A Reuters article picked up by CNN.com reads: "Scientists attribute this rise [in temperature] to human activities, notably the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases--notably carbon dioxide--which let in sunlight and trap its heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse." Scientists? All scientists? Not Bill Gray, a recently retired meteorologist at Colorado State University, who dubs theories blaming mankind for climate change "a big scam." If global-warming theories rest on such solid scientific ground, why are its partisans so afraid of acknowledging the existence of scientists who reject such notions?

You have to be kidding me.

99% of climate scietists agree that global climate change is both real and anthropogenic.

The remaining 1% takes money from the coal, oil, and gas lobbies.

There are a few- very few- respected climate scientists who think that global climate change will not bring the catostrophic consequences most scientists are predicting.

But Climate Change is far from a "scam".

Anyone who believes othereise does so only out of politcal loyality/ ideology that has nothing to do with science.

I suppose you still think Cigarettes are good for the lungs too huh Dan?

HeHe,

Two questions: (1) Is science a democratic exercise? (2) Are you able to evaluate the claims of meteorologists? That is, where's your meteorology degree from?

I don't know if cigarettes are bad for my lungs as I have never tried one. Common sense tells me that they are bad for my lungs. A half century ago, some doctors claimed that they weren't. Chesterfield commercials in the 1940s and '50s, for instance, featured doctors touting the health benefits of Chesterfields vis a vis other brands. Back then, HeHe, you would have been smoking Chesterfields because a doctor told you to.

Some doctors now claim that man is causing the Earth to get hotter. Since when? About fifty million years ago, the arctic circle was a tropical area. Fossils of crocodiles and snakes found on Ellesmere Island prove this. Did SUVs cause it to heat up so much back then?

How about climate change on Mars, Jupiter, and other planets? NASA says it is happening. Are styrofoam cups to blame? Hairspray? Cutting down the rainforest? My suspicion is that these things have only slightly less to do with the melting ice caps of Mars as they do with climate change on Earth.

We are but small men. The Sun is one culprit I suspect of affecting climate in a more dramatic fashion.

Ralph,
Point 1 well taken. I normally wouldn’t waste more then a couple lines on this guy but here goes. Haha is an ideologue and social idiot who can only parrot what someone else tells him. Instead of providing any proof or argument he attacks those who are not convinced of man-influenced global warming as corrupt ideologues. Ironic that very recently he claimed there was no debate in the scientific community about the cause of global warming, now he says 99% of scientists agree it is man caused. I hate to make a stink over a mere 1% but it does beg the question of this guys honesty. For anyone to say there is no debate on any scientific issue shows that person to be ignorant of scientific method and calls into question anything they say from that point forward. Personally, I've never been able to get two scientists to agree on the color of the floor, no less anything of any importance.

If anyone has claims to the contrary on global warming let's hear them, along with some credible information, and have some discourse. If all you can do to debate a point is attack someone's integrity then shut the hell up. Emotion and information are not the same thing, as much a surprise as that may be to some people. If anyone has a logical explanation of why this round of global warming is caused by something different then Dan’s example let’s hear it. Debate is a great thing, but I personally I have no patience with someone who only wants to pontificate.

George Carlin put it best when he said “The Earth is fine, it’s the people on it that are f*cked” The first person to respond to this thread proves that point well.

BTW, how can you know exactly who the 1% in question are, no less that they are taking money from the fuel companies?

Oh, I get it now. You’re either with them and a cool aid drinking believer, or you're in cahoots with and taking money from the coal and oil companies. Perfect.

Something like Al Gore is doing with Occidental oil. He must be a closet 1%’er.

Or Richard Branson whose donating $3B to the Global Warming scam that he’ll be making off his commercial air liners that will burn thousands of tons of jet fuel.

What a cult.

who's donating. $hite!

HA HA HA HA HA RALPH.

First, Science is not a democratic exercise.

Second, the relevent field is NOT meterology.

Its climatology. I have actually taken one graduate climatology course, so I know the basics. But one doesn't even have to do that. I TRUST scientists more than I trust politians and oil industry executives.

And I TRUST that if they were just making it up SOMEONE (outside of the oil/gas indusry) would prove them wrong.

And it hasn't happened yet.

I ca understand being hesitent about action on Global Warming becuace there will be a cost involved and the science is not presise on what the consequences of inaction may be. But the threat is certainly real and potentially so great that something must be done.

Check out this:

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738

Dan you are no scientist and it shows.

