Global Warming

[Sonart]

Many of these organisations are political. There are also scientists who are against global warming.

Name one, and a source showing its politically ideological agenda.

Looking back at past posts I have still found no proof of global warming, only (claims) and speculation.

Then you obviously haven't actually looked, or you've simply focused on science's caution about claiming anything as proven fact.

Gravity is only a theory... we don't actually know for sure what causes it. But we know for a fact that it exists. We don't know all the details about exactly how evolution works, but we know for a fact that it does. And we may not know everything about anthropogenic global warming, but we know for a fact that it's happening, it's happening faster than predicted, and that we're largely, if not completely, responsible for it.

There are also scientists who are against global warming.

Yeah, sure, and there's still some scientists who will claim tobacco isn't addictive and won't hurt you.

So name one I can't connect to either the Oil/Gas industry, or to some libertarian free market think tanks that oppose global warming because they don't want the government creating new regulations of the free market.

The same free market that created the problem in the first place.

And no matter who you name, it doesn't come even close to the overwhelming consensus I listed below.

.

[dan4reason]

Name one, and a source showing its politically ideological agenda.

This is too easy. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - "From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low.” –Dr. James Hansen, lead climate scientist and director of Goddard

NASA is a government agency and therefore connected to politics.

Then you obviously haven't actually looked, or you've simply focused on science's caution about claiming anything as proven fact.

Gravity is only a theory... we don't actually know for sure what causes it. But we know for a fact that it exists. We don't know all the details about exactly how evolution works, but we know for a fact that it does. And we may not know everything about anthropogenic global warming, but we know for a fact that it's happening, it's happening faster than predicted, and that we're largely, if not completely, responsible for it.

You keep on saying we know, we know, but you have not provided any proof. Could you please provide this?

And by the way, I have lookedat the "proof", and I found it illogical.

Yeah, sure, and there's still some scientists who will claim tobacco isn't addictive and won't hurt you.

So name one I can't connect to either the Oil/Gas industry, or to some libertarian free market think tanks that oppose global warming because they don't want the government creating new regulations of the free market.

The same free market that created the problem in the first place.

And no matter who you name, it doesn't come even close to the overwhelming consensus I listed below.

You cannot say that all scientists believe that we are causing global warming then.

[Sonart]

.

NASA is a government agency and therefore connected to politics.

Attaboy... the same people who flew us to the moon and back, who launched Hubble, and who made the U.S. the leaders in space science, but now you insist that they've simply 'invented' global warming. However, that's only one out of the 11 I listed.

And more importantly, perhaps you've forgotten that for the last 8 years, the politics in Washington was totally dominated by anti-global warming Republicans!

The State of Science Under the Bush Administration - The American people depend upon federal agencies to promote scientific research and to develop science-based policies that protect the nation’s health and welfare. Historically, these agencies — such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency — have had global reputations for scientific excellence.

However, leading scientific journals have questioned whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote in early 2003, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.”

It seems the only 'political agenda' is with those opposing the findings of scientific research.

You keep on saying we know, we know, but you have not provided any proof. Could you please provide this?

I'm not a scientist, dan, so I can't prove anything. All I can do is provide you with links to the most authoritative scientific institutions currently reviewing the research being done...

...which is what I did in my last post, to say nothing of the endless posts in this thread linking to other sources and research. What is it, exactly, among this overwhelming evidence that you don't comprehend?

And by the way, I have lookedat the "proof", and I found it illogical.

Well alright then... I guess we'll just notify...

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
the American Geophysical Union
the American Meteorological Society
the National Weather Association
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA, Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies, Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes,
Scientific American, the Journal Science and the Journal Nature

...and let them know you find their conclusions, based on 30 years of increasingly intense research, "illogical".

Me, I find it completely logical, so perhaps you can suggest something specific you're having a problem with.

You cannot say that all scientists believe that we are causing global warming then.

Yeah... so?

Like I said, there's still some scientists who don't think smoking is harmful. They're wrong. Likewise, those scientists who don't believe man is causing global warming are simply wrong. After all, someone's gotta be wrong here.

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real

Here ya go, dan... here's a partial list of just some of the people who were global warming cynics, but now believe anthropogenic global warming is real.

.

[Affluence]

What do you guys think about this and what could be done, short and long term?

Is it really fake? I wanted to find out more about the subject and talked to a scientist recently and he told me that Global Warming is a total hoax and it was dreamed up for financial reasons and it would pad the pockets of Al Gore and his friends the most to progress on this track... Is this different than any other political agenda?... Any thoughts?...

