Another blow to global warming...

To you Al Gore type wackos (that's what you sheep are):

The current man-made global warming hysteria is largely driven by the environmentalist movement in an attempt to reshape western society away from capitalism by implementing state control (socialism) over private energy usage (Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade). These environmentalists wish to get rid of the suburbs, SUVs, single family homes and return western society to a neo-urbanistic state of living. This is because the current environmentalist movement is filled with ex-communists and neo-socialists who have long ago abandoned science and replaced it with their politically motivated environmental "religion".

I say again, this is your religion.

To you George Will nut-jobs (that's what you lemmings are):

The current movement to deny a massive body of scientific data and study on the effect of human made green house gasses on global climate is largely driven by the carbon energy industry (oil, coal, etc.) and a cult of so-called "conservatives" who cannot stand the idea that the will of the people expressed through their democratically elected government can trump the will of the rich. These conservatives want to preserve a wasteful and unsustainable way of living in the US in order to reap trillions in profits off of Americans who no choice but to be dependent on dirty energy sources that cause global warming. This is because the current right wing movement is filled with oil barrons and neo-cons who could care less about science when it interferes with their plan to control the world by forcing everyone to us carbon energy sources. It is not a religion, but a form of economic facism to be imposed by "free markets" that readily inflate the price of carbon energy with cartels and monopolies, without ever reflecting the price carbon energy imposes on society in terms of global warming, wars (would we be in Iraq if the main export were cabbages and goat's milk?), and harm to our health and the environment.

FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)

FACT: 89% of U.S. temperature stations are biased by +1.0°C (Surfacestations)

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

There is no consensus:

FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)

___________________________________________________________

Would you please provide the IPCC link that shows this.

What temerature upper/lower atm, surface, H2O etc......

Don't worry about trying to convince these Chicken Little "the sky is falling" types. Most of them are beginning to realize that the global warming myth has already reached its height of attention and concern. Most of us are turning them out (thank God). Unfortunately it will probably make them more militant in their stance.

Don't worry about them. Most of the global warming fans have also been telling us for 30 years that soccer is getting ready to take over America. As f***ed up as they are, you have to at least admire their passion.

Keyser Söze wrote:

...but seriously, do you really think that 99% of the academic community is WRONG on this issue, and that, somehow, you are smarter than all of the high-level scientists that dedicate their lives to the objective pursuit of scientific truth regarding the natural world?

Did you pull that stat out of one of Al's slides, or out of the hole in your backside?

This is the problem Keyser, there is legitimate debate on the "theory" of global warming. But the Bobby Kennedy Jr types aren't willing to have the debate, they are too busy flying around in their private jets getting rich by selling carbon credits.

you sounds like a loser drug addict...

its not my fault...its my drug dealers fault i'm addicted to coke...

americans have a choice and they continue to choose oil for some reason thats just hard for you to believe...

americans can walk/bike/rollerskate...they could move out of the suburbs and closer to their places of employment but MOST have not.

but yes blame it all on the greedy oil companies...is it that hard for you to realize that al gore is just trying to make his own money with these hilarious carbon credits...

you are a f***ing moron, douche-head

Fact: 97% of climatologists agree that human activities are a significant factor in causing global warming:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

Fact: Richard Linzer is an oil industry tool who took $2,500 a day for "consulting services" from big oil:

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

And calling out Al Gore, besides being an old and tired point, is pure hypocrisy. George W Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Sen Inhofe and plenty of others make piles of money off of the oil industry while advocating policies that fatten the return on their oil holdings and the investments of their oil industry supporters. But, when someone tries to do the same in order to benefit the environment, it is suddenly an illegitimate scam on the American people. If Dick Cheney is free to make millions off of his policies, so should Al Gore.

The oil industry has imposed an addiction to their product on the American people. The oil industry reaps massive profits without having to pay a penny for the harm to the environment and to people. Aside from CO2 emissions, burning fossil fuels emits CO and other VOCs that cause ground level ozone. Burning coal does the same and also emits tons of fine particulates. But the carbon energy industry doesn't have to pay a penny for the cancer, heart disease, asthma, and pre-mature death caused by their polluting products. It is this cost externality that enables carbon energy sources to beat renewable energy sources in the market place. And be sure to add to that the wars needed to keep the oil industry's interests in the Gulf oil producing states safe (again, invade Iraq for cabbages?). So, there really isn't a "choice" because the true cost of fossil fuels is not reflected in the price at the pump.

Hey Smallberries, I just burned a sleeve of styrofoam cups in your honor. On Earth Day I think I'll burn some tires.

President Barry Soetoro wrote:

Hey Smallberries, I just burned a sleeve of styrofoam cups in your honor. On Earth Day I think I'll burn some tires.

Wow! You are so awesome. You don't care about the environment! What a rebel! Takes some serious balls to stand with billion dollar oil companies. Make sure you go to an elementary school to burn those tires so you can get in some little kid's face about how oil company profits are more important than their health and future. Then you will be a total bad-ss!

John Smallberries wrote:

And be sure to add to that the wars needed to keep the oil industry's interests in the Gulf oil producing states safe (again, invade Iraq for cabbages?).

Dear John Tinynuts,

Talk about an old and tired point!

Can you cite any wikipedia stats to prove that we invaded Iraq to steal their oil?

Check out retreating glaciers.

President Barry Soetoro wrote:

Hey Smallberries, I just burned a sleeve of styrofoam cups in your honor. On Earth Day I think I'll burn some tires.

make sure you stand real close and take a few good, deep drags of that smoke. ahhh the noxious fumes of ignorance!

I find it interesting that the "global warming" satellite doesn't make it into orbit and now on a different satellite there are "sensor errors" which are causing a data outage such that there are no Sea Ice Updates at the National Snow and Ice Data Center - "Data Currently Unavailable"

"February 18, 2009

Satellite sensor errors cause data outage"

Did I fall asleep and wake up in some bizzaro world United States?

in my element wrote:

John Smallberries wrote:

And be sure to add to that the wars needed to keep the oil industry's interests in the Gulf oil producing states safe (again, invade Iraq for cabbages?).

Dear John Tinynuts,

Talk about an old and tired point!

Can you cite any wikipedia stats to prove that we invaded Iraq to steal their oil?

Ok:

According to documents provided by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime ten days after taking office in January, 2001. A secret memo entitled, "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," included a map of potential areas for exploration.[67][68]

But the US isn't going to steal Iraqi oil. The invasion of Iraq was to enable the US to gain a military foothold in the region to make sure that private oil companies could develop and exploit the region's oil without interference from OPEC, Iran and anyone else who dared to defy Washington's commands (like Sadam Hussein). If we really cared about weapons of mass destruction, we would have invaded N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran. If we really cared about democracy and human rights, we would have invaded Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Sudan. But we chose to invade Iraq because they were weak (spent 1/3 as much as Kuwait on defense) and defiant (Sadam was on the verge of convincing some world leaders that sanctions should be dropped).

And the cost of that war in service of the oil industry is not borne at the pump, but out of everyone's paycheck and IOUs for future generations.

in my element wrote:

Did you pull that stat out of one of Al's slides, or out of the hole in your backside?

This is the problem Keyser, there is legitimate debate on the "theory" of global warming. But the Bobby Kennedy Jr types aren't willing to have the debate, they are too busy flying around in their private jets getting rich by selling carbon credits.

It's not a stat, it's a hyperbole. Geez. If I'd known it wasn't obvious, I would have said so.

I've never actually seen Al Gore's presentation, but I do work in forestry, study forestry at school, and regularly converse with professional foresters, soil scientists, ecologists, and the like. They all concur that the large majority of environmental data recorded since the advent of such practices points to an acceleration in the rate of change of climatic conditions. Some places will get warmr, others cooler... the point is not that it is changing; climates change continually, the point is that climates are changing at a much faster rate than they have in the past, and the worry is simply about ecosystems being able to adapt in time.

I wouldn't put much stock in what politicians of any affiliation have to say on this matter anyway; they're obviously going to be biased.

Here's some advice: don't go to CNN.com to get your info on this, go to Google Scholar, or Nature.com, or some other scientific journal. Look at some actual studies and decide for yourself.

Keyser Söze wrote:

They all concur that the large majority of environmental data recorded since the advent of such practices points to an acceleration in the rate of change of climatic conditions. Some places will get warmr, others cooler... the point is not that it is changing; climates change continually, the point is that climates are changing at a much faster rate than they have in the past, and the worry is simply about ecosystems being able to adapt in time.

We are measuring current climate with much different instruments and methods than we are measuring past climate with. Different instruments and different methods have different tolerances and ability to measure time frams. So we may be able to measure, e.g. the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 40000 years ago, we cannot measure the amount of change in 100 year increments from 40000 years ago. Neither can we measure at so many different points.

President Barry Soetoro wrote:

Don't worry about trying to convince these Chicken Little "the sky is falling" types. Most of them are beginning to realize that the global warming myth has already reached its height of attention and concern. .

Couldn't be more wrong. But your timing is excellent. From today's news:

"Study: Antarctic glaciers slipping swiftly seaward"

By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer – Wed Feb 25, 8:42 am ET

GENEVA – Antarctic glaciers are melting faster across a much wider area than previously thought, scientists said Wednesday — a development that could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels.

A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.

Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.

But satellite data and automated weather stations indicate otherwise.

"The warming we see in the peninsula also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica," Summerhayes told The Associated Press. "That's unusual and unexpected."

For the International Polar Year, scientists from more than 60 countries have been conducting intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two southern summer seasons — on the ice, at sea, and via icebreaker, submarine and surveillance satellite.

The biggest west Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.

The Smith Glacier, also in west Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than it did in 1992, he said.

All the glaciers in the area together are losing a total of around 103 billion tons (114 billion U.S. tons) per year because the discharge is much greater than the new snowfall, he said.

"That's equivalent to the current mass loss from the whole of the Greenland ice sheet," Summerhayes said, adding that the glaciers' discharge was making a significant contribution to the rise in sea levels. "We didn't realize it was moving that fast."

The glaciers are slipping into the sea faster because the floating ice shelf that would normally stop them — usually 650 to 980 feet (200 to 300 meters) thick — is melting.

The warming of western Antarctica is a real concern.

"There's some people who fear that this is the first signs of an incipient collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet," Summerhayes said.

Antarctica's average annual temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) since 1957, but is still 50 degrees Fahrenheit (45.6 degrees Celsius) below zero, according to a recent study by Eric Steig of the University of Washington.

Summerhayes said sea levels will rise faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group set up by the United Nations.

A 2007 IPCC report predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches (18 to 58 centimeters) by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. The group said an additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) rise was possible if the recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Summerhayes said the rise could be much higher.

"If the west Antarctica sheet collapses, then we're looking at a sea level rise of between 1 meter and 1.5 meters (3 feet, 4 inches to nearly 5 feet)," Summerhayes said.

Ian Allison, co-chair of the International Polar Year's steering committee, said many scientists now say the upper limit for sea level rise should be higher than predicted by IPCC.

"That has a very large impact," Allison said, adding that extremely large storms which might previously have occurred once in a year would start to occur on a weekly basis.

The IPY researchers found the southern ocean around Antarctica has warmed about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past decade, double the average warming of the rest of the Earth's oceans over the past 30 years."

WHOOPS!!!