Sorry, arcman, but you still are missing the point, which is clear by this statement of yours: "...moving to more cleaner, efficient, renewable energy sources is going to lead to economic ruin...".

No, that is not the problem. Stopping or limiting economies from using any fuel that emits CO2 is what is leading to economic problems already in many countries - and, indeed, two of the major CO2 emitting countries, China and India, do not have any plans to slow down the growth of their economies just to appease a group of Al Gore/AGW alarmists who aren't using good science to push their agendas. If you've been paying attention, you should know that virtually all of the European countries that signed the Kyoto Treaty haven't been able to meet it's goals, and are having economic problems partially due to their restrictions in this area. I believe Austrailia is having similar problems, too. Oddly, the US didn't sign the treaty, and is actually doing a better job percentage-wise than most of the countries that did.

Developing more efficient, cleaner, renewable energy sources is something that most scientists (and myself, like Gore - "not a scientist") are supporting. This is separate from taking actions that damage many countries economies.

Also, I disagree - the majority of scientists do not agree that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause of Climate Change (either warming or cooling). The fringe fanatics on one side strongly state that it is the primary problem, while the fringe fanatics on the opposite side say it has no influence at all. What the majority seem to agree on is that it may have some influence, but the actual level of that influence is not even close to having a "consensus".

This is why I say we need more scientific debate using the tried and proven scientific methodology to determine what truth surrounds the anthropogenic CO2 emission hypothesis.

One more time - to waste time, effort, and money on a solution to a problem that may not exist, will not make us safe at all, but surely would make a lot of people sorry.

On the other hand, if the scientists actually did determine that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a noticeable effect on our climate, then we also would want to know whether that effect is positive or negative to the majority of us. Remember, plants really love CO2, and higher levels allow plants to grow stronger and bear more fruit. This is not a bad thing, and if the planet is about to move into a cooling periond, the additional CO2 would somewhat counter-balance the cooler, shorter growing periods.

As of this writing, I've not seen any conclusive evidence that rising CO2 levels have ever caused temperatures to rise. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that rising temperatures have historically preceded CO2 levels rising. There are many scientists that are even questioning whether the rising temperatures are actually causing the CO2 rise or are just coincidental and both caused by some other phenomenon.


As an aside - some of the major oil companies are putting a lot of money into developing alternative fuel sources. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, they have the money to control the distribution and development of whatever source becomes the most viable. Remember, even "free" solar power costs money for the equipment needed to capture and store it.

I would like to see a source for that if you have it, please.

Also, what is Gore's "agenda" exactly? How does he profit from pushing so called "bad science"?
I mean it was pretty obvious how the oil companies were going to benefit by casting doubt over global warming during Clinton's term, they pretty much just stole the playbook from the tobacco companies, "We don't really know that cigarettes cause cancer..." Is there an analogue with Gore?

Not sure I can find a word for word source - that is what I've gathered from various readings.

Maybe these will help?

An Extraordinary Event, by Alan carruba

A Ray Of Sanity Within The IPCC Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics, by Dr John Everett, IPCC Reviewer, Lead Author, Co-chair.

Major New Theory Proposed to Explain Global Warming: Carbon-dioxide out; "synchronized chaos" in

Researcher: Global Warming Began 250 Years Ago, by Michael Asher

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

The 60-Second Climate Skeptic

A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming.by Warren Meyer-Great Book

Global Warming Explained

The causes of global warming and climate change!

The Real Science

Global Warming FAQ: What Every Citizen Needs to Know About Global Warming, By Iain Murray

PDF Plain English Guide To Global Warming

Michael Crichton Is Right, by Joseph L Bast

Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming, By R. Warren Anderson, and Dan Gainor

Natural Climate Cycles-RECONSTRUCTING CLIMATIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES OF THE PAST 1000 YEARS: A REAPPRAISAL, Willie Soon (wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu) and Sallie Baliunas

'GLOBAL WARMING': AN OFFICIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE , by Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. & Alexandra N. Correa, HBA

Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change, by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.

Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? by Douglas V. Hoyt

Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming
by Ben Lieberman

Global Warming: A Science and Economics Update

A Guide to Global Warming - Questions and Answers on Climate Change

"Climate Issues and Questions - revised and updated" (PDF, 232 KB)

(PDF) The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle by S. Fred Singer & Dennis T Avery (Adapted from their forthcoming book,
Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1,500 Years)

A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change - Comments on

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle-Condensed further

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective

Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record

(PDF)Uncertainty in Analyzing Climate Change: Policy Implications.

[PDF] HUDSON INSTITUTE BOOK DISCUSSION ON “UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING ...Drs Singer and Avery

(The American Thinker: Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock)

What’s the truth on global warming? Blame the sun

"Aliens Cause Global Warming" : A lecture by Michael Crichton

Resisting Global Warming Panic

Environmental Heresies: The founder of The Whole Earth Catalog believes the environmental movement will soon reverse its position on four core issues.

Global Warming Bombshell: A controversy over 14th century climate shows the peril of letting politics shape the scientific debate.

Medieval Global Warming: A controversy over 14th century climate shows the peril of letting politics shape the scientific debate.

The Gulf Coast: A Victim of Global Warming? North Atlantic hurricanes are growing worse, but an MIT climatologist says it would be 'absurd' to attribute Katrina or Rita to long-term climate change.

Testimony of John R. Christy, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory University of Alabama in Huntsville Huntsville AL 35899 10 July 1997

Wallace Broecker, "Will Our Ride into the Greenhouse Future be A Smooth One?"

Dangerous Warming Unlikely, MIT Climatologist Say. By: Dr. Richard Lindzen

If "global warming" is real, what could be causing it?

Questioning the Global Warming Science:
An Annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'



Google search on "carbon credits" Al Gore should keep you busy for quite a while. In a nutshell - if you buy off on AGW, then one way to offset it is to buy into Al Gore's companies. How successful are his ventures? He's recently announced a planned spending of $300 million to promote his cause. In other words, that is just his advertising expense. I've seen where it is estimated that he could individually earn over 1 billion dollors over the next 10 years through this process and much more than that would go into his business ventures.

Just to reinforce what John is saying, I just finished a geology class this past December. Even in the textbook it was admitted that there was not enough data to make a sound scientific judgement. It also stated that scientists do not agree on the subject of global warming. We are looking at things in "human time" which is barely a blip when comparing to "geologic time".

What I find, Eric, is that there are many who simply want to accept what Gore and the IPCC say. First, it is easier than taking the time to discover the lack of consensus and alternatives and second, anything that makes us more aware of the environment seems good to them. Unfortunately, the possible damage to economies and ultimately the environment (from backlash) is too difficult for them to grasp.

Here is a somewhat technical report comparing the IPCC's projections from 1990 to 2008 with what actually happened.

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series .

Conclusion: (partial)

Remember now, the IPCC claims that what they project will happen because of man's CO2 emissions. Yet, what they said would happen doesn't match reality.

Why are we basing all of this fear and catastrophic doom on projections that are "not credible"?

Actually by "source", I was looking for some approximate number in the scientific community (with credentials pertinent to the subject) who support climate change and those that doubt it. Of course note that "doubt" should be separate from "denial" as the latter is usually little more than a disinformation campaign.

Its the cause of the moment. Remember "We are the world"? Farm-aid? Yeah, we all do, but those movements just faded off to never be heard from again. Give it time - this too shall pass.

I'm not aware of an authoritative source that shows this information.

If you do some research, you'll find that many scientists are concerned that speaking out against AGW may cost them their positions, grants, etc. This adds to the difficulty of determining anything near a true consensus.





I agree - I separate out both the alarmists and the denialists. Both are extreme fringe groups. Again - regarding AGW, "What the majority seem to agree on is that it may have some influence, but the actual level of that influence is not even close to having a "consensus". " I'm assuming you understand this as I do, that AGW and GW are not the same thing. The globe has undergone numerous warming and cooling cycles and will continue to do this until the sun burns out or novas or whatever it ultimately does, unless some other major event occurs such as a collision with a large comet that shatters the planet. We are currently leaving a warming period and entering a cooling period based on the cycles. So, the majority of scientists do agree that we were in a warming period. Where the controversy exists, and the debate should be allowed to continue, is what effect, if any, anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere may be having.

My point - you will find a majority of scientists who agree that global warming was happening. However, you will not find a majority that agree that the cause of the global warming is either a rise in atmospheric CO2 or man's contribution to that rise. Two very different situations. Many articles and papers I've seen state an agreement that GW is happening but really do not address whether the author believes it's major cause is anthropogenic. A causual reader will put that item into the "supports GW" category and say, "see, another scientist supports AGW", when this is not what is being said.

Instead of arguing about whether there is a consensus, we should be agreeing that there remains plenty to discuss and debate and we (non-scientists) should be fullly supporting continued debate and research. Especially when the stakes are so high if we react incorrectly.

That would be fine if things like the Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Credit trading weren't happening.

The damage they may cause won't pass for a long time.

***The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."***

You can read the rest of the story here

All I can say is I served this country by military service, I vote, I pay my taxes, No one will tell me what temperature I will keep my house or what I eat! I gauge what I drive by the gas mileage, purely selfish finacial reasons.

I am for everyone picking up their trash and we do have to something about cleaning up the air - if WE want to continue to breathe but for the rest - I'm not convinced that the GW is not natural. We have gone through several "ice ages" that we can prove through geology, so by sound reasoning there must be a "warming period"

Interesting Article from 1999

This article is from 1987

And yet the GW Alarmists want everyone to think this possible event is just now happening.

This post has been edited by Vicki: May 23 2008, 07:27 AM

Two items of note:

one, this group isn't denying Global Warming as part of the natural cooling/warming cycle process that has been prevalent for a long time, but they are very specifically stating that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate,

and, two, 31,072 scientists in the U.S. only, does not, but any stretch, constitute a minor or extremely small number of scientists, as many alarmists imply regarding those that disagree with them.

It is very possible that the pendulum is now swinging away from "bad science" and toward "good science" regarding the information that reaches "the masses" regarding climate and what effects it.

Dear John Who,
Only because your's has been the strongest voice for waiting until all the facts are in, is why I am taking this moment to write this note directly towards you.
This is not to belittle you in any way, but is meant to get your attention.
All those articles you are providing links for information on global warming all the time. Well they have been tainted.
You may have seen my lastes post about how our fearless leader has been tampering with all that scientific data you have been using to support your position on global warming.
Yup G.W.Bush has been altering the scientific studies for quite some time now and has gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar once again.
Can anyone spell impeachment?
That's not going to happen because big business will not let us little peons fire our fearless leader, but it is my opinion that he should not be fired, but he should be shot for being such a BOLD FACE LIAR!!!
Isn't it great how money can minipulate any statistic from any agency anytine they want?

Don't be silly - Over 31,000 sign petition - all of them are under Bush's guidance?



Some Facts -

Gore refuses to debate with a number of scientists who differ from his opinion.

The IPCC report that many view as "the bible" has a number of errors, some of which the IPCC has acknowledged, but they aren't re-stating their assertion that anthopogenic CO2 emissions are the main cause of climate warming. Can you say "hockey stick" graph?

Many of the "reports" I've referenced, and you seem to allude to, come from non-US sources. Of course, if you are one of the "everything is Bush's fault, he is everywhere!" people, well I guess you'll think he altered them too.

Okay John so you got some information from sources outside the U.S.
What makes you think that the sources you quote are any more reliable the the ones here that have been tainted by our government?
Our government only altered this information because the big business and big money that controls ALL governments and directed them to do so!
I am now of the opinion that there is nothing I can do to open your eyes and therefore any more imput on my part would be useless falling upon your deaf ears.
So in conclusion; please feel free to go on spitting out your garbage with regards to this topic, as I know you are one of those who's opinions will never be swayed.
As for me I am going on with my efforts to create no footprints upon this earth, and with any luck billions will be of the same mind as I.
Long after you die you will have the opportunity to look back upon these times while visioning what is going on with the children of your children.
You explain it to them.