[Keni]

So we have lots of scientists who agree we have global warming and some who don't.
Whether pollution causes warming or not, at least people in world governments are finally starting to look for alternate energy sources and reduce the outputs of toxic crap.
I can't see why anyone would be against the result, regardless of the reason its happening.

[Keni]

So we have lots of scientists who agree we have global warming and some who don't.
Whether pollution causes warming or not, at least people in world governments are finally starting to look for alternate energy sources and reduce the outputs of toxic crap.

[Keni]

oops sorry I dont know why it did that

[Affluence]

oops sorry I dont know why it did that

No you have a valid point. I too agree its a good thing that we are using less toxic sources of emissions. Who would have known... I am REcycling... :)

[soothsayer]

CARBONGATE – Global Warming Study Censored by EPA « Watts Up With That?

If this doesn't awaken the "warmists" nothing will.

Its okay to admit you've been had. Happens to the best of us from time to time.

[Sonart]

.

If this doesn't awaken the "warmists" nothing will.

LOLOLOL!!!!

Excuse me while I clean the soda I spewed laughing off my keyboard.

Right... ok, so the Competitive Enterprise Institute - ("We believe that the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace, rather than government intervention." - TRANSLATION: Opposed to all government regulation) is suddenly soooo concerned about what goes on at the EPA.

Let's see now... "The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages."

Wow... 'suppressed' an 'internal memo' about a report. This would be, of course, the same EPA whose 2003 annual report on the environment was rewritten by the Bush administration, along with other government reports on global warming.

W. House Guts Global Warming Study, 2003 - "In a draft of the (EPA) report strong language that "climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was stricken by the White House; as was government research that suggests recent climate change is "likely mostly due to human activities.

The revised draft removed a reference to a 1999 study showing global temperatures had risen sharply in the past decade compared to the previous 1,000 years. But it did cite another study, partly paid for by the oil industry, challenging the uniqueness of recent temperature increases."

Rewriting The Science, 2006 - "James Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But as correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last spring, this imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science."

Scientists Say Bush Stifles Science and Lets Global Leadership Slip, 2008 - "Science has been seriously undermined by the censorship and alteration of testimony and news releases," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Science and facts are not a factor in decisions, and ideology dominates."

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science, WIRED, 2004 - "The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether."

Bush-League Lysenkoism, Scientific American, 2004 - "In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

The Political Science Test, TIME Magazine, 2006 - "growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their findings -- on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell research and other areas in which science often finds itself at odds with religious, ideological or corporate interests -- are being discounted, distorted or quashed by Bush Administration appointees."

The Junk Science of George W. Bush, 2004 - "Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration--aided by right-wing allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their goals--are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda."

"Conservative think tanks" would be the likes of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who you've already met...

the American Enterprise Institute ("AEI is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of a free society--limited government"), TRANSLATION: Opposed to government regulation

the Cato Institute ("Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace") -- ooops, there's our friend Richard Lindzen again -- TRANSLATION: Opposed to government regulation

the Hoover Institution ("Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity.... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves....") TRANSLATION: Opposed to government regulation

the Heritage Foundation ("The Heritage Foundation is committed to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish") TRANSLATION: Opposed to government regulation

You get the drift.

.

[soothsayer]

Do that mean you are "for" the kind of "government regulations" that enrich Goldman Sachs and their "front" organizations by creating cycle after cycle of economic "bubble" and bust for which Goldman Sachs paid $100million to the Obushma campaign?

Every single social and economic problem one can point to in the WORLD is the result of governmental manipulation.

[Keni]

Surely everyone agrees that there needs to be a reduction in pollution and an increase in clean energy.
If steps are made toward this, it doesnt matter what the reason is called.
For those who doubt global warming, what possible good would it do to deny it, prevent environmental improvements and cling to old pollution methods?

[Orangutan]

I don't doubt global warming, we are after all recovering from the last ice age.

I deny the stupid and irresponsible claim that mankind's use of energy is to "blame" for an increase in temperature, though hopefully we are contributing to CO2, seeing as how it helps plants grow.

This thread is WAY too long to go wading through it all but I'm curious how people can ignore the clear evidence put forward by sceptical scientists, who show so damn clearly that CO2 has little if anything to do with it?

Anyway, Keni, you ask what possible good would it do to deny it, as though somehow we should just throw our concerns out the window and go along with this fake "consensus"?

Well that's a somewhat loaded question but I'll give you a simple answer.

Because restricting our use of energy, especially in the 3rd world, will lead the the death of millions, the poverty of hundreds of millions and for what?

