -

Bingo !! X-Ring !! Fire for effect !!
- cderry, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2*Sigh* Post under his comment. This doesn't need to be a separate root comment. This is why you're getting dugg down.
Observant1, on 11/13/2007, -80/+63gore's mission is to gouge us all with a global carbon tax to further fund one world government. from about 1989 to 2001 yes, there was a lot more SOLAR activity, for the lag time of cause and effect, now we see some ice melting, and it has happened on MARS too. is a global carbon tax going to make the sun burn cooler or stop the ice melting on MARS?
the HYPE has been all about "evil CO-2", with global de-forestation, less trees converting CO-2 to oxygen, it's only natural that we would be seeing higher levels of CO-2. carbon dioxide is not carbon monoxide, pollution from burning fossil fuels.
the big corporations could care less about carbon credits, they can afford to buy them and would get huge discounts for buying in bulk (if they were made to pay at all), but us "normal folk" would be charged full rate to further fund what? money for the UN to buy the remaining 30% of US land that wasnt already handed over to them?
nuclear power plants and coal burning power plants pollute and have a very large thermal footprint, a potential solution may be available soon, http://www.befreetech.com , may be worth looking into.
- MrMacMan, on 11/09/2007, -9/+14EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY!!!!
  EVERYONE GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS OUT!
- it5five, on 11/09/2007, -6/+14I can't believe that paranoid rambling about one world government had recieved 8 diggs by the time I buried this.
  - amoirae, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1Reynolds ran out of MrMacMan's favorite headgear.
- LordByr0n, on 11/09/2007, -5/+6Hey dont forget about his goal to do away with Man-Bear-Pig
- drshorty, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3And in other news, Hillary is really Medusa, and when she gets elected, there will be global petrification.
  - thomn8r, on 11/08/2007, -1/+0The one thing Hillary can NOT do is make me hard...
  - snowball69, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Interesting to hear "untroofers" admit Hillary is even a credible candidate for next US President
    
    "when" (?) "she gets elected"?? Your slip is showing!
- bimtott, on 11/09/2007, -3/+6You are piecing together more random arguments than I can keep track of.
  1. Burning fossil fuels makes both CO and CO2. It's basic organic chemistry.
  2. Mars has no magnetosphere, therefore no protection from solar activity. All of your comparisons between Earth and Mars should have stopped there.
  3. "Money for the UN to buy the remaining 30% of US land"? Seriously, where did that come from? What does that have to do with anything?
  
  Save your ***** obfuscations for Fox News, read up on your science, and take your ritalin.
zelig, on 11/14/2007, -44/+112If "the science is settled", as the ipcc climate global warming crowd says it is, then I guess they won't be needing more government grants, since there is nothing more to learn.
- pbaehr, on 11/09/2007, -18/+11Unfortunately, now they want money to "fix" it.
- slashbot, on 11/09/2007, -19/+17Are you kidding? The global warming industry is a billion dollar industry and growing.
  
  Their entire existence depends on perpetuating this myth
  - arjie, on 11/10/2007, -3/+1The earth-is-not-warming crowd are just opposing the idea of global warming because they want to be controversial enough for people to watch their programmes. It's a million-dollar industry.
    
    Yes, I've waited for this since the last global warming story. Thank you.
  - MrMacMan, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2exactly what industries profit if there is global warming?
    I mean i understand that if there is a war, gun manufactures profit... if there is a natural disaster, rebuilding and supply companies benefit... but what industry profits off this?
- gropo, on 11/10/2007, -7/+15Seriously? Can you point out some links to this booming "billion dollar industry"?
  Because all I see is a bunch of uneducated morons grasping at straws to justify their desire to continue living guilt-free in their over-consumptive polluting lifestyle.
- dennyzartman, on 11/09/2007, -2/+4It's not just the "ipcc climate global warming crowd" that says it. It's the Weather Channel too.
  
  http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.h ...
  
  "...the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over."
- jerbaker, on 11/10/2007, -4/+4"I guess they won't be needing more government grants, since there is nothing more to learn."
  
  Yes, that would be the irresponsible, neocon thing to do. Why investigate and document the actual results of 20 years of Republican and Libertarian deniers. Just because you don't want that footnote next to your party in the history books?
edstate, on 11/12/2007, -24/+81I may be one of the few on Earth left who don't have a definite opinion on this issue yet... so I'm glad to see the debate is still going strong. Look, pollution and addiction to oil are ***** stupid. And who wants to ***** up the Earth? That said, I don't like ideas and ideals being shoved down my throat. Especially, and ironically by self-professed professional skeptics like Bill Maher (who I actually like). And then there are the people who look at you like you just ***** your pant when you say "Man-made Global Warming? Um, I'm still kindof on the fence". This is one of those debates that really brings out a frightening level of arrogance and hypocrisy in a lot of people.
- kindwarrior, on 11/11/2007, -24/+11I know I should be embracing and encouraging you but, I'm sorry, your still too brainwashed to see the forest for the trees.
  