Just because the Earth was hotter than it is now millions of years ago (before human civilization) does not mean that today's climate change is natural.

All that fact shows is that the climate changes, and this is true.

But historically the climate has changed very slowly, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

The change witnesses in the later part of the 20th century happened over a few decades. There is no natural proess that can change the climate that much is so little time.

Your "Martian" argument is laughable. Yes, each planet has its own climate. Yes, each climate is constantly changing. But the fact that the Martian climate is changing without human interference does not prove that the changes observered here on Earth are natural.

ASDF, what Richard Branson is doing isn't exactly a "scam".

He will be making loads of money, but he will be cutting carbon emissions in the process.

In economics will call this an incentive.

You repubs should know what that is.

AM, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

I could drudge up the evidence for global warming, but that would take time THAT I DON'T HAVE.

Concrete evidence is published in many scietific journals. Science and Nature are the best around. If you want absoulute proof of global warming, go to your local library and get the information.

And yes AM, when I say things like "no debate" what I mean is the following "no significant debate". I leave out the signigficant to SAVE TIME!

Look, on any scietific question there will always be someone, somewhere who disagrees with the concensus position. There are still "scientists" who disagree with evolution. There are still "scientists" who say the the dinasaurs didn't exist. There are still "scientists" who say that oil and gas were not formed from organic matter. There are stil "scientists" who claim that sun revolves around the Earth.

To say that there is absoulutly NO debate is wrong. But there are certinaly situations in science where there is SO LITTLE DEBATE that the questions become insignificant to policy makers. I- in my idocy- assumed that you already knew that.

But I was wrong.

You need your hand held on every little fricking question. So fine.

There is debate on the causes global warming. But it is so small, so on the margins, so poorly researched, so ideologically driven, that FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES it may well not exist.

AM on your second question, just check this out:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

No apologies nessecary.

You've been to college? Chalk one up for the educational system in this country! Way to go guys.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Oh LOOK AT THIS!!!

Accuracy in Acedemia (DAN FLYNN's GROUP) has taken money from ExxonMobil.

Well Well Well.

Surprise Surprise.

Haha.

AM I am far more educated and far more intelligent than you will ever be.

Sorry I just read Dan's parting comment there.

"We are small men"

Yeah. That's a great refutation of the science of climate change Dan.

Excellent.

I really like the part where you debunked the whole rising co2 and methane emissions lead to climate change part.

Good work buddy.

Seriously, WTF are you people carping about evidence.

The burden of proof is on YOU the skeptics to refute the evidence presented by our climatologists.

Let's see it.

Stop your bitching, and lets see the damn evidence !

Where is your refutation of the hockey stick?

Where is your evidence that co2 emissions are not rising, or if you admit they are, where is your evidence that co2 emissions do not cause temperature rises?

Everything I've heard boils down to stupid anectodal arguments about how Mars has a climate and how Newsweek once ran a story on global cooling back in the 1970's.

Where is the science? Where's the proof?

All because of this so called global warming thing which may or may not be caused by man we are blocked from developing much of our own oil resources. This makes us dependent on foreign oil sources, from places like Venezuela. Chavez is a far greater threat to the US than Iran or Iraq ever was or ever could be. Also, oil money is going to places like Saudi Arabia to fund Islamic extremism. Hugo Chavez and Islamic extremism are far greater threats than global warming ever has been or ever could be. Even if global warming is a threat, there is nothing we can do about it. With terrorism and Hugo Chavez there is something we can do. Develop our own oil resources. This will probably require giving enviro whackos something else to do.

OK AM I will take your challenge.

We will have a real, civil, point by point debate on global warming.

No emotion. No politics. Just science and reason.

First things first, can we agree that the Earth is warming?

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg

B. Poster.

Some interesting points.

I generally agree with the conventional wisdom that Chavez is much less of a threat than Iran or Iraq because the strength of his "bolivarian revolution" rests upon him selling his oil to the capitalist West. He needs to have good relations with us, even if needs to simolutatnously act like a clown and pretend to rail against Yankee imperialism.

Your argument seems to be that the US should develop its oil resources in lieu of replacing oil altogether.

That argument rests upon the (incorrect) assumption that there are no economic alternitives to oil.

There are. we really can have it both ways. We can dramatically reduce our oil consumption, cutting the need for imports and and cutting greenhouse emissions.

Aditionally, the US does not have nearly enough reserves to meet American demand.

The safest and most economical way of weaning America off Saudi oil is to increase imports from Canada's tar sands.

That would have a disasterous effect on Canada's environment, but would be economical at today's prices.

Unfortunatly for us, even that wouldn't hurt Saudi all that much. With India and China growing ever more oil-hungary, and lack in our demand will be met by them. Money will still flow to the kindgom, and thus still flow to the terrorists.

If-however- America develops technoliges that don't require oil and then export those technologies to the rest of the world, then and only then would oil cease to be a factor in our geopolitics.

HeHe: I haven't worked for Accuracy in Academia for almost four years. During the five years I served as executive director, we never got any money from Exxon. I wish we had.

The source you provide is rather dubious. When did AIA receive money from Exxon? Your source says, and I am not making this up, "1990?" What was the dollar amount? Your source says "unknown."

Here is my question: Does ExxonSecrets receive money from ExxonMobil in a conspiratorial effort to discredit criticisms of oil companies? What a joke!

HeHe

Thanks for the response to my post. I think we should simultaneously aggressively work to develop alternatives to oil and aggressively work to develop our own resources. The best place for us to start would be to fully develop ANWR as soon as possible.

Developing alternatives to oil will not be easy and will likely take many decades. I suspect many people around the world are already working on this. If it were relatively easy to get viable alternatives, I think China, India, and the Western European nations would have already done so even if we assume researchers in the US are not working on it. The money to be made selling this alternative would be HUGE.

I think Canada's tar sands would be a good place to look for oil, as well. I'm not sure how much we will get to develop it. Enviro whackos are already begining to b*tch about it. In any events, Canada's tar sands are still just another foreign source. We need more of our own. We can expect nations to act in what they percieve to be their best interests. If we rely on Canada to supply our oil, we can expect them to some day try and put the screws to us the way Venezuela is trying to do. My understanding is we just had a big find off of the American coast. I hope this is developed soon.

You are right about Saudi Arabia. With the growing economies of China and India they will still have allot of money to fund terrorism with should they wish to do so. I just don't want US money going to Saudi Arabia.

With all due respect Chavez's revolution will do just fine without selling oil to the US. He can still sell to China, India, or Western Europe for that matter. To put it bluntly we need those imports more than Chavez needs to send them our way. This is a crappy position to be in but the first step to correct something is a blunt ana-lysis of the situation. When the third most dangerous foreign threat to the US is dismissed as a "clown" this is VERY UNHELPFUL. The most dangerous foreign threats to the US are Russia and China.

I also think pushing for greater fuel efficiency would be a good idea. We may even want to consider rationing. I would be willing to pay far more for gasoline, if this meant we could lessen our foreign imports. I think it is unlikely that we could completely eliminate foreign imports in the foreseeable future, however, with more of our sources we will have more leverage to negotiate with.

"Science is not a democratic exercise."

Then why bother with the percentage of scientists who argue x as opposed to the percentage who argue y?

"The relevent field is NOT meterology."

Meteorology and climatology are closely related fields. Is it your contention that an credentialed meteorologist commenting on global warming is outside of his expertise?

"I have actually taken one graduate climatology course, so I know the basics."

Don't make me laugh. One graduate class?

"I TRUST scientists more than I trust politians and oil industry executives."

Why is that? Is it because scientists never have agendas? That's curious. You study a certain curriculum and it endows you with impeccable character?

"And I TRUST that if they were just making it up SOMEONE (outside of the oil/gas indusry) would prove them wrong."

For example, is William Gray on the oil or gas payroll?

Oh hey, here's an idea:

Post your argument with supporting data and everyone will debate on it. That's kinda, sorta of the idea of this blog, isn't it?

Shouldn't be a problem for an enlightened guy like you with a term of climatology under his belt.

For the non-expert it would seem that science is a democratic exercise. If one knows nothing about a subject area, shouldn't they yield to expert opinion? Moreover shouldn't one yield to the prevailing expert opinion since one doesn't know enough to distinguish between differing experts?

Obi you are onto something here, being reasonable that is.

The problem I have is that global warming is another area where science is entirely entangled w/ politics and as everything touched by politics in modern life becomes corrupted, it too is suspect. So the leftists who believe in man-made global warming and freak about it treat the naysayers cynically as pawns of "big oil." This defies logic and experience.

First, big oil is a huge financial gainer from environmentalist legislation, leftists seem to think that corporations are opposed to regulation but that is simply not the case. They look to work in cahoots w/ the state to their advantage and often are the ones lobbying for regulations on their industries. Second, as Ralph points out if we are going to be cynical regarding the motives of the dissenting scientists than we have to accurately acknowledge human nature and be cynical towards scientists who are in the majority. After all, scientists are just as prone to base motives in their research, to being effected by their political views, and competing for funding (they have families and hobbies like golf to financially support as well!). Read Watson's "Double Helix" to see how personality and human nature intrudes into scientific research all the time.

So what can we reliably say at this point? As far as I can tell the earth has increased in global average temperature about one degree in the last century or so, this may or may not be caused by human activity, it may or may not be a destructive change, and may or may not have serious long-term consequences for human life. Is trying to reduce our impact on the environment a reasonable act of caution, sure, but it depends on the specific changes suggested. We have to take them one by one. However, we are required by the left to remain in a state of high anxiety and duress over the issue which is just not a situation conducive to prudent measures to insure human sustainability.

Bruce, there is no doubt that scientific research can be heavily affected by both politics and personality.

The evidence in this case however is so OVERWHELMING that niether intrutions into science could change the conclusions of the climatoligists.

On what is reliable at this point, you have one good critizim of the global warming crowd and that is that the consequences are UNCERTAIN. We do not know for sure that climate change will bring the devestation and destruction some scientists are predicting.

We do know however that it is happening.

And we do know that we are causing it, and thus can stop causing it.

We should.

Not because we are certain that doing so would have a benefit, but because the potential cost of inaction is so great.

Again, I suggest all of you read the recent editorial from what was (five years ago) a warming-skeptic magizine:

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738

Your point on "leftists" wanting to blame everything on Big Oil is ill-taken.

It is incontrvertable that ExxonMobil finances the vast majority of global warming skeptic research. And it is the largest corporation on Earth. So it has power.

B. Poster, thanks for response.

Most Veneualian oil can actually only be refined in American refineries. Its a very crude grade (or something) and only we have the existing infrastructure to deal with it.

Add that to the added cost of getting the oil to China. (Its hard to get oil through Panama.) And we will remain the buyer of choice for PDVSA.

This gives us big leverage and assures that Chavez remains a pest, but not a threat.

Ralph, did you take two grad classes?

Are you a climatoligist?

You didn't even know what a climatoligist was until I told you.

And yes scientists have agendas.

But the evidence on this is so OVERWHELMING that the no confluence of agendas could concievably explain or alter the conclusions drawn.

BTW you Repus might want to ship him up and send him to Mexico, but LA's mayor is a tribute to responsibility and reason.

Check out his comments addressing the Labour Party in London which Bill Clinton was also attending:

"In a little while, you'll hear from an American who I'm sure will remind us all of what it was like when we had leaders in our nation's capitol who actually believed in science."

So true.

Jesus won't save us for Global Warming folks.

HeHe- I would wager that you still believe socialism works? That would follow the template by which you seem to live.
There is no doubt that their has been a global temp.change, but is their definitive proof on what is the cause? Is it part of a cycle? What can be done,if anything?(other than massive tax increases and global socialism) Why do you and your ilk get all bent when questioned?
In the 1970's,this real hack named Paul Erlichman,who is a "respected" professor at Stanford,claimed that their would be massive starvation and by 1980,populations would be dying off in due to over population. The media jumped all over this theory and proclaimed,their is no more question this event will occur. Guess what it never happened. There have been numerous theories advanced over the years by political hacks pretending to be advancing science.
You always have to throw in your illiterate comments about the stupidity of being a Christian. Is it any more ridiculous to attend church than become part of some type of movement,in order to find happiness or redemption? People like yourself like to feel brave and look down on Christians,however,I would rather associate with Christians than, life's losers , who join enviromental movements,peace marches,etc.

The bottom line is, all the questons about global temp.change hasn't been answered.

You better think twice before accusing Dan and others about accepting money from Exxon,when you drink the kool aid provided by left wing groups like Pew,Ford Foundation,etc. are bought and paid for by the George Soros,Peter Lewis,etc. Do you think those foundations have an agenda?

What?

WTF does socialism have to do with the science of global warming??

Seriously. That's all you can do? "oh he believes in science- he must be a god-hating socialist!!!"

Please!

Yes there have been Mathusian scares before.

That does not mean that this scare isn't real.

And YES I AGREE WITH YOU.

All the questions haven't been answered. That's the problem!!!

Have you read this yet?::

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738

READ IT!

Then respond.

BTW Those foundations sponsor very little global warming reserch. Most of it is done at acedemic insitutions.