You're just mad because you were wrong.
Wrong again. You should try googling these things. :thumbsup:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/ima..._movements.jpg

You know when I posted that I figured I'd be giving someone something to swallow, and you did. Saying Cretaceous is fine as it was closer to the equator, there was nothing 'wrong' about it.

You said a completely asinine thing about Greenland being closer to the equator in relation to the topic, and then your saving grace is I said cretaceous?

Why did you even mention Greenland being closer to the equator at one time? It speaks volumes of your knowledge of the subject.

Ustwo, as I took pains to detail in my last post, your smugness is incompatible with your reputation here for quoting Marc Morano...here is yet another example. If you could come up with decent, instead of rabidly partisan source to support your opinions, most of us believe that you would....but instead:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=147
<h3>Marc Morano is not coincidentally an "expert" on climate change. It is one thing to have similar opinions to those projected by Morano, it is another to cite him in support of opinions you post. Sen. Inhofe hired Morano to be a propagandist. Why not simply quote Limbaugh, instead of Morano? </h3>

The comment about Greenland was funny and... wait for it... asinine! So I pointed out how asinine it was by posting something asinine. Then, in typical form, you tried to correct me. With the wrong information. And you're essentially calling me ignorant?

Hehehe...

depends how it's cut, dc_dux. surely you know that. to take an outrageous example, we could cut emissions hugely by prohibiting everyone east of cleveland from driving. would you do that?

huh?

In other news, the Senate will be voting on the Lieberman/Warner global warming response bill next month.

The bipartisan America's Climate Security Act of 2007, which is based on the California global warming bill enacted in 06, is not a bad first start....and much better than the Bush proposal of voluntary reductions.

The bill would cap CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities, transportation and manufacturing (which account for about 75 percent of U.S emissions) GHG emissions would be capped at the 2005 emission level starting in 2012 and then gradually reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, with deeper cuts over the long term - to reach a 65 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

It will be interesting to see if McCain will support his good friends (Lieberman and Warner) after saying recently that the US has an obligation to address the issue of global warming in a meaningful way....or if he will pander to the Republican base. Obama and Clinton (not that she matters as a candidate anymore) are on board. Will McCain Back Warming Bill?

edit: Otto..did I answer your questions in #86 to your satisfaction?

I'm not sure I understand your wording? Are you saying that it was not mentioned in relation to Earth? I'm fairly sure that this article was specifically about CO2, Earth, and fossil fuels.

I'll check it tomorrow anyways.

Won't these industries just add the cost of retrofitting etc.. to the prices charged to consumers which will hit the poor and middle class the hardest?

Probably so, to some extent....but it should also stimulate the development of new technologies and solutions to meeting the regulatory standards in the same manner as the environmental legislation of the 70s.

I am open to a better proposal. I just dont believe we should do nothing when it comes to the growing emission of GHGs from utilities, vehicles and heavy industries.

I agree that polution control is a good goal to have. I just wish that more people realized that corporate taxes and regulation costs are paid by them and the less you make the higher the percentage of your income you pay. I think many people think that it's OK to add taxes and costs to the big corporations because thay believe they are sticking it to the rich guys when they are the ones shouldering these costs.

I wonder how far this bill or any corporate tax would go if the authors said "It's only going to cost a family of four making $25000 a year an additional $1000 or so a year?"

Um... can you name a single Inuit city of 6,000? Can you name a single Inuit city?

No, they live in VERY small bands and are very nomadic. That's not exactly the Norse tradition.

I'm sorry when you said "Sorry, 5-6,000 people can not live on an ice shelf."

I didn't realize you meant they had to live in towns, cities or villages to count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

:(

Rewriting the archeologic record makes me a sadddddd panda.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Please, this is all documented from various sources, there is no questioning, no one lived on a ice shelf or on the perma frost. At least be creative and claim it was 'local conditions' and not a global cooling at the time instead of trying to change known history.

flstf, unless big business successfully manipulates it's primary markets to support prices via non-compete and scarcity of product tactics, it is not a given that costs of doing business, such as regulatory compliance costs and taxes paid, can be passed along for customers to pay in the form of higher prices than would otherwise be charged.