So we can claim we tried, ineffectively, to alter the weather?

We directly and indirectly impoverish mankind, because, horror of horrors, the temperature could rise as high as it used to be? Greenland could be green again?

We could grow grapes and make wine, like we used to in England?

So what? Warmer temps and more CO2 means more food.

The real reason for all this hype is to create guilt and yet another tax, in order to bail out bankrupt governments while helping Goldman Sachs and the like speculate on an unregulated new market, seeing as they've wrecked all the others.

Your question is, essentially, 'What possible good could it do to not restrict mankind', where the real question is what good is restricting mankind?

How is impoverishment, death, stagnation and going backwards, a good thing, exactly?



O.

[Keni]

I'm not advocating going back to the dark ages by any means. Its just that for the first time there is worldwide interest in developing new clean energy technology.
I am reading between the lines that your country is under siege by nasty little profiteers regarding this?
Here in Oz we have had a surge in support for clean technology, desalination plants and similar.
We have also suffered unprecedented drought and heatwaves.
Warmer temperatures might mean more food in some parts of the world, but its been killing off crops over here.

[Orangutan]

I'm not advocating going back to the dark ages by any means

I know - because it was warmer back then...

I am reading between the lines that your country is under siege by nasty little profiteers regarding this?

Yeah but indirectly, such as wasting vast areas of pristine rainforest for fecking palm oil. My point is that governments are banding together to shove a 'carbon tax' down our throats while pilfering our pockets.

There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming, if anything the evidence proves it doesn't. CO2 levels tend to rise and fall with temperature - but after temps go up CO2 rises. So how the hell is that considered a cause?

Likewise if you look at temp rises and then compare those to sun activity and CO2 emission, it's glaringly obvious that sun activity drives climate, not CO2.

CO2 is plant food, so an increase in CO2 would help plants in Australia.

Yes, there's a gradual warming, which started a long time ago. In contrast the sudden increase in CO2 since man released more of it has had ZERO effect on that trend. Increasing temperatures may hurt crops in Australia but reducing CO2 certainly isn't going to help them.


O.

[Sonart]

.

Do that mean you are "for" the kind of "government regulations" that enrich Goldman Sachs and their "front" organizations by creating cycle after cycle of economic "bubble" and bust for which Goldman Sachs paid $100million to the Obushma campaign?

I am "for" solving the crisis of humanity destroying our own planet. Whether we do it through free market innovation or government fiat, I don't give rat's ass, as long as we do something before it's no longer possible to do something.

For instance, Al Gore is on a crusade to enlist captains of private industry and technology to lead the way...

The Resurrection of Al Gore, WIRED, 2006 - "After the souped-up climatology lecture, a smaller crowd dined at the Schwab Center on campus. There, at tables topped with earth-shaped ice sculptures melting symbolically in the warmth of surrounding votive candles, guests mingled with Gore and his wife, Tipper, along with experts from Stanford's Woods Center for the Environment and the business-friendly Environmental Entrepreneurs. The goal: to enlist the assembled leaders in finding market-driven, technological solutions to global warming and then, in quintessential Silicon Valley style, to rapidly disseminate their ideas and change the world. "I need your help here," an emotional Gore pleaded at the end of the evening. "Working together, we can find the technologies and the political will to solve this problem." The crowd fell hard."

Personally, I find your nitpicking and dogmatic fear mongering of regulation plain silly. Try to keep in mind that it was the free market, stripped of regulation by 20 years of conservative government, that got us into the current fix we're in, not over regulation.

Tell me, if you got cancer, would you ignore it because it might be expensive to cure?

I don't doubt global warming, we are after all recovering from the last ice age.

Recovered, from the last Ice Age, not recovering. Look at any graph of Ice Age cycles, and you'll see that we peaked out of the last Ice Age 10,000 to 8,000 years ago and that we should be - right now - slowly descending into the next Ice Age. What has commonly been referred to as "the Little Ice Age" was simply the first manifestations of that gradual decrease in temperatures... which was suddenly and dramatically reversed by the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the population explosion and anthropogenic global warming.

]Likewise if you look at temp rises and then compare those to sun activity and CO2 emission, it's glaringly obvious that sun activity drives climate, not CO2.

See... now this is one of those places where it might have been to your benefit to actually read some of the previous posts, because it's been pointed out repeatedly that this has been thoroughly researched and proven false.

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows - ScienceDaily, May 2009


Stanford Solar Center - "While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases... greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global warming are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance,"

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming - "Or, in other words, the Earth is continuing to heat up even though the Sun is chilling out, relatively speaking. Neat stuff, and a little more ammo for those of you fed up with global warming deniers."

