Rod Hayward said:OK. We get these corks, see, and then drive them in with a hammer, and they all let go at the same time...
Just stop all the cows farting and we'll all be ok....
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Some of us old F*rts could use a cork or two…:lol:
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…
While stationed at MCB Camp Pendleton, I had the distinct pleasure of treating the second degree burns of a young Marine who lit one…
Only in America! Wadda country!
On another note, I guess the kool aid drinker have taken the day off.
to put another spin on the subject…
“Global warming has become a big-ticket item in the eyes of its supporters. At stake are research funds, jobs and the ability to control lives all over the globe. Most climatologists agree that over the last century, the Earth’s average temperature has risen about one degree Celsius. The controversy centers around the source of the temperature change—manmade or natural causes. Global warming alarmists hold the view that it’s manmade emissions of CO2 that’s driving climate change, and they seek to suppress any dissent suggesting other causes… This kind of suppression of different ideas and dissent is simply the tip of a much larger iceberg that has many of its roots on today’s college campuses. Suppression of ideas is far more dangerous to our civilization than manmade global warming—real or imagined. Given the horrible history of brutal attempts to silence people who have different ideas or dissent from the conventional wisdom, those of us in the academic and scientific communities ought to openly repudiate and condemn the efforts to silence global warming skeptics. This is particularly so in light of the mounting evidence that manmade CO2 emissions have little or nothing to do with climate change.†—Walter Williams
Steve Featherkile said:
Michael Crichton is proficient in history, electronics, computers, gene therapy, paleontology, virology, art (painting, sculpture and photography) the study of cyborgs, railroads, archeology, robotics, meteorology, climatology, aeronautics, nanobots and the human genom. A true renaissance man.For the extra $1450 that the solar water heater costs, I can buy a lot of electricity, considerably more than I will ever use to heat my water.
So where is the savings?
Steve;
Michael Crichton is undoubtedly well educated and well read. I would have also said intelligent, but then I remembered this:
“* temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);”
Apparently only an American can accurately use a weather station. The people of Japan, Australia, Israel and Germany are apparently too dumb to do it. So since Americans are so much smarter, then the following comment must only relate to the rest of the world:
“* temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island†effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);”
Of course, he also said:
“* temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);”
This is a wonderful excuse to eliminate all evidence that disagrees with the conclusions you want to draw. Kinda like saying “apart from all the deaths, nuclear power has a flawless safety record”.
And then:
“* increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);”
From a group of NOAA researchers at Princeton:
“The Sahel, the transition zone between the Saharan desert and the rainforests of Central Africa and the Guinean Coast, experienced a severe drying trend from the 1950s to the 1980s, from which there has been partial recovery. The model projects a drier Sahel in the future, due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases.”
And:
“The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that desertification currently affects approximately twenty-five to thirty percent of the world’s land surface area. About 1,2 billion people in at least 100 states are at risk. Over $42 billion in lost productivity or human support occurs each year on account of it. According to UNEP, the global rate of desertification is increasing, although the local rates vary by region.”
There are numerous other assertions that can similarly be challenged by looking to the results of reputable scientists. When I want a good sci-fi novel or an appendectomy, Dr Chrichton’s the man. But when it comes to advice on matters of climate, his opinions carry as much weight with me as Al Gore’s.
As for water heaters, what can you get for $1450? About 3-4 years worth of electricity according to Jerry’s numbers. To be honest though, solar hot water systems also commonly use electrical back-ups, so it may take 5-6 years to recover the purchase cost. (And if it’s your first solar system, then there are significant installation costs.) Of course, it will depend on your individual situation. If you live alone and take a bath once a month, then save your money and buy a kettle. But if you have a wife and 3 teenage daughters … well I doubt either a solar or an electric system could keep up 
Overall though, I think Kevin hit the nail on the head when he said:
“Clean energy is not a bad thing, however, so if the global warming theorists are providing a catalyst to get closer to that goal, I’m all for it. I’m sure all of the pollutants we’re dumping into the air aren’t necessarily good for the environment–regardless of their overall effect on climate–so reducing them certainly can’t hurt. And the less we have to rely on historically unstable regions of the globe for the lifeblood of our economy, the better off we’ll be.”