Walmart has an influence on the market for consumer goods that chokes off the pricing power of nearly all of it's competitiors. Kroger/Ralph's, Safeway, Target, and Kohl's stores cannot pass along increased costs by raising prices unless Walmart decides to raise prices. Walmart engages in predatory pricing to negatively impact the profits of it's competitors by squeezing it's suppliers and by selling popular items at or below cost, as "loss leaders". Kroger is doing the same thing in this geographical area to gasoline/convenience store outlets by selling gasoline in it's store parking lot stations at or below cost. It brings customers to Kroger to buy fuel and to form a habit of not shopping at the gasoline/convenience outlets....putting some of them out of business and forcing the rest to charge more for gasoline to attempt to make up for profits lost in both gasoline and convenience items sales.

Walmart's suppliers must eat increased regulatory costs and cost of taxes paid, and so must all of Walmart's competitors.

Integerated oil companies' retail outlets cannot raise gasoline prices at the pump if gas pumps in Walmart and Kroger parking lots are selling fuel at or below cost.

Foreign competition is also a huge drag on profits, especially since almost all foreign competitors either pay third world level wages and benefits, or in the instances of Canada and western Europe, US businesses face competition not burdened by the seperate expense of paying for employee health plans.

The greater public pays much more from the impact of corporate lobbying, (literally being permitted to write the legislation affecting their industries) partisan anit-consumer political activities (K Street project), appointments of industry executives to manage federal and state regulatory agencies intended to protect the public interest, than it ever will pay from attempts to pass along tax and regulatory compliance expenses.

The public does not bear the costs of earnings shrinking to zero or less, as in the cases of Ford, GM, and KB Homes. The stockholders should, and do. All any of it about is shuffling the deck that is the pie containing all assets in the US. The share owned by the bottom 90 percent shrank more during the years of "smaller government", "tax cutting" republicans controlling part of congress and all of the executive branch.... 20 out of the last 28 years....than at any other period since the 1929 era.

All during the periods of republican controll since 1981, corporate tax rates and regulatory enforcement and oversight have been cut, yet the bottom 90 percent own a smaller piece of the pie than when the cutting began. It is a much more complex dynamic than direct costs of taxes and regulation being passed to the consumer. Along the way, 5 members of the Walton family, Bull Gates, and Warren Buffett became five of the 15th wealthiest people in the country, concentrating wealth transfered from most of us, to those few.

Taxes on individuals and corporations and regulations and sound oversight are the only public powers demonstrated in the past 95 years, to slow or even reverse wealth inequity.

flstf...the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions are utilities and they cant simply pass on the cost of regulatory compliance and/or taxes. The PUC in each of the states ultimately set the rates you and I pay for electricity and how much of the cost of compliance may be passed on to consumers.

The cost to heavy industries to meet new regulatory emission standards could very well be met with new manufacturing processes...given the number of years before compliance is mandated.

The most costly would probably be vehicle emissions and consumers will have choices...adapt by changing consumption habits.

host, I agree that it is more complicated than a direct pass through of corporate costs to corporate prices to consumers and sometimes there will be a Walmart to buck the trend to gain market share. However I do think that higher corporate costs on any given product sector (as long as their costs go up together) will eventually result in higher prices for consumers. Perhaps a given market sector will be willing to squeeze their profit margins down for a while but eventually they will pass these costs on to consumers.

I have taken the position in other tax discussions on this board that I believe this results in the poor and middle class paying a much higher percentage of their income to support our government because of these taxes and regulation costs being passed down to them via higher prices. The less you make, the higher percentage of your income it takes. I have little doubt that if we passed legislation to make it more expensive to generate electricity for example then electric bills are going to go up accordingly as well as the cost of food, clothing etc.. and goods from any industry that uses electricity.

I heat my house with propane. The cost has gone up from about $125 a month to about $300 per month in the last 4 years. I do not believe that putting an excess profit tax on these suppliers would lower my cost and most likely cause them to rise.

Look, what angers me is this whole change-or-we-all-will-die bs.

I absolutely support natural energy sources, wind/tidal/geothermal/solar/etc. I absolutely want to lower pollution which damages water/etc. I absolutely support government support for energy efficiency and opening new research in how to more efficiently generate/use energy.

What I hate is how the environmental movement has turned black and white, either you believe the world is doomed or you hate nature.

Do you plan on ever having kids? In Chicago? One word: asthma. I doubt you'll call the dangers of pollution bullshit the first time your son or daughter becomes short of breath. My asthma, which is directly related to the pollution in San Jose in the 80s, has on several occasions threatened my life.