Milankovitch Cycles: Changes in Earth-Sun Interaction - "Though Milankovitch cycles do explain long-term climate change, they can't account for changes being made by humans, which appear to have an even greater effect than variations in earth-sun interaction."

We directly and indirectly impoverish mankind, because, horror of horrors, the temperature could rise as high as it used to be? Greenland could be green again?

Greenland was green when global temperatures reached their peak after the last Ice Age. Temperatures should be cooling now, based on regular Ice Age cycles and the Milankovitch orbit cycle. Perhaps you didn't notice, but they're definitely not cooling and haven't been since... oh my gosh, what a coincidence... the onset of the industrial revolution and the human population explosion.

.

[Orangutan]

I suggest you take a long hard look at your own graph.

According to that, CO2 is off the charts - but the temperature isn't?

Just glancing at that graph suggests the current temperature is noticably LOWER than it has been previously.

The only thing that graph appears to show is that either we're getting better at measuring or the planet's climate is settling into slower periods of change, not faster.

I presume, somewhere in this 100 page thread, someone has mentioned the petition project, right? Now let's look at a graph of more relevant time periods:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/...ion/Slide3.png

Big increase in CO2 (though CO2 is a tiny fraction of our air) and no noticable difference in temps - yet the temps DO directly match solar activity. So how does that match up with "that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases"?

WHAT effects? The Earth hasn't warmed for the last 10 years, your own damn graph shows temperatures are still well within the norm, so just what effects is this referring to?

Has man released more CO2 than before? Sure, heaps of it, tons of the stuff, enough to even register, if you look close enough. Has that ever caused warming before? Nope, no evidence. Is there any evidence of it warming the planet now? Nope.

And I wouldn't say "Recovered" from the last ice age, again your own graph suggests we had a ways to go still, before going somewhat fuzzy and NOT climbing to the expected peak? Which makes sense, seeing as the sun is unusually lazy right now. And that IS scary.

It's good that you admit Greenland used to be green. Some people seem to have trouble with that. You say we 'peaked' already and should be cooling - but first, "EEEEK! We're not COOLING as fast as we expected!!" is NOT "global warming", now is it?

Secondly, if that was or this is a 'peak', then how come Greenland aint green again yet?


Seriously, before I can begin to take this stuff seriously, explain the Greenland thing? How can you scream blue murder about warming, when we didn't even reach the peak of the last hot spot?

Or the one before that?

Heck, the one before that was even hotter!

I mean c'mon, you're showing me a graph where CO2 is going through the roof, temperatures are stagnant or dropping, and the best defense of the "CO2 causes global warming" farce you have is "Gee, see, should be cooler by now!"

Global whatting, exactly?

Panic, panic, global stable temperatures!


I mean, dude, WTF? You might want to hide that graph next time you discuss this topic...



O.

[Keni]

I know - because it was warmer back then...



There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming, if anything the evidence proves it doesn't. CO2 levels tend to rise and fall with temperature - but after temps go up CO2 rises. So how the hell is that considered a cause?

Likewise if you look at temp rises and then compare those to sun activity and CO2 emission, it's glaringly obvious that sun activity drives climate, not CO2.

CO2 is plant food, so an increase in CO2 would help plants in Australia.

Yes, there's a gradual warming, which started a long time ago. In contrast the sudden increase in CO2 since man released more of it has had ZERO effect on that trend. Increasing temperatures may hurt crops in Australia but reducing CO2 certainly isn't going to help them.


O.

It was 49.5C (121F) on my back verandah for 4 days in a row this year.
Again. In an area where the usual temp in summer for the last hundred years was 35, max. 44 every 30 years or so.
I don't know if you've lived in 49C but it feels more like a recipe direction than a climate.

According to the local aboriginal people, including an anthropologist, it has never been this hot, or such severe drought and weather - and they have lived here for thousands of years.

Pollution is about a lot more than CO2. If its causing global warming, we need to stop it.
If the earth is warming naturally, we need to stop polluting also.
We will need every bit of arable land and clean energy we can get, because nothing is surviving these temperatures.
(I assume we can all come to your house and eat your grapes?).

[Sonart]

.

According to that, CO2 is off the charts - but the temperature isn't?

Give it time, Orangutan. Temperatures are rising exactly as predicted, based entirely on the greenhouse affect of human forced CO2.

Actually, I take that back... temperatures are rising FASTER than predicted, probably because of unforeseen positive feedback loops, like the release of methane from melting permafrost, or the reflective qualities of disappearing ice sheets.