  Many, many of meterologists have stepped forward and denounced anthopogenic global warming (many have lost their jobs and or their funding for making these statements of conscience); There is a huge body of data piled against the notion and not one credible piece of data supporting it. Even the UN report on climate change is different than you think; The Executive summary (written by the politicians) makes it look like the study concluded, incontrovertibly, that humans are causing global warming. The actual study says nothing of the sort; It, in fact, states that it can find on conclusive evidence of athropogenic global warming (and this is timid language because they knew it wasn't what the politicians wanted). As of now, 4 of the scientists who produced the study have publicly denounced the Executive summary (these are people who shared the absurd Nobel prize with Al Gore). When confronted with this, Al Gore called them "flat earthers"; I would be astounded by the brazen marriage of arrogance and ignorance in that statement (the politician ridiculing the people who wrote the study he misinterprets) but I have grown to understand the left for the sickness it is. If you're still juvenile enough to take Bill Maher seriously (even when he manages to get it right) you're too juvenile to be an agent of truth. I suppose in that sense it is better to have you on the fence. I'd love to use an arrogant term like "the science is settled" to throw back at the left because they have no science backing them up. But the science isn't settled; Science isn't ever settled and Climatology is an attempt to view trends that can take millions of years by looking at a sampling that at best extends slightly over 100 years or is extrapolated from geologic records. Simple facts:
  
  Over the past 10 years have global temperatures been increasing? To the best of our instrumentation (which is admittedly not up to the task) the answer is "no"
  
  Does it appear (more generally than 10 years) that global temperatures have been rising? "yes" since the maunder minimum(s) - Periods of almost no sun spot activity, there were actually 3 the most recent was in the 1700s - temperatures appear to have been slowly increasing at a rate of ~.6°/century.
  
  Does this mean that the globe is warmer now then ever? "No" In fact, if archeological evidence is to be believed, Global temperatures are still cooler than the earths mean temperature.
  
  Is there a link between CO2 levels and Global warming? "Yes" but it is the inverse of what you've been taught CO2 levels increase in response to rises in temperature.
  
  Still, if CO2 levels and temperatures are increasing then, regardless of the cause, the environmental disasters we've been warned about will befall us? Can't say for certain. However, we do have a lot of archeological data about periods when the CO2 levels and temperature levels were higher and while it doesn't say much about hurricanes, these where periods of great genetic diversity and prosperity for the biosphere -- no reason to assume that global warming today would be any different.
  
  However, I'm disinclined to see this as a mega-trend; We are at the end of an 11 year sun spot cycle and we know too little about the longer cycles of solar output. We could as easily be heading into an ice age as a warming period. On the other hand, The antarctic Ice sheet was the largest ever recorded this summer. Our magnetic field is diminishing at an accelerating rate, and magnetic north is moving faster than it has ever been recorded to move. I think, as soon as 100 years from now (perhaps even sooner), we are due for a magnetic reversal. There is an unpopular but well supported theory of Geological catastrophism that asserts that the magnetic field of the earth plays a major role in stabilizing plate tectonics; Turn of the magnetic field and the crust can slip around on the mantel like, oh, I can't think of a good analogy, like a loafer on a wet linoleum floor (?). So we have a scenario where the earth is spinning, the antarctic Ice cap is increasing in mass and the magnetic field that holds everything in place is about to wink out. that means any asymmetry in mass in the antarctic is going to pull the whole continent toward the equator (where ,of course, Ice will melt shedding mass -- it gets complicated as to what happens next) but it is conceivable that the effect could be dramatic enough to cause a major global shift, awakening faults and stirring plates (with lots of tidal waves, volcanoes and earthquakes) across the globe, All the while the surface of the earth would be being bombarded with cosmic rays because, again, no magnetic field -- interesting times.
  - DarkDx, on 11/11/2007, -4/+6Just a little advice: Don't write such a long posts becasue people won't read it and they will just bury you (I didn't).
  - Lythium, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5Your opinion is valid, and I happen to agree with it. I didn't digg you up, however, because your certainty is as fallacious as that of the mainstream panicky crowd. edstate's stance - scepticism without cynicism - is the only scientifically-viable one. To claim that you have all the answers (in either direction) is to shut down all hope of scientific experimentation. You don't need to believe _anything_. All I ask of anyone is that they look at all the available data with an open mind.
  - zyl0x, on 11/11/2007, -2/+4/facepalm
  - thebaron2, on 11/11/2007, -2/+2TLDR.
- skyshock1, on 11/10/2007, -5/+5When the truth is really that nobody knows for 100% certain. You honestly think we have accurate methodologies for measureing climate 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed up until now within 1/10th of a degree?
  - jerbaker, on 11/10/2007, -4/+2We don't even know for absolute certain that the Sun is made of hydrogen. Do you deny that? We don't know for certain that the very interior of the Earth is actually molten iron. Does that mean you believe that little trolls are down there pedaling away on generators to maintain our magnetic field? You have to be a liar or an idiot to refuse to believe anything until it's an absolute certainty.
    - aogail, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1When you are basing such extremely far-reaching decisions on what you think you know, yes, you do need to be absolutely certain.
      
      We aren't considering invasive new rules on account of our understanding of Sol's physical composition.
    - jerbaker, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think switching from coal and petroleum-based energy to wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable sources is an "extremely far-reaching" decision. What are you afraid of?
  - brad3378, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3As far as I know (please feel free to prove me wrong) we only have climate records that go back 400,000 years via polar icecap core samples.
    Interestingly, our climate was actually much warmer back about 1000 years ago. Maybe we're experiencing a natural temperature spike? Or maybe we're causing the problem? It's hard to say with 100% certainty. Either way, I'll probably be dugg down for not picking a side.
  <

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’