So let's not pretend that it's not dangerous. I'm living proof that it is.

seaver...both sides are guilty of politicizing the climate change debate, GHG emissions, and related energy/environment issues.

And the industry side has spent a hell of alot more to get out their message and influence both the public and national legislatures around the world than Gore, the IPCC, NRDC, WWF, Earthwatch, Greenpeace, Worldwatch Institute and the entire environmental movement combined.

CO2 doesn't cause asthma.

CO2 emissions from vehicles and power plants contribute to ozone pollution which adversely impacts public health...just try staying outside on a ozone alert day in Chicago this summer.

Chicago Department of Environment

dc_dux, why even bother? The man posts that "he knows what he knows"....the "environmentalists" are the ones spending all the millions of dollars to spread misinformation for god know what reasons....and if it wasn't for Exxon and other polluters spending so much to fund sites like "Tech Central Station", and organizations that sponsor venues for the fine Senator Inhofe's brilliant press flack, Marc Morano, to present "the truth" about global warming, where on earth would we be?

The environmentalists might sucker us into spending a fraction of what the great war to find the WMD, overthrow the evil dictator, and liberate the good people of Iraq is costing us.

Horrors...musn't have that. The American Petroleum Institute will fund the exposure of liberal hacks, like Al Gore, regarding the great global warming hoax he is leading. We know what we know, after all....we've been right about Al Qaeda being in Iraq, about all the WMD hidden there.....about the integrity and fine and able leadership of our president....

What have you been right about, dc_dux?

Ok now that I have some time I need to expound on this.

DC, your statement is almost everything thats wrong with the 'environmental' movement right now.

Yes, ozone pollution is a problem, its a bad thing. Combustion engines create pollutants which are bad for the environment, such as SO2, NO2, CO, and particulate matter, ALL of which are bad and should be reduced.

But you state 'CO2 emissions' not 'pollution' or what REALLY creates ozone pollution, NO2, but CO2 emissions as if CO2 is the major problem. You are trying to work in that fear, that buggaboo of global warming into the equation to scare people into doing SOMETHING now. Its interfering with really dealing with the real pollution. The cleanest, pollution free internal combustion engine would produce CO2 and water. If there was a new engine which did just that, even if it was quite expensive, I'd be in full support of making such engines mandatory is they would be eliminating huge amounts of measurable and verifiable environmental damage and potential harmful effects to humans.

Instead, we have made CO2 the main enemy, and therefore internal combustion the enemy no matter how 'clean' the burning. This is of course what many of the radical environmentalists want, they see the good of removing the other pollutants worth perpetuating the fear of global warming, even if not true. They think people are too stupid to do whats right, so they can say things like 'CO2 emissions causing ozone pollution' even though CO2 has nothing to do with ozone pollution.

One of the major issues with O3 (thats ozone) is damage to crops/plants, and interestingly increased CO2 helps to negate the negative effects of O3. Basically we are releasing a poison, O3, and releasing the antidote CO2 at least as far as plants are concerned. Animals on the other hand, not so much.

Yes I can Iqaluit.

Ustwo....I didnt say CO2 causes ozone pollution. I said it contributes to it. I agree it may have been poorly worded.

CO2 emitted from fossil fuels burned at power plants and in vehicles causes excess heat to be trapped thus contributing to conditions for ground level ozone pollution....or simply put, excessive CO2 emissions from these sources contribute to air pollution. As more and more CO2 is emitted from anthropogenic sources, the Earth's (forests/plants and oceans) ability to soak up or re-absorb these billions of tons of carbon each year are diminished.

Is that better?

Perhaps this is the solution.....horse power

Oh wait.....methane.

Um.. it was founded in 1942 by the military as an airbase... doesn't quite count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit#Demographics
You sure about that?

Um...I believe your question was:
Which I did, would you like some more Inuit cities, I can name quite a few:
Rankin Inlet 2,358 in 2006
Arviat 2,060
Baker Lake 1,728
Igloolik 1,538
Cambridge Bay 1,477
Pangnirtung 1,325
Pond Inlet 1,315
Kugluktuk 1,302
Cape Dorset 1,236
All those are predominately Inuit cities, and Iqaluit is over 6000 so I believe I have taken care of your questions.

Here's some more information for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Which is a completely moot point, regardless of how big Inuit settlements may have been 500 years ago because no Vikings were living on ice sheets eating seal meat.

Its documented, we have the ruins, we have the accounts, we have the remains.