Just glancing at that graph suggests the current temperature is noticably LOWER than it has been previously.

Sure, lower than in 1998, but not much lower, and entirely explained, if you bothered to read back a bit. Oh, that's right... you can't be bothered.

The current slight (still the warmest decade in history) cooling since 2000 exactly correlates with the 11 year sunspot cycles. Here's a really cool chart showing that correlation.

Beyond that, current global temperatures remain higher now than at any time in recorded history... ever!

I presume, somewhere in this 100 page thread, someone has mentioned the petition project, right?

Oh, a couple dozen times. As the jocks like to say, "Is that all ya got?" The good 'ol Oregon Institute Project is not only out of date, from 12 years ago, it has been thoroughly debunked, with the finding that very few of the names actually had advance degrees or had anything to with the actual study of global warming.

Seattle Times 1998 - "Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." ...Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said."

Scientific American, 2001 - "Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

WHAT effects? The Earth hasn't warmed for the last 10 years,

Already addressed.

It's good that you admit Greenland used to be green. Some people seem to have trouble with that.

That would be because I know considerably more on the subject than you.

"EEEEK! We're not COOLING as fast as we expected!!" is NOT "global warming", now is it?

THIS is not cooling by any stretch of the imagination. Kindly note that while the graph spikes up and down (with solar cycles), the overall trend is steadily upward. And like I said, based on historical fluctuations, it should be cooling. But then, historically there have never been 7 billion human beings artificially spewing 25 billion tons of CO2 annually, on top of what nature creates.

Secondly, if that was or this is a 'peak', then how come Greenland ain't green again yet?

Jeez, it's like debating a 6 yr-old. Bet you looked out your window and didn't see any greenhouse gases floating by. A green Greenland? They're working on it.

Global Warming: Greenland When It's Hot, National Geographic, 2007 - "The Arctic frontier is changing faster than anywhere else on Earth—in ways both spectacular and terrifying. The sea ice is melting, the glaciers are crumbling, and scientists and adventurers are scrambling like mad just to keep up."

Global warming, live 24/7, June 2009 - "I’m always a sucker for a breakaway territory story, but this one has a twist: it’s happening because of global warming. Greenland’s economy has long relied on Danish government subsidies, as Greenland hasn’t had much economic activity other than shrimp fishing and subsistence hunting. Global warming is being felt more keenly in Greenland than perhaps anywhere else: the cold season is getting shorter, making it more difficult to dogsled, essential to the Greenlanders’ traditional seal hunting."

Paradoxes of Global Warming: Greenland is Going Up! - "Greenland is actually going upwards, rising up with 4 cm (1.6 in) annually, all this linked to the Greenland's melting ice cap.

"The Earth is elastic and if you put a load on top of it, then the surface will move down; if you remove the load, then the surface will start rising again. In the case of Greenland, the "load" is its ice cap" said Shfaqat Khan of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen."

Seriously, before I can begin to take this stuff seriously, explain the Greenland thing? How can you scream blue murder about warming, when we didn't even reach the peak of the last hot spot?

We've already reached and passed that peak. It's simply happening so fast - 200 years is a geological blink of an eye - that it takes time for the entire globe to adjust.

But as my Greenland links above about point out, it's definitely not like nothing is happening there. Greenland is warming and warming fast!

GREENLAND -- POSTER CHILD FOR GLOBAL WARMING, MSNBC, Sept. 2007

I mean c'mon, you're showing me a graph where CO2 is going through the roof, temperatures are stagnant or dropping, and the best defense of the "CO2 causes global warming" farce you have is "Gee, see, should be cooler by now!"

Not my fault you can't comprehend what's put in front of your own eyes.

.

[Century 25]

I'm not advocating going back to the dark ages by any means. Its just that for the first time there is worldwide interest in developing new clean energy technology.
I am reading between the lines that your country is under siege by nasty little profiteers regarding this?
Here in Oz we have had a surge in support for clean technology, desalination plants and similar.
We have also suffered unprecedented drought and heatwaves.
Warmer temperatures might mean more food in some parts of the world, but its been killing off crops over here.

For America, specifically the US, we already are well into another dark age era. It also is true and very much because of the.. 'nasty little profiteers' (along with their other 'leg' - the 'christian' gang) - that we are a nation..? nah, a country divided and dumbed-down by the nasty little media monster which is owned by this nasty little syndicate here.

I think Obama is trying to correct our course.. but.... I think it is like trying to stop a train wreck by putting out a foot & dragging it.

Btw, where I am we have those 45 and 50 degree days too.