My belief is that, regardless of the actual cause of global warming, it will cost us practically nothing to assume that it’s man-made and act accordingly. However, if we do nothing on the assumption that it’s a natural event, what if we’re wrong? The cost could be …
Steve Featherkile said:
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...While stationed at MCB Camp Pendleton, I had the distinct pleasure of treating the second degree burns of a young Marine who lit one…
Only in America! Wadda country!
What? Only American f@rts are methane?
Steve Featherkile said:If this crack was aimed at me, please don't do that. We've had a few interesting debates here in the past but you've never resorted to name calling before.
On another note, I guess the kool aid drinker have taken the day off.
Spaced out view of controversy
By EZRA LEVANT of the Calgary Sun
Besides sending up rickety 1970s-era space shuttles and doing damage control for drunk astronauts, NASA’s focus these days is promoting global warming hype.
It’s smart politics – a media-savvy attempt by a bureaucratic dinosaur to stay fashionable.
But NASA made an inconvenient admission last week: It has been publishing inaccurate data about the Earth’s temperature. The world is not as hot as NASA has been saying it is.
Until last week, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S.
Goddard’s director, James Hansen, had become a media darling for his global warming polemics, especially after he announced his support for 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and accused the Bush White House of censoring his pro-Kyoto views.
The fact Hansen remains in his position at NASA, speaks and publishes freely, and a Google search turns up 350,000 mentions of him didn’t seem to dampen media enthusiasm for his claim he was being silenced.
Hansen is a more boring version of Al Gore. And like Gore, Hansen says the world has never been hotter, and that doomsday is just around the corner. A visit to the Institute’s website shows a partisan, political vocabulary has replaced true science.
Seven of ten of Goddard’s latest news releases are about global warming – odd for a space institute.
But then a funny thing happened. NASA admitted it got its numbers wrong. Last week, they quietly revised their rankings of the hottest years in American history. The hottest year wasn’t 1998, as Hansen had said. It was 1934.
Four of the hottest years on record are now in the 1930s. Only three are from the last ten years. And 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were revised downward so much, they’re now cooler than the year 1900.
It’s tough to make a case modern industry is the cause of global warming when it was hotter 75 years ago. The old press releases haven’t been taken down, and no new press release has been issued.
The only way to find out that the Earth has officially become cooler would be to find an obscure link on NASA’s website, where the year-by-year data is found.
Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician, discovered NASA’s error, and publicized their admission on his website, www.climateaudit.org.
Pro-Kyoto hackers quickly shut his site down.
The reason NASA’s error persisted so long is Hansen doesn’t disclose all of his methodologies and data to the public – odd, for a scientist who has complained about censorship. Science is about discovering the truth; a real scientist would welcome others to review and criticize his work.
Not NASA with its political agenda.
That hasn’t stopped McIntyre from double-checking other global warming “facts.”
A grassroots army of volunteers has been taking photos of official weather stations that gather info about global temperature. They show hundreds of government thermometers located a few feet away from air conditioning vents, barbecues and even by someone’s backyard pool – all in violation of scientific standards.
Go to http://tinyurl.com/3x7olf to see the comic way official “climate science” is being conducted.
Real scientists would rejoice at being corrected.
Honest activists would rejoice that doomsday has been called off.
But Hansen and his ilk long ago stopped being real scientists, and Gore and company are too emotionally invested in their new eco-religion to call off the apocalypse because of something as trivial as the facts.
From SteveF-- Oh dear, what is an activist to do? Even NASA can’t seem to get it right.
“Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine the shrieking of the warmers if we had previously thought that hot years were scattered throughout the past 130 years, but after a correction the warmest years could be seen to be concentrated in the past decade.” From my unnamed co-conspirator, an unusually “reliable source.”
SteveF
The ~$2000.00 figure for the 53 gallon solar water heater was just for the heating element itself. It did not include the storage tank, it did not include the plumbing, it did not include installation. There is a reason the limited warranty is for 5 years as opposed to the 12 year warranty on the Sears unit. That cost has to be factored in as well.
It may be more green to use solar to heat the water, but it is also considerably more expensive.
The catalytic converter on your automobile is much the same. A big money pit. I still noticed a brown haze off shore of SOCAL when putting to sea or returning from sea. We are literally spending billions of dollars trying to effect the 0.4% of the so-called greenhouse gasses that are the result of Man rising out of the mud. And we are now finding out that CO2 is probably not something to worry about, and that the devices to measure the temps are flawed, anyway.