Vikings were raising cattle and sheep on Greenland doing quite well at first and then over the years it got colder and colder forcing them to leave or starve.

This has only come into question, not because of real evidence, but because it clashes with what global warming alarmists want to claim about current temperatures in relation to past ones.

This is really an excellent straw man for me to beat the crap out of if anyone really wants to argue this point, so please, argue away.

Just dropping in to point out that not all internal combustion engines put out CO2, only those combusting hydrocarbons :) carry on. i'm not sure I can get into this again right now, but I'm enjoying the reading. Following sources. Checking things out. Have a nice day fellow TFP environmental debate type people.

So this is what it has come to....Ustwo beating the crap out of anyone who wants to argue about Vikings or Inuits raising cattle and sheep.

Ustwo...how about responding to the fact that nearly every credible science body/organization in the world has endorsed the IPCC position that post-industrial revolution human activities have resulted in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that are highly likely to contribute to climate change.

Do you know of any scientific bodies/organizations that do not support this position?

Actually it was NOT raising cattle and sheep, and I don't think you 'get' my point, and I know you don't understand the science. It really had nothing to do with anything you were saying in this thread, but other people. I also added that its a straw man because its such an easy global warming alarmist position to debunk. Its not even worth mentioning beyond a basic educational standpoint.

The IPCC is a political organization which does not allow descent in the ranks on global warming, this is documented and I addressed one scientists concern /resignation over it earlier in the thread. Saying we increased greenhouse gasses is not an issue, we have, what the effect is, is the issue.

Scientific bodies? No, not off the top of my head. As you are well aware scientific bodies are political organizations based around money, be it the AMS or the ADA. I do have things like this though.

I suppose these people are all unqualified to analyze the data as well.

Ustwo...in fact, the IPCC does allow dissenting opinions, so your initial premise is incorrect.

A group of 60 scientists around the world representing a minority opinion should be heard. That is why the IPCC recommendations represent a consensus and not unanimous recommendations.

Beyond that, on the surface, these people certainly seem qualified to analyze the IPCC data. I would be interested in seeing where they might receive funding.

But IMO, its a bit disingenuous to assign political motives to those scientists and scientific bodies that endorse the IPCC recommendations and not to scientists who disagree (some of whom may be industry funded).

I assume you believe the latter group (dissenters) is somehow more pure than the former (endorsers). Why doesnt that surprise me?

update: I just searched one name on your list at random.

Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which was funded by energy industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

So why is he more credible and not politically motivated?

Or Arthur B. Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

Credible? Not politcially motivated?

Think it's moot all you like, I was answering a question Seaver asked.

As for your letter Ustwo, how many of those scientists posted past or emeritus positions as their main appointments? Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) listed current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. There's even a journalist(David Wojick) on the list, and a social anthropologist(Benny Peiser), yep tons of climate change knowledge there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...nary_principle
Yep great letter you had there, rather easy to see why you used it as well, it followed your opinion, you agreed with it, didn't bother doing the research into it though.
Considering that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds(journalist anyone), I'd say that some are unqualified to analyse the data, or as qualified as you or any of us to analyse the data.


Here's a letter I found as well:

If you'd like a copy of the signatories I can provide them as well

Fair enough. How about this, can you name a single settlement of 6,000 people on the ice BEFORE the advent of gas powered machines and airlifts?

It's a completely different beast when you can just fly in all the meat/veggies/etc you need vs. making/raising it yourself.

Can you name ONE 21st century scientific body anywhere in the world that doesnt support the position that anthropogenic emissions of GHG contribute to warming?

You think they fly in all the meat the Inuit in these places need? Seriously? Hilarious.

I like how you changed you original question to suit your arguments though, especially after the other question didn't go over so well for you.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...an_impact.html

NASA: Humans are linked to global climate change.

Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming.

This is the only interesting part of that article as it pertains to human created global warming. Without seeing how they did their meta analysis and what data sets were used I can't make any comment pro or con as the statement itself is presented sans evidence.

The idea is that we are warming (quite possible) and that its more than natural. So where does one draw the line between 'natural' and unnatural. Global temperatures are not at the highest point even in civilizations history, so the question is what makes this stand out to the scientists involved. How do they know what 'natural' is? Cynthia Rosenzweig is one of the biggest global warming is going to kill us all types out there, and while I do not discount her work based on her opinion of the matter, I do need more than a small blurb.

.....

