i am back on this kick again

No, they are a reality. Man CAUSING them is the hoax.

Sorry doc that is what I meant to write. Thanks for clearing the air.

I couldn't agree more, Paladin77.

Good stuff! 

On the other hand, the Earth itself can eliminate good quantities of greenhouse gases everydays, right? Trough forests and algae, if I remember.

But with the huge deforestation provoked by man in the last centuries (and even moreso in the last century), don't you think that elimination capacity has been somewhat lowered? Or pollution of Ocean areas also lowered the absorption capacity?

If you have a huge water tank that spill 25 gallon/minutes, and you fill it 25 gallon/minutes, no matter how small quantity you add to the mix (ex: 1 ml/minute), you will make it overflow eventually.

But the problem is, the climatic change CAN counpound themselves. The best example I heard only a few days ago; the northen Siberia & Canada & Alaska have a lot of CO2 trapped in their lands, that is kept there when frozen, and the Earth rarely unfroze in those parts. The warming of those area in the world could launch even more CO2, which would lead to warmer climate, etc...

Yeah I wrote about that yesterday.



You really don’t understand the planet and what it does, do you? Let’s take the United States for example. There are more trees now than there was when the Indians first inhabited the area. The slash and burn in the Amazon has local damage but the planet has always compensated.

Keep in mind if you will that what we call the Sahara desert today was a lush forest twenty thousand years ago with rivers streams and valleys with an area larger than all of South America but global warming has destroyed all of that. Also remember that man was not driving SUV’s or burning coal or polluting as he is today. You are comparing the last 200 years and ignoring that global warming has been going on for the last twenty thousand years with mini ice ages every 1500 years. Global warming is the reason we became the dominant species on this planet because before then man could not survive here. Modern man’s history only dates back ten thousand years.

Under the sea there are oil deposits that leak out to the tune of billions of gallons a week, you don’t see this oil on the beaches much because the ocean breaks down the oil and absorbs it in just a few days. The oil spill of the Exxon Valdez took man over two years to clean up but the ocean destroyed the oil in weeks. Had we left the oil alone the oil would have been gone faster than if man closed off the area to do it himself.

A super eruption like Mount Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens took five years to absorb while the earth was still dealing with everything else it normally takes care of. My figures for volcanic eruptions of 14.6 billion tons of pollutants a day per volcano is for an average eruption not a super eruption.

So my answer is no I don’t think we are taxing the earths ability to deal with what man does, I don’t even think that the earth knows we are here.



This information you read a few days ago was released two years ago. As soon as the area warms up enough you will see plants flourishing because they need CO2 to grow. The CO2 that is trapped in all land is there because plants and animals have died there and the release of CO2 is an indicator that the climate will get colder not warmer. It is God’s or natures way of keeping the planet habitable for us at this point and when that is all exhausted then a new species will rise up to replace us for a few thousand years. If you look throughout history you will see that every species rises and falls due to climatic change this is our time and nothing we do will change that. We could shorten it by a few years but in the long run we have no power to really change things.

Kinda interesting how the "global warming" argument can go from we humans creating too much CO2 to we humans destroying that which absorbs the CO2 that is naturally created.

Do people truly have the ability to look at both sides of the argument before or after making a decision? Is it really that hard for people to admit to themselves that they may actually be wrong about their opinions?

I ask simply because it seems that one way or another some people will not except that maybe, just maybe, we humans are not actually responsible for global warming. That we may play a part in it but probably wouldn't make a difference if we stopped.

I think it's kinda scary that people like Hillary, Obama, or even Gore either don't seem to be educated in the information provided above or chose to ignore it for political reasons.

Really, KFC? Good stuff?

The entire premise of this article is bound up in the idea that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old.

not so much for political reasons but for Monetary reasons. Mr. Gore has a company that makes money by selling carbon credits. It is in his own best interest to keep people thininkg that man is responsible. As far as Hillary and Obama they are followers not leaders and they are following the crowd in order to get votes.

Paladin, paladin... where to start?

"It has been proven 40 years ago by NASA, every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger."

Well, first off, if the sun were actually getting 10 % hotter every 100 years we'd all be dead right now. The sun is gradually getting hotter- current estimates largely mesh that in the last 4 billion years the sun has gotten roughly 3 percent warmer

So yes, it is getting hotter, very gradually, very slowly. Nowhere near what you just stated though. There is, however increased sunspot activity, some estimate will peak in around 2012 (could be kinda fun, this is also when the Maya predicted the end of their calendar and the beginning of a new age... anywho)

Next up on the list:

"All pollutants that man puts out into the air in a single year is about 1.4 billion tons. A single volcano erupting puts out 14.6 billion tons of pollution into the air A DAY. On average there are between 25 and 56 volcanoes erupting world wide every day. Do the math and you will see what man does in one year is does not even register on the planet. Global climate change is real!"

Hate to break it to you, volcanoes do not cause global warming. They actually cause a cooling effect. This is because volcanoes put out a lot of sulphur dioxide. They also do put out CO2, but much less than is created by humans. If you're going to get on the natural creation of C02, you should use forest fires instead of volcanoes as they come closer to competing with man. The sulphur dioxide emitted from volcanoes goes into the atmosphere and reflects a large amount of solar radiation away from the planet and back into space. When Mt. Pinatubo went off in 91 it actually contributed to a 0.5 celsius cooling trend. Massive volcanic eruptions around the planet actually contribute to ice ages as they add to the "nuclear winter" effect of blocking or reflecting more solar radiation back into space.

As to the 1.4 billion tonnes of "air pollution" we put in, that number is meaningless- 1.4 billion tonnes of what? It's not all CO2. Some is methane, some is sulphur-dioxide, all of which has different effects on the atmosphere.

But, since you've clearly figured out something that thousands of scientists around the planet clearly have gotten wrong, please send this article you published to the media, major governments and of course thousands of climatologists around the globe. Surely they will be humiliated when they learn that their millions of man hours of research and data collection over the last 30 years were all wrong due to the glaringly obvious you just stated!

With or without God in your life if you are going to have a scientific discussion then you use the rules of that standard, God created the world and everything in it in six days, how long ago it does not say. The first five books of the bible were written by Moses who was informed by God what happened but God did not say how long ago. Jewish history only goes back 6500 years there is nothing around showing that this date is wrong but again no where in the bible does God tell us how long the earth has been here just how long modern man has been here, and more to the point how long God’s chosen people have been here as opposed to modern mankind.

You are supposing that for the last 4 billion years this has happened. So you are saying that you have not studied the subject only blogs. Allow me to teach you a little bit if you will.

The Sun is a great big ball of hydrogen and a few trace elements. In the beginning the sun radiated so much heat and light but this was restricted by its gravitational field. As it burns up fuel it loses its gravitational grip on itself. What this means is as it burns off mass it becomes weaker and the gravity is weaker allowing the star to expand. In the beginning the expansion was very gradual and slow. Now that almost half its mass has been spent the expansion increases it will continue to increase until it has expanded to about 90 million miles from its current position. By that point the Sun will be a red giant burning iron instead of hydrogen and helium as it is doing now. So your belief that 10% a year as a constant is false. At this stage in the life of our star it is at 10% per year as fuel burns off it will get faster and hotter.



Hate to break it to you but you are writing about super eruptions not regular eruptions. Super eruptions cause cooling because of the particulate matter ejected high into the atmosphere, billions of tons of ground up rock and volcanic glass so fine that it takes years for it to come out of the atmosphere, this matter blocks and reflects sunlight, it has little to do with sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide or any other gas, the gases are lagging indicators of what has already happened not an indicator of what will occur and you don’t use the gases from super eruptions as they cause spikes in the data that are short lived as I posted earlier five years. The majority of the planet Venus atmosphere is sulfur dioxide miles thick and the planet is at 900 degrees on average. So other than the heat of the Sun from being closer to the Sun than Earth it seems that the sulfur dioxide is trapping in the heat not reflecting it. As the Sun expands it will get hotter.



Not meaningless at all. Look at the amount that is estimated that all of mankind throws into the atmosphere a year compared to the pollution that is tossed out in one volcanic eruption and multiply that by the average of 25 to 56 eruptions occurring daily and you can clearly see that man is not even a blip on the earth.



Sarcasm, how cute! Everything I have posted has been out there for anyone to read and study. This is why I say man made global warming is a hoax and religion not a science. The thousands of scientist you mention do not exist. You have a hand full of scientist that are pushing this, like the hand full of scientist that proclaimed the earth was flat when the bible said it was round and the church wanting to be modern and scientific agreed to make the world flat.
As I wrote earlier all of this information has been out there for years.
Here is a dirty little secret, climatologist have scoffed for decades the conveyer theory, because it was not a theory from a climatologist but by a bug paleontologist back in the late 70’s and only after the climatologist were smacked in the face with fact after fact for thirty years did anyone listen and now it is the accepted theory and the guy that studies insects from the past is now hailed as a genius.

Scientist have scoffed for years that the earth could possibly be covered by a two mile thick layer of ice because all life would end, that theory is now the accepted working theory because of lake Vostock and one of Jupiter’s moons that is covered with a several mile thick layer of ice with liquid water under it. The UN ignorance on climate change has never been released because it contradicts what is accepted theory. Just like the UN study on smoking has never been released because proves that second hand smoke has no effect on people that don’t smoke. Instead for both reports they released a summery that says the opposite of the findings. It is not that the facts are obscure or hidden they are ignored for popular junk science rather than real science. No one is going to pay for studies that prove we are not hurting the planet, but you, yes, YOU can apply for a grant of thousands of dollars if your plan is to prove global warming is caused by man. The agenda is that business needs to shut down and we all convert to a socialist system. All of the fixes offered to end global warming are designed to destroy the economy of any freely elected nation. The Kyoto accords only penalize America and Great Briton but not China or India the two largest polluters on the planet.

Finally we have John Colman a well respected scientist, a climatologist and the founder of the weather channel wants to sue Mr. Albert Gore Jr. for fraud because global warming is a hoax and Mr. Gore is selling carbon credits to offset global warming and there is no proof that CO2 has anything to do with global climate change. Why is it that thousands of scientists oppose global warming but only 25 scientist support global warming? Think about that.

Oh Paladin. Yes, I see the light now. Global warming is all a big hoax pushed by a handful of evil conspirators, who have somehow managed to trick every government on the planet, and every credentialed scientific body to come to consensus that it is real.




explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the stratosphere to heights of 16–32 kilometres (10–20 mi) above the Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo—its reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space - and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years.

Also please produce the proof that single "regular" as opposed to super eruption produces 14.6 billion tons of "air pollution" per day. And you have to qualify what you mean by air pollution. Current scientific consensus has most volcanic activity across the globe annually produces a few hundred million tons of CO2 per year.



I never said anything about a constant rate of 10%, nor did I mention anything about the reaction going on inside the sun. Yes, I know that the sun is mostly hydrogen,being fused into helium. Current scientific consensus places the estimated age of the sun between 4.5-4.59 billion years old, and it's about halfway through it's main sequence evolution. Yes, I know that the sun will eventually turn into a red giant. This is not estimated to happen for another 5 or 6 billion years, once most of the hydrogen in the core is consumed, the core will contract and heat up, once the right temperature is reached then the helium will start fusing. This will also cause the outer layers of the sun to expand, and possibly engulf earth. But by this point all moisture on the planet will already be long boiled off. What I said was that your earlier assertion about the sun getting warmer by 10 percent over 100 years was false. These are your exact words from the article-

"It has been proven 40 years ago by NASA, every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger"

Please produce this document stating the above in no uncertain terms. I do agree, that yes, the sun is gradually getting warmer. This is not going to happen over a scale of centuries but over hundreds of millions of years.



Please produce a roster of these thousands of scientists. Every recognized, credentialed scientific body on the planet will have access to their papers going against global warming, so it will be very easy to find all this overwhelming evidence you keep talking about that climate change is a hoax. Fact is, the vast majority of climatologists have come to consensus that global warming is indeed real, and that there's a good chance we have something to do with it.

Oh and by the way-



Exxon Mobil was actually caught red-handed offering 10,000 dollar grants to anyone who would produce scientific papers that would dispute global warming.

Sarcasm and ignorance great combination! Back to reality if you don’t mind. Global warming is not a hoax it is real and as I have written many times has been proven. Man made global warming is a hoax, one that has been running around this nation since the late 1800’s but then it was global cooling and an ice age that we only had ten years to fix or we are all doomed, twenty or so years later it was global warming and the same ten years to fix it or we are all doomed. This has flip flopped back and forth for over a century. Each time we only had ten years to fix it and each time we had to bankrupt our nation in order to fix the world.

One other minor thing before I get too deep in this, a consensus is not science. A consensus is a general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group to go along with a chosen course of action. The reason why they have a consensus is because if it was called scientific fact it would not have a consensus among the scientists. The UN study on global climate change had what some loosely call a consensus. But when these scientists read the final summary 425 of them sued to have their names removed from the so called consensus. All the agreement they signed was that they were standing behind what parts of the study they wrote not the others work, and the final summary did not agree with thier parts. so your thousands of scientists that agree with the study are much less than a thousand. By the time all the smoke cleared there were 25 scientist that stood behind that piece of work.



I see you are very good at copying from websites but do you comprehend what you copied? Because it boils down to basically what I wrote though you wish to claim that it is the gas itself rather than the fine dust that causes the cooling.


please look at reply 11 posted today.


You did not say it was a constant but you used the constant to say we would all be dead by now if it were true. To me that is the same thing. Good to see you back down from your claim.



you seem to be able to find other things on the net and copy them don't you have google?
this is one volcano that has been erupting since 1983 this is just the SO2 release not all the gases. The Pu'u O'o eruption on the Kilauea volcano began in 1983. COSPEC measurements before the eruption showed that the volcano was releasing about 150 tons of SO2 per day, nearly all from the summit caldera. However, during the high fire-fountaining eruptions at Pu'u O'o the amount of SO2 released was as high as 30,000 tons per day (these episodes occurred every 3-4 weeks between 1983 and 1986 and lasted 24 hours or less). The current average emission is about 1,800 tons per day.

Suspended particles, such as dust and ash, can block out the earth's sunlight, thus reducing solar radiation and lowering mean global temperatures. The haze effect often generates exceptionally red sunsets due to the scattering of red wavelengths by submicron-size particles in the stratosphere and upper troposphere.

My source for both paragraphs is the USGS where I get most of my material. Oh and 70 to 90% of the gas produced by an erupting volcano is water vapor so take the numbers for the SO2 as about 3% of the total gas output. Looking at these numbers and I know there is a mistake somewhere and without any evidence to back me up I will say the fault is mine. I know these numbers are correct but I also know I am missing something. Ok I found it, it is particulate matter the hard stuff like ground up boulders, ok the numbers are coming out about right now. Yeah you do the math and see if I am correct. Iam doing this in my head so double check me.

Please produce for all of us the list of scientist that have put their name to any such global warming consensus.

April 28, 1975 Newsweek: "The Cooling World"

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.... But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

And we all were very lucky to have survived the ice age that began in 1985.

July 19, 2004 from the Rush Limbaugh show:
Last week and into the news today comes the news that the sun is hotter and has been hotter than in recent measurements the last 60 years. And guess what? Some people are begrudgingly now, begrudgingly admitting that the sun may actually have more of an impact on temperatures than our cars, and our factories and smokestacks -- can you believe it? It might, it's not proven. We've got to investigate, but it is possible the sun could be a factor. (Gasping.) No! Why, that's as stunning as the fact that somebody just figured out that Iran is involved in terrorism! Man, what are we learning today, folks. You ought to feel really happy. Our information quotient is skyrocketing, the things we're learning -- like the sun! Wouldn't it be funny if all of this so-called global warming which is a minute increase in overall world temperature anyway, is in fact caused by a hyperactive sun? (Gasping.) What are we going to do? Oh, no! We can't stop it. We don't have enough fire trucks to send up there to put it out.
I had to add the above because he capsulated what I have been saying for so long so well.

Headline: Volcanoes Pollute More Than Man; Burst Feeds Fears Of Larger Volcanic Eruption
Source: KiroTV
Dateline: October 4, 2004
Byline: The Associated Press contributed to this report


Friday, February 13, 1998 from the BBC news
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.
The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.

It seems that a lot of scientist have not signed onto the man made global warming hoax. I have yet to see a respected climatologist that has signed on to the IIPC global climate change document, the scientist that have signed onto it have been discredited by their own data. So again I ask for your list of these thousands of scientist world wide that prove me wrong.

Sorry I was unclear what I meant to say is no one on the left is going to pay for such a study. This brings me to your conspiracy theory jab.

Why is it ok to fund research to prove man made global warming but it is sinister for oil companies to do the same thing? If they are going to fund the project just like the left does then all things are equal right? When a report disproves the desired result it is squashed by the left and that is ok with you it seems. But if Exxon wants a scientist to study something they are caught red handed? how much do you think these scientist make for thier positive studies on global warming? you are not dumb enough to think they do it for free are you?

Hi Paladin,

First off, I notice that you enjoy making things personal, calling me ignorant etc. That's fine. I'm not here to get into a chest-beating competition, nor will I start making assumptions about someone whom I know nothing about (as you have done to me) I am however interested in debating this, my intent here is not to try and show you up or any such nonsense, only to get you to back up the claims you made in your original argument. You can make all the personal attacks and inuendos you like, but at the end of the day I am only interested in whether you back up the actual content of your article.

Yes, you are absolutely right that most of the facts I posted were copied and pasted from various sites, not disputing that at all!

You still however have not directly backed up the following and I quote in your own words:

1) "A single volcano erupting puts out 14.6 billion tons of pollution into the air A DAY."

You still have not produced anything to back that up. In one of your following responses you state



So, going by your math with S02 making up 3 % of the emmissions, that would be a total of just around 1 million tons per day, which is much less than a single percent of the 14.6 billion tons you said.

Also, in your own words:

"All pollutants that man puts out into the air in a single year is about 1.4 billion tons."

This is also not true. The U.S alone puts out approx 5.8 billion tons per year of C02 emmissions (not counting all the other various gasses) This is approx 23% of global emissions.

So, in fact just C02 alone that man collectively puts into the air per year is more like 25 billion tons, NOT the 1.4 billion you stated. This is 18 times more pollution than you state in your article, and does not count all the other nasties like sulfur, methane etc.

2) "It has been proven 40 years ago by NASA, every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger."

This is blatantly false, and your statement "every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger" sounds like a constant to me.

Then over the course of our discussion, we also came upon this little gem, once again your words-



There are far more than 25 scientists that support global warming, in fact the majority of climatologists around the world support it. The U.S is one of the last holdouts to change, and every recognized climatological group in the U.S has agreed that, yes, there's a good chance we're contributing to climate change.

I do agree with you on your comments about consensus though. Global warming caused by man is not scientific fact. Actually, I am all for people trying to disprove it. That's actually how science is supposed to work.

1) Credentialed scientists working independently of political/ideological influence

2) Other credentialed peers examinging and trying to shoot holes in/disprove the papers written by their fellows. This is called peer review and happens in scientific publications all the time, publications that most folks will never read.

For the last 20 years the majority of peer review has found that yes, there is a good chance what we are doing is either causing, adding to or accelerating global warming.



I never said that a report disproving it should be quashed. In fact I welcome it. It does however have to stand up to the scrutiny of other scientists, and has to be free of political or ideological pre-determination. Anyone doing the same for pro-global warming would be equally guilty. Yes, Exxon was caught red handed. Here's why:

If Exxon went out and said

"We'll give 10 thousand bucks to anyone who studies global warming and man's potential impact (or lack thereof) on it"

that's ok. Good on Exxon for promoting science. However, that's not what they did.

What they said was

"we'll pay someone 10 thousand bucks to contradict global warming"

Therefore, they have already reached a pre-determined conclusion before any testing has been done. This basically creates a conflict of interest for any scientist who takes them up on their offer, as his or her work is now under pressure to produce a result that follows a political or ideological bent regardless of what the actual results of the testing may or may not produce.

I do agree with you that the whole thing is very complicated and that exhaustive research needs to be done. I agree with you that yes, global warming is not fact. It is a theory, still open to scrutinization. Also, I believe that there's much going on that affects things adversely. If for example our orbit around the sun were to change that would shake things up drastically. But at the end of the day, I do agree with the current scientific consensus that states that at present:

a) The theory that climate change is occurring appears to be sound (emphasis on appears, it is still afterall theory not fact)

It is highly likely that man's activities are contributing to this climate change.

Thank you, though for reply 13. Some of the theories posted therein are actually quite good, and I agree they merit further study. In fact, I agree it's highly possible and indeed likely that solar activity is a main cause of climate change. However to be fair all of these theories need to be published in scientific journals and open to peer scrutiny, and I see no reason why human activity couldn't be adding to or accelerating this natural climate change to the point that it endangers our current ecology. Rush Limbaugh is not a credentialed scientist, nor am I (I do not presume to know if you are or not) Also Newsweek and the BBC are media outlets, but not scientific journals. If these theories are in those publications, and not the court of public opinion (which really is what newsweek and BBC are)then you indeed do have a good point!

That is incorrect as the core samples have shown. Long before man knew how to create fire, the glaciers around the world rose and fell with global warming - caused I am sure by farts instead of carbob burning.

Everyone (almost everyone, anyway) can agree that climate change occurs. Doesn't take a blue ribbon panel of experts to figure that out - it's been obvious for centuries.

As for above, it is "highly likely" that a fly sitting on an elephant's butt contributes to its weight.

There is no amount of research that can be done to resolve the issues of 1) the degree of man's contribution to global climate change, if any, 2) how to reliably predict global climate change, and 3) what, if anything, could or should be done about any of it. The scope of the problem is simply beyond our grasp and likely will be for thousands of generations to come, assuming we survive that long without being hoisted on our own climate changing petard.

First, no one is saying it is a Hoax. man causing it IS. Second, it is easy to trick all the governments. After all, all the governments of Europe in the 15th century thought the earth flat.

Finally, while there is a lot of conjecture that man is causing global warming (now called global climate change since for the last 10 years the trend has reversed), there are no hard facts to back up the hypothesis. Quite frankly, in hard sciences, even a theory has to have supporting data (facts) before it moves from a hypothesis to a theory. Global warming as caused by man has yet to pass that smell test.

Perhaps instead of belittling those who do not believe in Man's causation of climate change, one should look at the available data and see where the quid pro quo is. That has not been doctored (that was a big stink that did not make the headlines as it was contra to the religious creed of global warming).

And finally, one of the weapons the Algores seem to love to use is to yell (and attempt to stiffle) all those who voice doubts about man's effect on global warming by rephrasing the debate -after the statements have been made - to insinuate that the non-believers are doubting global climate change period. It is an effect tactic for the weak willed. Unfortunately, most of the doubters are smart and strong willed who have researched the issue itself and staked out a position not in denial (another tactic of the religious), but in doubt as to the evidence of the root cause. And since that position is virtually unassailable (from a scientific standpoint of the hypothesis, supporting data, oberservation before going to theory method), they then have to pervert the debate so that the opposition's position is changed (by them not the opposition) to one that only a fool would argue - and then laugh at the opposition for being the fool - when it is they who are fooling and lieing.

Calling you ignorant is not a personal attack, unless you are a liberal in which case anything said that disagrees is an attack. Here is the definition of the word ignorant in the context it was used; lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject. Now were I to call you stupid that would be a personal attack.



Good cause it was not in dispute, I read that material long ago and your grammar changed making it noticeable. My point was my question if you comprehended what you copied.



I can’t back it up as I write this because I used it in my original post last year or the year before and I don’t remember where I got it from so if you wish to ignore it as fact until I track it down that is fair.



You missed a few of my words allow me to point out the part you missed.



Correction I meant Century not year and it will get larger and hotter in the last sentense.



Ever since the Al Gore movie all I hear is there are thousands of scientist, or a majority of scientist around the world agree, yet every time a respected scientists name is mentioned in the media who supposedly agrees with this hoax, that person comes out saying NOT ME! I want to see the names of the people that support it I don’t want some nebulous cloud of a majority or a consensus. And please don’t give me that chick from the weather channel because her boss and founder of the company she works for disagrees with her, and his credentials are more respected than hers are.

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets. Ok folks, that’s it, no more SUV’s on Mars! No more burning of fossil fuels on Mars, and no coal fired power plants on Mars. oh yeah the fact that we are just 20,000 years from the last ice age maybe that is why the Earth is getting warmer as well?

Not every climatologist group in the US agrees with this hoax. There is NASA, that has disagreed with the hoax, there is the organization in Denver that I wrote about that disagrees, there is the national weather service that disagrees. Roy Spencer, the climatologist from the University of Alabama in Huntsville disagrees, Dr Jensen, a nuclear physicist, has said he is not convinced that human activity is responsible for global warming. Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has noted, “The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models.” In short they messed with the numbers to get the results they wanted. A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming.

Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who was once a committed left-wing environmentalist until he realized that so much of what that movement preached, was based on bad science. Lomborg wrote a book called “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and has organized some of the world’s top Nobel Laureates to form the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus” which ranked the world’s most pressing problems. And guess what? They placed global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet’s priorities. The “Copenhagen Consensus” found that the most important priorities of our planet included: combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty, you quickly realize that fears about global warming are severely misguided.
This was 2004 yet we are still being told that it is real and we must do something and that all the scientist agree we must do something!
There is the science academy of Russia that disagrees with man made global warming, so where is this majority of scientist that support man made global warming?

These are not political hacks making statements for pay these are accredited scientist and experts in their field of study.

I produced that in the above post sorry it was getting too long.



except for the peer review of the IPCC study on climate change.



The environmentalist nut jobs do this all the time. Anyone seeking a grant must first submit what they plan on studying and what outcome they are looking for. If it meets with their approval they get the grant, the going rate is about 100,000 dollars for global warming proof. Exxon is offering 10,000 dollars hardly out trying to mess up the works. Plus the findings still have to pass peer review so it is still honest for Exxon to solicit these reports just as the nut jobs do.



Unless the Sun has some hidden resource of fuel it is a certainty that it will die in another 5 billion years. Based on scientific observation of other stars as the Sun ages it will expand, this has been observed in our one Sun as well as other stars. The sun will get hotter as it gets closer to the Earth, every scientist is in total agreement with this. The Sun will not expand 90 million miles in one minute it will do so gradually as its gravitational field weakens. As proven on Mars with the melting ice caps it is happening as you read this. If the Sun is strong enough to reach out to a planet 92 million miles past the Earth what makes you think that the Earth will not be affected also?



Great points Daiwa thanks.

I often simply boil down both options to:

Who gains the most from their positions?

I mean, except Al Gore's reputed-carbon credit making companies, and some lefty group who earn money to FIGHT to enforce regulation of greener industries, I don't see what is the advantages of the scientists or the environnemental groups. If they win their fight, they'll end up with no more money, since they would not be any reason to fight anymore.

But on the other hand, the big companies such as Exxon have every financial advantages to push - both financially, politically, and sociologically - to deny any kind of man-made global warming. If I was shown 2 options:

- Paladin77 is paid by companies to deny global warming on the internet
- Jythier is paid by environnementalist to support the theory of global warming on the internet

No matter or ludicrous both propositions acutally are, the option #1 is the most probable. Out of every scientists who choose an opinion, I think it's more logical to doubt those who have a financial advantage linked to their support. I haven't seen any scientist win any kind of real money out of saying that the earth is warming.



The thing is, the scientists saw a fact : the Earth is warming up. And not only it is warming up, but the speed at which it is warming up is increasing. They have to theorise WHY, and the man-made global warming is the theory that fits the most the facts. Either trough man-made emmission, or made-made deforestation. Just because peoples discovers more facts, or theorise specific parts of the whole theory doesn't make it invalid as a whole.

You point out some. And dont forget the power trip. The chicken littles get a lot of adulation by being chicken littles (until some sane person points out that the sky is not falling).

And you devalue the impact of the green movement (which I did document elsewhere) that does not really care about a clean environment, but only in controlling our lives (and one of the reasons they are a darling of the left).

And you are wrong about the companies. They dont gain or lose. They will sell their products regardless. If you make it more expensive, they will simply pass the cost on to the consumer.

No, this is about a bunch of wannabees that are trying to make a name for themselves. They call themselves "scientists" but do not use the scientific method, and will brook no dissent on their WAGs. A true scientist would want to verify their research, have it srutinized and torn apart so that any holes could be filled, and the theory advanced, or modified to support true data. We have none of that in this debate.

That is because it does not have anything to do with science, and everything to do with a new religion (that is alergic to science) and control over everyone's lives.

And fame and fortune (do you really think that Algore and his ilk are not making money off this chicken little adventure?).

When a scientific cause becomes political, it passes out of the realm of science and then becomes a jihad. Where reasoning is subverted to the god created.