There is a lot of money invested in “Global Warming,” a lot of careers are on the line. I can understand why these folks would want to shut down dissent. But that does not make it right.
Kevin Morris said:Steve Featherkile said:
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...While stationed at MCB Camp Pendleton, I had the distinct pleasure of treating the second degree burns of a young Marine who lit one…
Only in America! Wadda country!
What? Only American f@rts are methane?
Only in America would a kid right out of high school be given the responsibility of treating second degree burns in a very sensitive place out in the field.
Kevin Morris said:Kevin, it was only aimed at you if it stuck. Actually, I was drawing a bead on someone a bit more rabid, who has been absent these last couple of days.Steve Featherkile said:If this crack was aimed at me, please don't do that. We've had a few interesting debates here in the past but you've never resorted to name calling before.
On another note, I guess the kool aid drinkers have taken the day off.
Steve Featherkile said:
Spaced out view of controversy By EZRA LEVANT of the Calgary SunSteveF
My but you certainly do dig up some beauties. Let’s have an objective look at Ezra Levant’s article.
There’s quite a bit of emotional language here. I guess he really gave the old thesaurus a work-out, eg. “rickety 1970s-era space shuttles, global warming hype, bureaucratic dinosaur, media darling, Hansen is a more boring version of Al Gore, comic, Hansen and his ilk, eco-religion,” and my personal favourite, “Gore and company are too emotionally invested …”. And let’s not forget the article’s title, “Spaced out view of controversy.”
Resorting to emotional language and name calling (might I also add “Kool Aid drinkers, eco-terrorists, rabid greenies”, etc.) is usually a sign that the commentator has either run out of logical/objective information or perhaps never had any. This reminds me of Jerry Falwell’s standard comment that could be summarized as, “Charles Darwin was a big poopy head, therefore God exists.”
Levant’s article is exclusively based on the opinions of one person; “Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician, discovered NASA’s error, and publicized their admission on his website, www.climateaudit.org .”
So who is this person? Neither Levant nor McIntyre’s website offer any information as to who he is or what his actual qualifications are. According to Rush Limbaugh, “He’s a blogger. ClimateAudit http://www.climateaudit.org/ is his site.” (I know this is a cheap shot but I just couldn’t resist quoting Rush.)
Levant also wrote: “Pro-Kyoto hackers quickly shut his site down.” He offers no evidence for this. Perhaps it was Rush Limbaugh fans who overwhelmed the server. Indeed, unsubstantiated assertions like this might be bordering on criminal libel.
And then Levant says: “A grassroots army of volunteers has been taking photos of official weather stations that gather info about global temperature. They show hundreds of government thermometers located a few feet away from air conditioning vents, barbecues and even by someone’s backyard pool – all in violation of scientific standards.” It seems that Michael Crichton agrees: “* temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island†effect (p. 368-369);”
Why is this a problem? After all, didn’t Michael Crichton say of weather stations, “those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);” Isn’t the inference here that U.S. weather stations are accurate? But wait, Crichton said that the U.S. weather stations are falsely reporting temperature rises due to their poor positioning and yet they are showing little or no warming trend because they are more accurate.
But back to Levant’s article.
Levant suggests that James Hansen, “NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S.” However, my understanding was that Hansen said it was the hottest year on record for the world, not the U.S. So I checked some other sources:
20 hottest years on record were, in order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2001, 1997, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, 1991, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1983, 1996, 1944, 1989, 1993. Source: World Meteorological Organization (This was published in July 2006, so doesn’t include 2006 or 2007 figures.)
"The year 2003, SNIP, was the third hottest in more than a century and a half, the United Nations weather agency said today. The World Meteorological Organisation said it expects the average surface temperature for the full year to stand 0.45 degrees Celsius (0.81 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal. The hottest year on record was 1998, when the average temperature was 0.55 degrees Celsius (0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) higher.
It said the three hottest years since accurate records began to be kept in 1861 have all been in the past six years.
The Age, December 17, 2003
From: The Independent - London, Date: December 18, 1998
1998 WAS the warmest year for the world on record, British scientists said yesterday. It was hotter by a considerable margin than the previous record year, 1997, and means seven of the ten hottest years in a record stretching back to 1860 have been in this decade. The figures were announced jointly yesterday by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction …
Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide.