Ok did a bit of looking, apparently its a Nature article, which I've been meaning to resubscribe to but haven't. Anything I can find about it is her focusing on the warming but not the human cause.

Interestingly if everything claimed in the study is in fact true, then somewhat ironically there is nothing to be done about it and the warming trend itself will not be reversible (without some sort of invasion of the 3rd world and China) and reducing the global standard of living tremendously.

......

Ok may have found this in the abstract...

Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, ...


They are saying its warmer because the IPCC said it was likely warmer due to human caused warming, they did not do any science on this themselves.

I'd like to think there was more too it than that but so far can't see it.

So basically the paper says things are warmer, which I am not arguing, and that its our fault because they say it is.

Thats special.

This is a story from today....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7404846.stm

Here is the screen capture, and I made the funny part obvious with the power of MSpaint.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/384/globalhy1.jpg

And some of you ask why I am not sold on the global warming (oh pardon), "Climate Change" scare?

What the article basically says is 'we don't know'.

Ustwo - There's always those pesky facts like reduced hurricane activity, record growth of the antarctic ice shelf, and the poor polar bear population facing extinction because their numbers have increased from 5,000 to 25,000 since the 70's :rolleyes: ... which are constant reminders that the science of climate change - cause and effect - is still on shaky ground.

As long as corrections like this recent report (by prominent "greenhouse gases will cause more hurricanes" expert Tom Knutson) keep turning up, I'm keeping an open mind. I think we have years of experts changing their minds and junk science to wade through on global warming (sorry, I should've used the PC flip-flop term "climate-change" )... the jury is definitely still out.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world...cane_link.html

I'm still trying to get a handle why Ustwo and Seaver believe that the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who contributed to the work of the IPCC ...as well as the top 15 national academies of science in the world, 50+ other national and international bodies, etc...have no scientific integrity (they are "political")...

...yet the far far smaller number of scientists who are of a minority opinion (many with easily identifiable conflicts of interests with their work supported by energy interests) are credible and apolitical.... and the fact that no scientific body of any stature anywhere in the world support or endorse that minority position.

I would also like to see that addressed, DC. I'm reminded of similar debates between ID and evolution, where a rag-tag group of "scientists" are going against the grain, but in fact are teaching at Jerry Falwell's school or aren't even biologists or chemists.

I didn't know science was based on democratic principles. I base it on data, hard data, not fuzzy data. Apparently the whole 'hurricane' thing was wrong, perhaps Al Gore was a bit premature blaming the catastrophe in Burma on global warming after all.

Well golly looks like your body of scientists was wrong.

Do you expect me as a scientist, and I am a scientist, even if I am no longer working in the environmental sciences, to say 'well the evidence says this, but these people all seem to think something else so I better back down and agree'?

You have the avatar that dissent is patriotic, and yet because I do not abide by the thought of mass bodies that the fault must be with me? I am not alone, there are very distinguished scientists who share my position, and that number is growing.

The last half of my day today was looking at scientific, peer reviewed and published papers, that were wrong. These are on systems far less complex than the global environment, but still they were wrong, and provably so. I reserve the right to review such studies, like the one I investigated that will posted above and come to my own conclusions as a formally educated environmental scientist.

Amusingly while reading another global warming article a couple of days ago the scientist in question stated the reason we haven't seen the rise in temperature predicted was in fact we should be entering an ice age phase. Wouldn't it be ironic if we were in fact warming the planet and in so doing we were holding off the next ice age? Global cooling would be far more catastrophic for humanity than any projected warming trend. Now I don't agree that this is the case, but it is food for thought, don't you think?

Just because a group of "experts" says it's one way "apparently doesn't mean it's based on sound or unbiased scientific methodologies. For example, we are constantly told that the polar ice is melting away, but a recent report from NOAA says the opposite.So which is it?

I'm guessing some would say that the voice of the minority must always be protected. Our government is a representative form of government, but science is absolutely not a democratic process. We see on a daily basis the cracks forming (pun intended) in hardcore global warming activism. If we continue to close our minds to level thinking, jump to conclusions and say the discussion is over, then we risk rolling down the path of quick short-sighted feel-good measures like crop subsidies for ethanol production. The geniuses that pushed that through must not have considered the possibility of panic over the resulting world food shortage.
dc_dux and host ... you get an A+ on your homework assignment. I step away for a little while and come back and take a peak at last week's posts to this thread to find lot's of cutting and pasting! Excellent work. I'll have your next assignments soon.

Where's raveneye when you need him?

Steven Milloy? Ustwo - I see why you've resurected the "Hypno Toad". ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

Speaking of Steven Milloy, I think you guys really need to take "The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge!" Heck, you should be able to rack up a fast $500,000 with your consensus of scientists (be sure it's not the same consensus of scientists that predicted the next ice age in the 1970's).

Steven Milloy is in league with the Hypno Toad, controling our minds ...
http://www.creepygif.com/images/full/404.gif

OK, regarding the "consensus of scientists" ...

... this is from a May 16 blog (by Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers) about a new petition signed by members from the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science (a who’s who of Science). They gathered approximately 32,000 signatures from which 9,000 have PhD's. The 32,000 is a significant increase of signatures since the 17,800 of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Petition Project of 2001. Since the Oregon petition, most were The full blog article can be found at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx

A note on "The Deniers" and author Lawrence Solomon.
The National Post's sensational series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Written by Lawrence Solomon, the series profiles the ideas and the scientists who do not share the “consensus” United Nations’ theories on climate change and global warming. Read them all."

So my friends, the question goes 'round and 'round ... "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"

Ustwo...no one here has denied your right to dissent from the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

What I find disingenuous is the double standards you apply to those who endorse the IPCC position and recommendations and those who dissent, particularly those many "scientists" you have cited in earlier posts (including some in your recent post 131) who, after a quick search, were found to have a potential conflict of interest with their work being funded by energy companies.

The fact remains that there is an overwhelming majority of climate (and other) scientist who believe that the millions of tons of anthropogenic GHG emissions each year are harmful to the environment and are highly likely to have a long term negative impact on the world's climate.

We can act now with reasonable policies and actions to lower GHG emissions from power plants, cars, heavy industry in an economically sustainable manner, as well as take other reasonable actions with regard to other potentially harmful emissions....(I dont support all of the IPCC recommendations and I have stated that on numerous occasions)....

Or we can do nothing , wait until the climate scientists reach a unanimous finding while we continue to spew millions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere and hope they dont significantly contribute to long term environmental and climatic degradation.

I believe the US government should act now since we are a major contributor and serve as a model for responsible actions (we have no control over other countries). If the hundreds (or thousands) of IPCC scientists, the 15 national academies of science, the 50 other scientific bodies around the world are proven wrong in 10-20 years...the worst we would suffer is the cost of implementing energy and environmental conservation programs.

If your guys are wrong, we potential suffer a much worse fate.

Otto.....you can play the Steve Milloy or Marc Morano card as often as you like.

If that is your best shot, you have already blown that wad repeatedly.

Where are these growing number of credible dissenters...who are not funded by energy interests? I see a trickle not a groundswell.

Why cant you or Ustwo point to even one credible national or international scientific body that endorses or supports the work of Steve Milloy...or that does not endorse the IPCC position on anthropogenic GHG emissions? One national meteorological organization...one geophysics organization....ANY ORGANIZATION!
(since Ustwo has gone to the color mode to make his point - I chose RED for the increasing number of CODE RED days we face each passing summer).

Consensus = overwhelming majority, with a recognition that it is not unanimous.

So tell me why hundreds (or thousands) of climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC final report, the 15 top national academies of science in the world, more than 50 other national or international meteorological, climate or other related (or general) scentific bodies do not constitute a consensus?

But you are correct in one respect...we just go round and round. You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whore and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of scientific bodies.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to the Senate debate this summer on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (even though its not a great bill, with cap and trade provisions at its core, but its a start)....particularly the highly anticipated circus performance of Sen. Inhofe (the Senate's chief denier) and if McCain will waffle.

I love it when you talk that tough-guy talk!

Sorry you were all worked up putting me in my place that you couldn't notice that I was totally punking you guys for even bringing up Steve Milloy (remember to say "evil" when referring to Steve Milloy) in this conversation. Give me a break. I knew the "challenge" would immediately get a rise for two reasons ....

1. I know that you and other like minded folk cannot resist launching an all out discrediting assault upon the mere mention of anything to do with "evil" Steve (the response was great entertainment, thank you)
2. None of you could actually take the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge and win, so you must quickly discredit anything about it to deflect attention away from that fact.

I couldn't care less about "evil" Steve or Marc Morano. Nothing I've said has ever been quoted from either of them. You pulled those guys out of a hat because it's an easy (and baseless) cheap shot to avoid the discussion. I gave raveneye shit for that a long time ago too (anyone heard from that pleasant fellow lately?).

