Moving on to Global Lukewarming

More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/...

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

You're right that the winter was a cold one is South Dakota, and indeed the whole United States. And that means what exactly? I believe I've read somewhere that 2009 has been colder than 2008, but again I don't see how that relates to global warming.

You do realize that global warming is an average increase in global temperatures, don't you? Saying "It snowed yesterday" or "It was cold this year" doesn't have any effect on whether global warming is true. Just like saying "it was really hot yesterday" or "this year has been really warm" doesn't have any effect either. Indeed if you say any of these things, it really only shows that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Want to disprove global warming? Then disprove what the theory of global warming says: that the Earth's average temperature has been continuously increasing. Find scientific data that shows the Earth's average temperature has not been increasing. Global warming does not say it will not snow. Global warming does not say there will be no more cold winters. So when you use these things as evidence against global warming, it kind of looks foolish.

In 2007, sea ice loss was the worst in recorded history. Can you explain to me why this is?

"Want to disprove global warming? Then disprove what the theory of global warming says: that the Earth's average temperature has been continuously increasing."

It's already been done, Braden. Where were you? Probably busy worshipping at Al Gore's Church of the Socialist Miracle.

Most are now admitting that temperatures have leveled off over the past several years, with many even saying temps are going down. In fact, we're starting to hear renewed calls (as we heard in the 1970s) of a coming ice age. But you won't hear that if you spend all your time in Al Gore's church with your sanctified ear plugs in.

It's really much simpler to figure out, as I've said over and over and over and over (and it never seems to penetrate the thick skulls of folks like yourself). When you have when you have thousands of scientists who aren't buying this socialist fantasy, when you have data going back thousands of years showing cyclic ups and downs (Greenland was once FAR warmer than it is now), when you have verifiably proven errors in some of the key data, when you have demonstrably unreliable data collection (like temperature stations next to air conditioning heat exhausts), and when you have global warming occuring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter (where there are no SUVs, no evil power plants, and no humans at all), it becomes laughably obvious what a gargantuan joke this whole idea is.

It's really quite sad and pathetic that ostensibly intelligent human beings could be so misled as to buy this garbage. It might fly in a Saturday afternoon Sci Fi Channel C-Grade disaster movie...but not in the light of even minimal rational thought.

"Most are now admitting that temperatures have leveled off over the past several years, with many even saying temps are going down."

Evidence is needed to prove something like that. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. There is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than at any time since the Creteceous Period. I don't know what graphs you're looking at, but average global temperatures have continued to steadily increase since 1880, being almost 2 degrees warmer than they were then. (6-10 degrees is the difference between Ice Ages temperatures and today's) You wouldn't expect to find these things if our temperature was leveling off.

"when you have thousands of scientists who aren't buying this socialist fantasy"

The debate in science is about how seriousl global warming will be, and how much of a role humans are playing in it. No serious scientist will deny that the Earth is getting warmer.

"when you have data going back thousands of years showing cyclic ups and downs"

Right, and we should be in a cyclic down period, leading to another Ice Age, which occur about ever 10-12,000 years. Obviously we are not, as the Earth is instead getting warmer. This is what lead scientists to believe other factors are in play.

"Greenland was once FAR warmer than it is now"

During the Medival Warm Period, yes Greenland was warm. However global temperatures are already higher than in the Medival Warm Period, which is probably why Greenland's glaciers are melting.

"when you have global warming occuring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter"

Solar output has been on the decline (slightly) since 2000. Climate changes on Mars can be explained by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. Mars doesn't have a large moon like we do to prevent this. Jupiter's temperature is affected very little by the Sun, as it has no surface for sunlight to radiate back off of.

I really think that rather than making fun of people trying to understand and combat this problem you should study it some more yourself. Citing snowfall in South Dakota and increasing temperatures on Jupiter as evidence against global warming shows that you still have at least some misunderstandings about it.

Believe me, if global warming was bunk, I'd be the first to acknowledge it. But so far, I have yet to see any evidence against it that is not easily disproven, which concerns me. Maybe I'm wrong, and scientists will one day discover that unseen phenomenon was making Earth's temperature go up. But I find it our that Earth's temperature continues to go up just as we humans are putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Don't you find this a little suspicious?

You are truly hilarious! You are living proof of why I call the theory of anthropogenic global warming a religion--it takes more faith to believe this junk than it does the average religious dogma.

You must have been reading Al Gore's temperature data...which conveniently excludes the fact that the 10 warmest years have NOT occurred in the last 15 years. The UK Telegraph ran an article on this a couple of years ago. Temps have been falling since 1998, with 2007 falling to the same level as 1983. The article also pointed out that NASA's figures have been corrected to show that 4 of the 10 hottest years of the last century were in the 1930s--the hottest of all in 1934.

If global temps are warmer now than they were when they were growing vineyards in Greenland...why is most of Greenland still covered in ice?

It's also laughably "convenient" that you think "small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt" explain warming on Mars and Jupiter (which do still receive significant sunlight from earth)...but by golly, it HAS to be those evil SUVs on earth! No tilting could be occurring on earth! Couldn't be the documented changes in solar activity, either, no way!

I really don't want to make fun of people who buy this hilarious garbage. But when you insist on flushing common sense down the toilet and clinging to unfounded notions that are totally ludicrous, well, I'm afraid there's no other reasonable way to respond to such adamant idiocy than with hysterical laughter.

For the most part, I don't hold ignorance against people too strongly. People should still be responsible for educating themselves, but with the massive and systemic campaign of lies, misinformation and ignorance coming from our education establishment, the scientific community and the "mainstream" media, I'm willing to cut folks a little sprout.

But when presented with information that practically screams that Al Gore and his acolytes are full of it, anyone who continues to cling to the wacko ideas of anthropogenic global warming deserves to be laughed at. There is simply no other appropriate response.

As the Bible says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." AGP is foolish, and anyone who insists on clinging to the theory after being shown the compelling evidence that it is total bunk is foolish. Anything less than answering that with laughter might give the fool the impression he's on to something.

"You must have been reading Al Gore's temperature data...which conveniently excludes the fact that the 10 warmest years have NOT occurred in the last 15 years."

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just last month, the Earth's 15 warmest years in recorded history are: 1991, 2000, 1990, 1999, 1995, 1997, 2008, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, 1998, and the warmest: 2005. I think I trust them to tell me oceanic and atmospheric temperatures more than the Daily Telegraph.

"If global temps are warmer now than they were when they were growing vineyards in Greenland...why is most of Greenland still covered in ice?"

Because it takes time for mile-thick glaciers to melt.

"It's also laughably "convenient" that you think "small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt" explain warming on Mars and Jupiter"

NASA thinks that. And it's just on Mars. Most of Jupiter's heat is generated internally, which is why fluctuating solar output wouldn't have much of an effect.

"No tilting could be occurring on earth!"

Earth has a large moon whose gravity prevents us from tilting and wobbling off our axis. Our axis is 23 degrees, almost always. The same is not true for Mars. And you should consider researching some of this stuff before making fun of me.

"Couldn't be the documented changes in solar activity, either, no way!"

Solar output has fluctuated up and down, but remained relatively steady since 1900, depsite the fact that Earth's temperature has risen.

"But when you insist on flushing common sense down the toilet and clinging to unfounded notions"

The sense behind global warming is pretty simple. I really don't see where doubt can come in.

Which of these do you doubt? Do you doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you doubt that humans produce CO2? Do you doubt that humans produce more CO2 that the planet consumes naturally? Do you doubt that when humans produce more CO2 that the planet can consume naturally, it will accumulate? Do you doubt that accumulating greenhouse gasses will make the temperature rise? Because if you accept all of these proven phenomenon, then it follows that global warming is at least partly caused by humans.

"anyone who continues to cling to the wacko ideas of anthropogenic global warming deserves to be laughed at"

So you're telling me I should ignore the scientists at NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC because....???

"Anything less than answering that with laughter might give the fool the impression he's on to something."

In a scientific debate, one must present evidence to prove or disprove something. Calling people names has no bearing on what is or isn't reality. Even if I was a fool, that would have no effect on whether global warming is real or not. I'm afraid scientific data, actual numbers, is needed for that.

Really? I wonder if, they, too, are relying on the outdated Gospel of Al Gore rather than the corrected information. NASA (which is where the Telegraph got its information) now lists the 10 warmest years as 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939. And given that a lot of the temperature data gathered is from unreliable sources (i.e. locations that were once rural but are now in cities that grew up around them, temperature stations on hot concrete pads, temperature stations sitting next to air conditioning exhaust vents, etc.) I don't know if I'd trust much of any of what these people are trying to tell us.

So the glaciers just need more time to melt, huh? Well if it's been warming for decades...isn't that enough? If disaster is coming, it must not be coming very fast...but oh, we have to wreck our economies RIGHT NOW to avoid it. How convenient. See what I mean about this garbage simply not passing the smell test?

That Martian "tilt" which seems so convenient for Disciples of Global Warming is believed to have happened millions of years ago, while the melting is, um, a little more recent. But I forgot: it takes time, right? Slow enough to keep your crazy theory alive, but not so slow as to throw water on the hysteria needed by Gobal Warming Acolytes. I am also well aware of Earth and Mars tilts and orbital dynamics, and find it curious (no, I find it quite a laugh) that those who worship at Al Gore's Temple can look at anything and find reason to believe in this fantasy, while ignoring how weak that foundation is and also ignoring the abundance of evidence which should be phenomenally more obvious to the rational mind--such as the fact that it just so happens that this warming on other planets seems to have come along about the same time warming may have occurred on earth. On earth, of course, it was those evil capitalists and could not possibly have a natural cause. Uh huh.

You also claim that solar activity has been stable since 1900. Absolutely not true. There are multiple reports from various sources showing increased solar activity--one of which I recall says there is currently more solar activity than there has been in the last 1,000 years. But no, it's those diabolical Ford Expeditions.

Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas"? What is a "greenhouse gas"? As in, what do greenhouse gasses do? Are they a natural part of the plant that perform a normal function, or are they something malevolent that causes harm?

Those of us who believe in God believe he was smart enough to build into this system the ability to regulate itself. And we actually see it happen, as trees take in CO2 and give off oxygen, and as humans and animals take in oxygen and give off CO2. Some believe that a CO2 rise will be good for plant life, which will in turn be good for humans and animals, and so on.

Many scientists also believe the oceans absorb plenty of CO2--further evidence that God built this wonderful planet with the ability to maintenance itself.

There are also plenty of natural sources for CO2, including underwater volcanoes that are literally belching out tons of it. Several above the water, too. Plenty of cows, cats, dogs, moose, and other wildlife giving off methane and other greenhouse gasses. But no, it's those evil SUVs that are baking us.

Some say water vapor is what contributes the most to the so-called "greenhouse effect." Should we declare war on water vapor? Should we stop drinking water? Should we try to stop evaporation?

You operate under the assumption--as many worshippers at Al Gore's Temple do--that the way things are right now is the right way they should be, and that any variation is to be blamed on human activity. Doesn't matter if it was warmer--much warmer--several hundred years ago. Doesn't matter if CO2 levels were higher--much higher--thousands or millions of years ago. Do you have any inkling of how idiotic--much less egotistical--that assumption is?

Thousands of scientists around the world have serious doubts about this theory. Many of them say it is totally unsubstantiated, and some even say that if it is happening, it will be a good thing.

In the absence of any clear information--and let's be clear: THERE IS NONE--it is wisest to default to common sense. And common sense practically screams that this is a train-load of bull.

You're right, whether you are a fool or not has no bearing on the reality or fallacy of the theory of anthropogenic global warming--and I don't call names to insult, but to identify and classify irrational belief in shoddy ideas. This one doesn't take a whole lot to see through.

When you match up the absence of any real information that demonstrates human activity is causing any warming, and the overwhelming evidence that any warming is natural and cyclic, and the socialist agenda of those pushing this theory the hardest, it becomes pretty apparent what it's all about: generating hysteria which is aided by class envy and greed to punish those who are the most successful and affluent. All under the guise of a man-made cataclysmic assault on nature.

Go pull my other leg now.

O.K. I get it, you're a republican. Great. That's what this is then, a political debate, not a scientific one? I found it interesting that you referred to Al Gore 10 times, while your opponent didn't even once. He is bringing up good points and you are caricaturing a political view. Why? The worldwide scientific community steadfastly supports the global warming model, with a few exceptions (inevitable) and are busy working on ways to mitigate it together by developing cleaner energy sources , while you, a guy with apparently no formal science education, is calling Harvard educated Al Gore stupid and saying that the scientific community has got it all wrong. I hesitated to write this at all, as I didn't see the merit in trying to rationalize with name-calling, hostility and sarcasm. That tone is completely counterproductive and unnecessary.

Benjamin, you are precisely right when you say this is a political debate. There is very little science involved, but a whole lot of conjecture. Which is part of why I mentioned Al Gore so many times. He isn't a scientist; he's a politician. A liberal one. A socialist politician with an agenda, who is the primary force behind the promotion of this nutty idea.

Funny, too, that you would mention the "global warming model" that a few (tens of thousands of) exceptions disagree with...the one that continually fails to match up with reality as time goes by.

You and so many others are somehow completely oblivious to the fact that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is 5% science and 95% guesswork, conjecture and possibilities.

Only a complete idiot makes economic and societal changes on such a basis.

But then, analytical thought seems to be a thing of the past in our eyes-open-but-unseeing culture.