The year 2005 exceeded previous global annual average temperatures despite having weak El Niño conditions at the beginning of the year and normal conditions for the rest of the year. SNIP In contrast, the record-breaking temperatures of 1998 were boosted by a particularly strong El Niño.
The years 1998 and 2005 are so similar (i.e., within the error range of the different analysis methods or a few hundredths of a degree Celsius) that independent groups (e.g., NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom Meteorological Office) calculating these rankings based on reports from the same data-collecting stations around the world disagree on which year should be ranked first.
Dr. Marcia Baker (professor emeritus in Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington)
And from other parts of the world:
"BBC News
Australia’s meteorology bureau has found that 2005 was the country’s hottest year on record, prompting renewed fears of global warming. The average temperature was 22.89 C - a rise of more than 1 C from the average in previous years and the highest since records began in 1910.
Environment Minister Ian Campbell admitted the change was “alarming”. But he defended Australia’s decision not to sign the Kyoto pledge to cut greenhouse gases."
GUARDIAN NEWS SERVICE: Global temperatures will rise to their highest levels ever recorded this year, according to scientists at the UK Met (Meteorological) Office. They believe there is a 60% chance that 2007 temperatures will top the previous hottest year, 1998. The forecast follows news that the UK experienced the warmest year on record in 2006, with an average temperature of 9.7C - 1.1 degrees Celsius above average.
OTTAWA, January 10, 2001 - Environment Canada today released its Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin for Canada for the year 2000. SNIP. Highlights from the bulletin include:
The year 2000 ranked the 7th warmest for the 53-year period of record. The warmest year in Canada was recorded in 1998 …
I guess I can refer to Al Gore now, after all he’s not as boring as James Hansen, when he claimed that the scientific press has virtually no disagreement while the popular media are more than 50% doubtful. We shouldn’t really be surprised though. Headlines like “Spaced out view of controversy” can sell a few newspapers, whereas, “The majority of scientists were right”, is likely to put readers to sleep.
I’ll say it again. I’m looking for information from reputable sources such as NOAA, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the UK Meteorological Office, etc., and you reply with novelists, bloggers, and one highly emotional journalist.
Keep 'em coming.
Kevin Morris said:
................................So who is this person? Neither Levant nor McIntyre’s website offer any information as to who he is or what his actual qualifications are. According to Rush Limbaugh, “He’s a blogger. ClimateAudit http://www.climateaudit.org/ is his site.” (I know this is a cheap shot but I just couldn’t resist quoting Rush.)
…
Kevin,
Mr. Limbaugh’s name brings up an immediate thought association with Limburgh cheese: kind of runny and extremely smelly.
Steve Featherkile said:Wow!!!!! With that much ability, I wonder if the Guinness book of records has heard of him?
Michael Crichton is proficient in history, electronics, computers, gene therapy, paleontology, virology, art (painting, sculpture and photography) the study of cyborgs, railroads, archeology, robotics, meteorology, climatology, aeronautics, nanobots and the human genom. A true renaissance man.
There is an old adage that might apply: “Jack of all trades, master of none.”
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Kevin,Mr. Limbaugh’s name brings up an immediate thought association with Limburgh cheese: kind of runny and extremely smelly.
Hey. Don’t knock Rush! I listened to his radio show once. Apparently he’s very smart - at least that’s what he said every 5 minutes or so.
Wasn’t there an Italian climatologist named Provoloni?
I’ve noticed that you haven’t taken on Dr Demming. How come.
Also, I asked y’all to point out which of the original late 80’s, early 90’s “Global Warming” predictions have come true, or show a trend towards coming true.
There dopes seem to be a debate, doesn’t there.
TonyWalsham said:Steve Featherkile said:Wow!!!!! With that much ability, I wonder if the Guinness book of records has heard of him?
Michael Crichton is proficient in history, electronics, computers, gene therapy, paleontology, virology, art (painting, sculpture and photography) the study of cyborgs, railroads, archeology, robotics, meteorology, climatology, aeronautics, nanobots and the human genom. A true renaissance man.There is an old adage that might apply: “Jack of all trades, master of none.”
Tony,
And next the guy will be in for a “Complete makeover”. 
Kevin Morris said:Kevin, I agree with you. When you run out of ideas, attack the messenger.