So "if that's YOUR BEST SHOT" ... tough guy. :thumbsup:

Here, I'll say this in bold tough-guy-red like you ...
Why cant you or host, or anybody with your "consensus of scientists" just take THE ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CHALLENGE so you can send your $500,000 to one of Al Gore's carbon credit scams, I mean eco corporations?
How was that?

BTW- I just addressed your credible scientific body question in an edit to my previous post. I look forward to your rationalizing that away.

Please excuse me while I go and channel my marching orders from "evil" Steve and the hypno toad.

* * * * EDIT: Cool.... I see there's more made-up stuff added to your last post since reading mine. Getting very personal, how will I go on?[/B]

Now that was an easy leap based on absolutely zero facts (well... not for some). We wouldn't want to would we?

That's either intellectual density or more of that tough-guy talk.

You may believe your link that references the Global Warming Petition Project with 30,000+ names is credible....I do not.

Do you even take a few minutes to verify your links or check the potential credibility lapses they may pose?

It is a project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

****
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...nizations.html

More on the "Oregon Project:
Are some signators credible...sure. I have no idea how many? Do you?

31,000? ummmm...i dont think so.

Did I 'rationalize it (your link and the "petition") away to your satisfaction?

Repeating myself...we just go round and round. You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whores (like the Marshall Institute who co-funded your petition project) and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of actual credible scientific bodies.

Tough enough talk for you? I like to think of it as my own "straight talk" express.

You ignored that your precious scientific body on global warming the IPCC was just proven WRONG. So wrong in fact that their promotion of the concept that hurricanes were being directly effected by global warming is what caused resignations from the IPCC.

You support them like you support a political ideology but you don't understand the science, thats obvious. As of right now the score is dentist 1 IPCC and political operative who only posts in political thread on TFP 0 when it comes to supposed effect of global warming (did I hurt anyones feelings by not saying climate change?).

I'd say the difference between this dentist and you is that when McCain starts spouting global warming feel good nonsense I'll still call it nonsense, but if the democrats start to back off from "Climate Change" you will be changing your tune to march lock step.

Ustwo....are you open to other analyses of the recent Knutson study or are you so set in your political ideology that you wont even consider such possibilities.
I dont claim to have expertise. What I do have is a capacity to read various analyses and assess their objectivity to the best of my ability.

You find one study that you agree with and immediately determine that the IPCC HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. Sorry, that approach doesnt work for me.

You're the expert...so what do you find to be invalid with this Real Climate analysis of Knutson? Particularly this statement:

We know, for example, from the work of Santer et al. that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate. Knutson et al. do not contest this. Furthermore, they do not dispute that the late 20th century increase in Atlantic TC (tropical cyclone) frequency is tied to large-scale SST (sea surface temperatures) trends (though they argue that the influence may be non-local rather than local). So we know that (i) the warming is likely in large part anthropogenic, and (ii) that the recent increases in TC frequency are related to that warming.

Doc...Are you one of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed the OISM petition? It certainly is impossible to tell since their list of signators only has names...no titles, no organization/university affiliation, no contact info....in fact, no way to verify.

dc its quite the opposite. The IPCC used one study, which was not well supported, and has now been taken to task for it. Its not like this is the first, or only study saying that hurricanes we are currently experiencing have nothing to do with global warming.

But more good news today for science....

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/371688

dc you keep deciding science based on committee, I'll keep reading what data I can find out there and drawing my own conclusions.

Ustwo....what I asked you to explain to me with your expertise was this particularly point raised by the Real Climate analysis of Knutson:

Knutson et al. do not contest that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate.

Am I reading that wrong or is that correct...that Knutson does not contest anthropogenic impacts?

Ustwo..I am not deciding science. My focus and interest is public policy.

And in that respect, you are correct that I do place value on the positions of reputable scientific organizations arrived at through an open deliberative process, particularly US scientific bodies. I think policy makers should give serious consideration to the positions held by such bodies of experts and not cherry pick single studies that support a pre-conceived policy position.

I think it is fair to say that you dont because you cant find one that supports your position.

If Knutson were to present his study to the American Meteorological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union or some equally credible body, and they adopt a resolution to endorse it and disavow their endorsement of the IPCC position... I would certainly be receptive to rethinking my position.