Resorting to emotional language and name calling (might I also add "Kool Aid drinkers, eco-terrorists, rabid greenies", etc.) is usually a sign that the commentator has either run out of logical/objective information or perhaps never had any. This reminds me of Jerry Falwell's standard comment that could be summarized as, "Charles Darwin was a big poopy head, therefore God exists."Tony Walsham said:
Wow!!!!! With that much ability, I wonder if the Guinness book of records has heard of him?There is an old adage that might apply: “Jack of all trades, master of none.”
HJ said:
Mr. Limbaugh's name brings up an immediate thought association with Limburgh cheese: kind of runny and extremely smelly.Kevin Morris said:
Hey. Don't knock Rush! I listened to his radio show once. Apparently he's very smart - at least that's what he said every 5 minutes or so.Wasn’t there an Italian climatologist named Provoloni?
Steve Featherkile said:I concede that this guy has actual credentials.
I've noticed that you haven't taken on Dr Demming. How come.
In his address to the U.S. Senate ( http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543 ), it seems that he and Al Gore would agree on a number of points:
“… borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years.”
“There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.”
I have to agree with aspects of the last point in particular. In my recent reading I’ve actually seen the Southeast Asian tsunami mentioned in reports on global warming. The situation is even worse when it comes to the reporting of anything related to diet and healthy eating. But these are in the popular media, not the scientific press. Perhaps read http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2005/09/07/1205742.html
to hear another comment on that.
Dr Deming concludes by saying:
“The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”
So what does this mean?
Dr Deming is showing an unusual degree of certainty for a scientist. Nothing in science is “known” or “unknown”. Science is all about probabilities, or “best guess”. We readily accept that when it’s to our benefit, eg. new medicines, new technologies, etc., but somehow we find it unacceptable when the results are “inconvenient”.
The second sentence is interesting. I’ve heard this referred to as a “heap” or “pile” argument. One side keeps adding grains to the pile and after each one asks, “Is this a heap?” The opponent can keep saying, “Not yet,” 'til the cows come home. In Deming’s case he can just say that all the evidence to date does not yet represent an acceptable “degree of certainty”.
In the third sentence he claims that warming is beneficial. Perhaps he should travel to Kiribati. According to the CIA World Fact Book, “low level of some of the islands make them very sensitive to changes in sea level.” (And if you can’t trust the CIA, who can you trust ). Indeed, Tarawa Atoll has lost a couple of islands in the last decade. Other Pacific islands have gone under or been rendered uninhabitable. I can’t remember which ones precisely but I recall that some were semi-independent countries in “open association” with New Zealand.
He also says, “If the climate does warm …”, yet his own findings suggest it already has. This is inconsistent.
In the fourth sentence he expresses his opinion. I happen to agree. But I see the misinformation coming from Ezra Levant, Michael Crichton and Rush Limbaugh rather then from all the official weather services from the larger English-speaking countries (that I could find easily on-line) as well as the United Nations. And I see that rejecting the findings of almost all of those reputable climatologists in favour of one or two who disagree in your favour as the “irrational hysteria”.
So. If I concede that Dr Deming is credible, then the score is:
Steve - 1 reputable scientist (despite the fact that he admits, “In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science.”)
Kevin - NOAA, NASA, Environment Canada, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, UK Meteorological Office, and the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization. I might even claim Dr Deming too, since he agrees that the earth is warming.
Steve Featherkile said:I don't recall you actually asking that. And I'm not sure what predictions you mean. But I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Earth getting hotter? According to Dr Deming, et al, yes. 2 - Polar ice caps melting? Yep. Even the Antarctic ice cap is losing mass. 3 - Sea levels rising? Yep. Just ask Kiribati. 4 - Permafrost melting? Yep. Seen it myself, but it's a bigger deal in Siberia. 5 - Increased frequency of extreme weather events? This one is harder to call, but note this year's unprecedented floods in the U.K., as well as floods in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Australia, Sudan, South Africa and The Maldives. Along with the extreme droughts in Australia and China. Last year's storm/hurricane season in the U.S. European heat waves. Thunderstorms and funnel clouds in the Canadian Arctic. The record-breaking 3-week heatwave that I just went through in southern Alberta. Record floods in many parts of the U.S. as well as the year's first killer tornado on January 4, 2007.
Also, I asked y'all to point out which of the original late 80's, early 90's "Global Warming" predictions have come true, or show a trend towards coming true.
“The World Meteorological Organization said,” SNIP “There have also been severe monsoon floods across South Asia, abnormally heavy rains in northern Europe, China, Sudan, Mozambique and Uruguay, extreme heat waves in southeastern Europe and Russia, and unusual snowfall in South Africa and South America this year, …”
To quote Dr David Suzuki (a rabid eco-terrorist Kool-Aid drinker), “… you can’t attribute any individual weather event to climate change. It just doesn’t work that way.” On the other hand, the increasing clusters of extreme events are becoming significant.
Steve Featherkile said:That was an interesting, almost Freudian, typo, by the way. But no, there isn't any real debate. You have yet to cite anyone credible that denies global warming. At best you've named Dr Deming, who agrees the world is warming but says we can't say for certain what's causing it.
There dopes seem to be a debate, doesn't there.
The only “body” of scientists that seem to disagree are The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Check this out for a good laugh: http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
This one is a bit more scary: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm But it seems that even they agree the world is warming.
And then read this for a more rational view of the scientific debate: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 It addresses, amongst other things, Dr Deming’s misquote of Al Gore.
Steve Featherkile said:
I got this from an un-named co-conspirator, an unusually "reliable source."Yeah, it is from a newspaper, but Dr Demming is a PhD Geophysisist. Algore is not.
http://www.mwcsun.com/opinion/local_story_129164511.html?keyword=topstory
I just cast a critical eye over this article. It is loaded with half truths, emotionalism, and deliberate mis-quotes. So I think I’ll drop Deming from my scoreboard. You can have him.
I particularly note where he claims that dealing with global warming will devestate our economy. That’s a bit … sensationalist. Every other environmental problem we’ve tackled (ozone depletion, acid rain, vehicle emissions, pesticides, etc.) has had, if anything, a beneficial effect on our economy and quality of life.
He cites as evidence for this that Europe is losing jobs to China. He forgot to mention that the U.S. is also losing jobs to China and yet has done practically nothing yet to tackle the issue (except for George Bush’s admirable example in his new house).
My main point is that “Global Warming” is not caused by man, or anything that man does. To say that is extremely arrogant.
One whole degree C. And over 150 years, even. Wow. That is a lot, isn’t it. 
I think that the original predictions from late 80’s said that by now, the temp would be 15 - 20 C hotter. 1 degree C is just not in the same league, is it?
The world has been getting hotter since the end of the “mini ice age” of the Middle Ages.
The Antarctic ice pack is getting thicker, except where it is not. I know that can easily be made fun of, so have at it, but it is true.
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Middle Ages. The coast of my home state of Washington was about 20 and sometimes 30 miles farther out that it is now.
Permafrost? ditto. Even the “Snow of Kilimanjaro” are getting smaller. But then, they have been for the last 150 years. Been attributed to solar flares.
We’ve always had freak storms, floods, and so on. To say that there is anything unusual about recent happenings is just koolaid drinking. One of the predictions that has not come true is that the oceans would become warmer in the northern latitudes, with the tropics being unaffected. Hurricanes are in the tropics, and caused by warm water, in part. Since the water in the tropics was predicted to be unaffected, you can’t blame Katrina on “Global Warming.” I remember that back in the early 60’s (might be before your time) Bangladesh (it was called East Pakistan back then) was completely flooded by a huge monsoon system. Probably not global warming, but it sure was a freak storm.
Kevin Morris said:How can you say that an earthquake was caused by "Global Warming?" That is quite a stretch, even for you.
In my recent reading I've actually seen the Southeast Asian tsunami mentioned in reports on global warming.
Kevin Morris said:Except for "Global Warming," right? The debate is over, remember? Or, are you trying to have it both ways?
Nothing in science is "known" or "unknown".
Why do you call differing opinions “misinformation?” That is the kind of attitude that silenced Galileo. I think that is called tyranny.
I think that Mark Twain said it best, “If you don’t like the weather, just wait five minutes, it will change.”
Hey Steve,
You know what it boils down to? It isn’t a tale of two houses, it’s a curse on both houses!
Sure was nice and warm today. They say we should get some cooler weather by Monday, end of blasting breezes from the South. :lol: :lol: