New Hope for Global Warming Deniers

My view is that I don't care about global warming. Whether it's happening or not is not my concern. Here's the way I look at it:

If Drs. Hansen and Spencer are arguing about AGW, I do not have the technical background, expertise or learned knowledge on global climatalolgy to figure out who's scoring punches. Much like two doctors arguing over the course of treatment, it would be pointless to take sides if you're not a doctor. That's what's so puzzling to me about people lining up on their favorite side of the climate change argument.

However, as long as one or more persons, who are much smarter than me, are arguing the "denial" or inconclusiveness of global warming, then I am not so ready and eager to surrender my freedom or hard earned money towards being a good-earth citizen. That's it and good enough for me; the proponents COULD be wrong. No wonder they scream "debate over!", makes it easier to lead people to regulatory slaughter.

By the way, is it me or is the northeast cooler than normal this summer?

I find it funny that you recycle the denials on Global Warming once every 2 weeks.

Let me start off by conceding a point - you are right about the attitude on energy programs: More than Wind & Solar, Nuclear Energy and investments in the Nuclear technology is the long last solution for us.

I read a report (a place, i unfortunately can no longer trace on the web) that the Global reserves on Thorium & Uranium will produce enough electricity to last the next 3000 years.

Outside that, let me make give you a fact - EARTH contains more than just USA. There are parts in the globe where average temperatures have shot up by more than 2 degrees in the last decade. While it is OK to debate the cause of the global warming, denying global warming is a major joke.

Golly gosh Christopher Chantrill!

Instead of abusing Saturn and Uranus, how about showing us 1 little bitty prediction in the real world to show any working knowledge outside of corporate lap dancing. For example, Hurricane Bertha was not as hard for me to predict as earthquakes, volcanoes, sunspots, and solar flares. American Thinker has a tiny partial record of my correct, conservative global warming predictions. To deny this is to enjoy death and destruction and hide behind your master's gated communities.

Mr. Chantrill,

Keep up the good work. Your article is a fine summary of the reality of this issue. One minor clarification: I would not be inclined to treat accidental errors in math or science as criminal, but I don't believe it's accidental. I think Dr. Hansen, Big Al, and many others understand reality and are intentionally lying any way. THAT is criminal. I hope a team of lawyers are able to one day go after "big Global Warming" like they went after tobacco. Oh, wow. I just made my own day with that thought...

Now, how do we get the information you've collected on the network news, morning shows, and cable news for weeks at a time?

Cheers!
Robert
AUAB
Doha, Qatar

You've nicely summed it up, Christopher.

AT moderators, please allow me a diversion to refute "Bozonator" above. This guy was a regular "contributor" to a Louisiana blog in the past, and his conclusions have consistently been, let's say, irregular. Viva la cool.

Kalyan
The tempertatures discussed above are global averages, not US averages, so your remark that "EARTH contains more than just USA" is not relevant.

Global warming hysteria isn't about controling the climate. It's about controling you.

It's about justifying policies that will ensure that much of the money you earn will be taken from your paycheck and given to carbon credit traders like Al Gore, policies that will try to make you live a third world lifestyle "voluntarily" while the elites worldwide have priviliged access to the energy sources and technology that used to be available to anybody with an average paycheck. They get the oil for their narrowly defined world while the rest of us stew in squalor. Anything the elites want privileged access to will automatically be declared to "cause global warming". GW Hysteria is the ultimate war on the natural rights of the common man. Saving the planet?... My backside. Stealing the planet is more like it.

The Al Gore crowd has got another thing coming, bunch of stupid fools led around by the nose by lying theives. There is just no way that people are going to sit around passively and be ripped off like this by a bunch of lawyers and "activist" morons for the benefit of the usual shadow crowd of World class manipulators that run this planet. Sometimes even "they" overstep their bounderies.

To Kaylan and Ozonator,

Can you please explain to me how the ice melted from the previous Ice Ages be it without "man-made global warming"? Or at what global tempurature decrease can we start driving SUV's again to warm things back up? Your freakish predictions about the end of the world due to our actions are so intellectually inept, I laugh whenever I read people on your side.

Ozonator- Huh?

I guess I'd have had to hang on your other postings to have a clue as to what you're rambling on about.

Ozonator- Huh?

I guess I'd have had to hang on your other postings to have a clue as to what you're rambling on about.

Please keep up the good work. This global warming hoax/fantasy is one of the most destructive attacks on civilization and humanity in a very long time.

Best regards,
Gail

Kalyan - As an FYI, I do not think anyone is denying that GW is occuring -- rather the source of GW is being argued. Long story short the recent increase is a natural event and will decline in the future. Furthermore, GW is actually good for the planet. Historically, people have lived better during warm periods as opposed to cold. Accordingly, folks should take a "chill pill" over this GW baloney and focus on how we are gong to reduce our need for oil. Cheers.

The question is not global warming but mankind's contribution to it. If the entire globe is not warming then warming then there is none, there is perhaps local warming.
It is interesting how proponents of guilt divorce themselves from rationality in their eagerness to fix blame on the first world.

Kalyan,
"There are parts in the globe where average temperatures have shot up by more than 2 degrees in the last decade"
So what, there are parts of the globe where temps have dropped by more than that. The antarctic ice sheet is at record levels.
Average global temperatures have, in fact, been dropping.

I love People like Kaylan who can find one spec of an increase in temperature in some corner of the planet, and declare this as proof of GW. This kind of temp. variation has gone on for eons. But of course those who truly understand science and what is required for factual scientific analysis, are the ones making a joke. Yup I'm laughing!

The Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is a complete hoax. I think Kalyen has fallen prey to the alarmism. Kalyan claims that there are parts of the world where temperatures have "shot up" by 2 degrees in the last decade. 1st, I'd like to know whose data Kayla is looking at. 2nd, Was that warming, if it actually happened, caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases? That is the argument! Climate and temperatures ALWAYS vary. And they are never static. The whole debate (you know the one that is over) is; has man made CO2 caused the Earth's temperature to rise, or not! period. The current amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is what? 370-380 ppm? More than 95% of which is NATURALLY occuring. Less than 5% is anthropogenic. Try this, to illustrate what 375 ppm really is. Take a large peice of paper, draw one million little circles on it. Then take 375 of those tiny little circles and fill them in with a pencil. Then take a colored pencil and fill in 18.75 of the ones you already filled in, and that will give you a visual representation of the amount of CO2 both natural, and man made, in the atmosphere. Then tell me we are destroying the planet. Get a life!

Also, Ozonator. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Global warming DOES NOT CAUSE HURRICANES!!!!! Do you remember the dire warnings from predictions from the National Hurricane Center at NOHAA for the 2007 hurricane season? They were so wrong, it boggles the mind how wrong they were. Yet, these were professional hurricane forecasters! I don't know what you have based your prediction on, but I can tell you that it is no great feat to predict a hurricane is going to occur during HURRICANE SEASON!!! Get over yourself.

Kalyan, there definetly is places on earth which have warmed, and also those which have cooled. Climate change is a natural occurance you are probably aware - this is clear from looking at historical records. What is important to know is weather the average temperature of the earth is increasing as this could have major impacts on civilisation. Historically animals have survived the consistant climate change rather well.

So how do we best measure average temperature? Typically using satelites which can give the best overview, from NASA in other words. Hansen, from NASA and clearly a fanatic, was found out publishing incorrect data and rather then be joyous that somebody had spotted this exceedingly important error, he quietly corrected the data and hoped nobody would notice, despite the fact that many thousands of studies rely on this very data and it's accuracy. By the way when corrected the data shows no significant warming trend of late. I'm curious what factual data you can present to prove the earth has warmed significantly lately which shows better accuracy then that from NASA's satellites etc.

Great article.
How can we get all this info out into the mainstream public and show the Al Gore crowd for what they are: liars and opportunists. Someday, this will be more broadly known. And I'll be there to serve the crow to these environ-MENTAL patients.

My only objection to your piece is the use of the political term 'denier'. I'm a skeptic and proud of it. What's truly sad and pathetic is the state of the AGW movement today as it equivocates and qualifies in the face of new data and research that contradicts their theory they've used to explain the natural warming of the past generation. It didn't anticipate the recent cooling that's begun and is only going so far as to suggest that perhaps the rate of warming will lessen over the next decade. Doubtless the next generation will be wallowing in the throes of concerns about severe global cooling. The starting point is to comprehend what drives the solar cycles and how solar variability impacts climate and the oceans. Quit wasting research dollars on studying the very minor effects of a trace gas.

I would feel better if the 15-30 year hiatus had been predicted. It's like the psychic that gets wiped out in the stock market - you would have thought he could see it coming!

The government of India has officially said that it will not adhere to any imposed restrictions on carbon emissions, rightfully taking the position that to do so would be to doom hundreds of millions of Indians to poverty.

They also categorically state that they do not agree with the AGW hypothesis pushed by the IPCC, saying the evidence for it is very thin.

I ask kalyan and Ozonator:

Is India a tool of Big Oil?

Is the Indian government comprised of "neocons"?

Is India a nation of funadmentalist Christians who deny science while clinging to their Bibles?

These lines of specious "argument" are common to the AGW zealots, who seem to think AGW skeptics are all benighted conservative Darwin-hatin' Bible-thumpers living in the US.

So kalyan and Ozonator: what are your views?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Chicago, DP. Global warming is happening, it's increasing, and the worst of it is caused by humans. But it's not for the reason that you think.

A Kuhn scholar, who asked that her name be kept off the record, explains:

"Part of science, historically speaking--and particularly when history is most interesting--is controversy. All of the most important scientists have been controversialists, and nothing really interesting happens just because one person had an idea and other people agreed.

"The debate about global warming, whatever you call it, is interesting on a number of levels. The issue is complex, there aren't too many no-brainers, and like many interesting historical periods in science, there is quite a healthy debate. G.K. Chesterton, writing in a culture where lawyers were expected to wear wigs, said that saying that people on both sides of a dispute are both fighting for what is right is like saying that two lawyers in a legal case both have briefs, or for that matter that they both have wigs. And so you have people who strongly disagree, most of whom believe there is a lot at stake.

"But what is going on here is particularly interesting. At a time of political correctness, when people are increasingly careful about talking about groups of people without the faintest hint of a slight, one side thinks it perfectly acceptable to refer to others as 'climate deniers', the allusion being to Nazi sympathizers who deny that the Holocaust was mass murder. Yet this slur is not classified as 'politically incorrect.' The contrast between the diplomacy of political correctness, on the one hand, and a Godwinating comparison to people who defend Nazi Germany, on the other hand, is perhaps more pronounced than in any of the historical settings I've had the time to study closely.

"And so something happens. The so-called 'climate deniers' are not challenging their opponents to duels or hiring assassins, as has happened at other times when people have received this kind of insult, but they are getting very, very hot under the collar, and not just one or two leading scientists. Given present population levels, and the level of attention the debate receives, the heat generated by 'hot under the collar' so-called 'climate deniers' starts to add up. I'm not a science type myself, but some of the scientists I know are of the opinion that this heat source may be contributing far more to global warming than car emissions or even greenhouse gases from cattle."

Our reporter asked, "Have you done much study of the politics of the situation? Or do you think the matter is interesting enough to study?"

The scholar said, "I haven't studied the politics THAT much, but who knows? There might be a Nobel Prize involved."

The Left doesn't have much respect for humanity. They think there are too many people on their globe. A sure way to knock off a bunch of "useless eaters" is to cause food shortages and fuel shortages in the name of the Left using their super-natural powers to fix the globe's climate.

They don't refer to the Democrat Party as the "evil party" for nothing! Same goes for the "stupid party" who had the tendency to check their brains at the door in order to go along with the evil party to avoid the rage and wrath.

We can put it into perspective quite easily if we cosider the constituents of the air we breathe. In layman's terms, many of know that the air we breathe is about 22 percent oxygen and 78 percet nitrogen. What's that? Why that equals about 100 percent. That's because for every 30 parts of C02 in the atmosphere there are 100,000 parts of "air". Rather negligible wouldn't you think? In terms of MAGNITUDE, it is plainly obvious that this amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is benign.

You don't need to have a Ph.D. in climate science to understand the underpinnings of the anthropogenic (human-made) global warming hypothesis. As most of us know, this posits that greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat from the sun in the Earth's atmosphere, raising global temperatures. Humans create CO2 as a byproduct of industrial processes such as the combustion of fuel. Ergo humans are responsible for warming the planet. Coupled with the fact that people perceive the weather to be getting hotter with each year and media scare stories about polar bears, melting glaciers, etc. and you have a convinced public. It's the classic correlation equals causation canard.

The problem with this hypothesis is that its SOLE scientific basis is mathematical computer models of mean temperatures over several decades. The public believes these models to be absolutely infallible since the scientists responsible say they are (and the media dutifully go along). As someone who works with mathematical models every day I can say with confidence that this statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

For one thing, these models can be quite sensitive to the available data, so small changes in input can result in wildly different predictions. It has been shown that several official temperature monitoring stations have been positioned in locations that skew the readings upward, like near A/C exhaust vents and heat-reflecting concrete. Coupled with a lack of reliable temperature readings in undeveloped parts of the world and the initial data is suspect. Second, modelers assume that their models correctly account for the most relevant physical processes that affect global temperature. This is also a very suspect assertion, since most climate models do not account for the effects of cloud cover, variations in solar activity or the presence of water vapor, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. Third, none of these models can be properly validated, meaning that we can't perform controlled experiments to test their predictions, or jump in a time machine 20-30 years from now to see if they're correct. As a means to get around this problem, modelers often tweak model parameters so that they can correctly "predict" recorded, known temperatures in the past. They then assume that extrapolating their models into the future will yield correct results, which is an extremely bold assertion.

Climate science, however, appears to enjoy a unique position among the hard sciences. If I failed to properly verify the models I work with, I'd be laughed out of the proverbial room. I could literally make up anything and claim that the predictions are correct. After all, why should anyone believe my predictions without hard proof that they give correct results? But that is precisely what the public has been asked to do by the media and politicians, all in the name of sacrificing our hard-fought standard of living to government bureaucrats. Actual real-world data has shown a decline in global temperatures when previous models have only predicted monotonic increases. That this hasn't made a dent in the credibility of these people is a testament to the effectiveness of the media's non-stop bombardment of doom and gloom predictions. Global warming has now become what scientists call a "non-falsifiable hypothesis." This means that no amount of contrary evidence (like , say, record cold temperatures, thickening glacier ice, etc.) can disprove it. But, conversely, anything and everything from devastating hurricanes to California wildfires to heat waves are evidence of global warming (as if these things never took place prior to the 19th century.)

As you may have guessed by now, I am most definitely a skeptic, as a scientist should be at this point with the given body of proof. Sadly, scientists are not immune from politics due to the influence of grant money. Which is why it always amuses me that skeptics are immediately denounced as frauds due to oil-company funding, yet we are never supposed to question the integrity of warming proponents who similarly have a vested interest in continued grant money from the EPA et al. The difference is that, if global warming were somehow disproved tomorrow, all that global warming grant money also evaporates.

Sorry, but before I ask my fellow citizens to abandon the modern standard of living and adopt a medieval lifestyle for the sake of protecting Gaia, I want to see far more substantial, actual proof.

You don't need to have a Ph.D. in climate science to understand the underpinnings of the anthropogenic (human-made) global warming hypothesis. As most of us know, this posits that greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat from the sun in the Earth's atmosphere, raising global temperatures. Humans create CO2 as a byproduct of industrial processes such as the combustion of fuel. Ergo humans are responsible for warming the planet. Coupled with the fact that people perceive the weather to be getting hotter with each year and media scare stories about polar bears, melting glaciers, etc. and you have a convinced public. It's the classic correlation equals causation canard.

The problem with this hypothesis is that its SOLE scientific basis is mathematical computer models of mean temperatures over several decades. The public believes these models to be absolutely infallible since the scientists responsible say they are (and the media dutifully go along). As someone who works with mathematical models every day I can say with confidence that this statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

For one thing, these models can be quite sensitive to the available data, so small changes in input can result in wildly different predictions. It has been shown that several official temperature monitoring stations have been positioned in locations that skew the readings upward, like near A/C exhaust vents and heat-reflecting concrete. Coupled with a lack of reliable temperature readings in undeveloped parts of the world and the initial data is suspect. Second, modelers assume that their models correctly account for the most relevant physical processes that affect global temperature. This is also a very suspect assertion, since most climate models do not account for the effects of cloud cover, variations in solar activity or the presence of water vapor, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. Third, none of these models can be properly validated, meaning that we can't perform controlled experiments to test their predictions, or jump in a time machine 20-30 years from now to see if they're correct. As a means to get around this problem, modelers often tweak model parameters so that they can correctly "predict" recorded, known temperatures in the past. They then assume that extrapolating their models into the future will yield correct results, which is an extremely bold assertion.

Climate science, however, appears to enjoy a unique position among the hard sciences. If I failed to properly verify the models I work with, I'd be laughed out of the proverbial room. I could literally make up anything and claim that the predictions are correct. After all, why should anyone believe my predictions without hard proof that they give correct results? But that is precisely what the public has been asked to do by the media and politicians, all in the name of sacrificing our hard-fought standard of living to government bureaucrats. Actual real-world data has shown a decline in global temperatures when previous models have only predicted monotonic increases. That this hasn't made a dent in the credibility of these people is a testament to the effectiveness of the media's non-stop bombardment of doom and gloom predictions. Global warming has now become what scientists call a "non-falsifiable hypothesis." This means that no amount of contrary evidence (like , say, record cold temperatures, thickening glacier ice, etc.) can disprove it. But, conversely, anything and everything from devastating hurricanes to California wildfires to heat waves are evidence of global warming (as if these things never took place prior to the 19th century.)

As you may have guessed by now, I am most definitely a skeptic, as a scientist should be at this point with the given body of proof. Sadly, scientists are not immune from politics due to the influence of grant money. Which is why it always amuses me that skeptics are immediately denounced as frauds due to oil-company funding, yet we are never supposed to question the integrity of warming proponents who similarly have a vested interest in continued grant money from the EPA et al. The difference is that, if global warming were somehow disproved tomorrow, all that global warming grant money also evaporates.

Sorry, but before I ask my fellow citizens to abandon the modern standard of living and adopt a medieval lifestyle for the sake of protecting Gaia, I want to see far more substantial, actual proof.

If the advocates of anthropological global warming truly believed that all life on this planet would be destroyed by greenhouse gas production in the ten years AlGore has given us, they would not be advocating tax increases, carbon offsets, or massive technological changes to our lifestyles. They would be advocating genocide.

We are in a natural period of warmth, with an ominously dormant sun portending a cooling period. Get out the LL Bean woolies! Its called a random oscillation in a non-linear system...like that distant rumble of thunder off in the west that's ruining your well planned BBQ. The Arctic caps are melting at a little faster drip rate due to loss of Albedo from soot deposition from the massive globe girdling Asian dirt cloud circulation of atmospheric toxins. Microscopic East Asian aerosol soot particles are the flea turds in the proverbial planetary punch bowl. Its a tasty melange of garbage... monster traffic jams spewing diesel smoke and exhaust from POS cars by the millions, coal smoke, passenger jet traffic, archaic steel mills, massive rice paddy burning (The poisonous smoke pall literally shuts down Singapore during inversions.)(Did I miss anything?)(Oh yeah... CO2 emitting Chevy Tahoes and incandescent light bulbs in the way too wealthy West.) Beijing is coated with a fine toxic ash from it's humanoid volcano.
Check out the NASA Earth Observatory for some mind boggling satellite shots of this insane human excreta...and nary a peep from the Official Benevolent MSM AGW Information Givers. Oh well ...I guess it doesn't exist until Pravda says it does.
Pay close attention to Bush's semi-serious irony at the close of the G-8 meeting... that the USA is the biggest planetary polluter. He speaks volumes in what he's NOT saying. Dare we bloated, resource sucking, insensitive meanies criticize poor, third world developing nations who are only trying to achieve in 5 years what it took us centuries to accomplish? Their refusal to comply with sane global environmental 'suggestions' is their right as sovereign nations. So is their right to be a dangerous collective of dull clueless morons.
My dad used to say... 'If you live downwind from slobs ...you get their garbage in our yard...start cleaning.' The massive frantic modernization initiatives of Communist nations with corrupt low-bidder crap standards...(Chernobyl?)(Cheap 'Tofu' architecture that crushed tens of thousands in the recent earthquake?)...have had a direct measureable effect on the communal well being of the entire planet.
Its Green tinted White Guilt syndrome for Marxist community organizers to shift blame from their Red revolutionary working class heroes to the generous capitalist authors of free world prosperity with subtly nuanced snarky rhetoric. (Score...Adam Smith University=254... Karl Marx Free Pre-School=0...game over dude.) The most ominous thing on the horizon is the potential plundering of First World treasuries by the UN Global Poverty Initiative...enthusiastically supported by their inside guy... St.Barack of Obama... and most caring sharing compassion fascists in Congress, the EU Parliament, and Little Joe Mugabe.
It is cold ruthless Malthusian eugenics on a majestic scale... worthy of Stalin and Mao. Glorious payback. They thrive...WE die! Justice at last! An innovative focus grouped 21st century bloodless liquidation with cute huggable mascots, catchy slogans, and computer Muzak.

I learned something today reading your essay. Liberals are against nuclear power, artic/offshore drilling, coal drilling and basically any power source that works.
Does "liberal" mean no, no and hell no? Liberals do tell me we must embrace the "fuel cell," to reduce energy independence. Not a bad idea, but a fuel cell without nuclear energy to refresh the cell is as useless as bio-fuels which cost more to produce than they save.

I think the way we need to approach this is the key.

Why would I not want to ensure my children and grandchildren have a clean earth to live in, with all its animals and beauty, oceans and reefs? We all want that. So if I have to change the car I drive, or whatnot, I will for their sake. I will never be selfish where my children are concerned.

So if I refute the current evidence, if I do not believe the information and "rules" being conceived and set forth, it is because I am strongly convinced the evidence, the theories, the reasons are not meant to protect my children, but to in some way remove part of their freedom and deceive them.

P.S. And to refute the statement by Ozonator, no one can in any way accurately predict hurricanes. We can only predict when a tropical storm might become a hurricane. As a Florida resident, I can assure you of how often "meteorologists" are wrong on "predicting" the number of hurricanes for the season. It's a joke.

How could Christopher Chantrill and the rest of the extremist Republicans and Christians miss this large part of the topic with their science of "selling used cars and delousing showers"?

"In May, astronomers noticed that a third red spot had showed up on Jupiter near the famous Great Red Spot and Red Spot Junior, which itself had appeared just two years ago. The third spot--actually an earth-sized storm of swirling gases--had been white, but then showed up as being red ... was torn apart after it tried to pass between its two big brothers ... days before July 7" ("Only Two Months Old, Jupiter's Third Red Spot Bites the Dust"; by Andrew Moseman in Space; blogs.discovermagazine.com, 7/10/08).

Glad to see American Thinker has finally installed a BREC bathroom for Pauly Smally Marchand, Scott M, Neil F, Anna Keppa, and Juan - because doing their homework is just too hard.

Mike:
You touched on a point that I would like to expand. I am a scientist who also uses models to TEST to see if they are true. When data suggests otherwise, as is the case with AGW, the model is altered to accommodate. THE AGW crowd, because of the power and wealth that comes by adhering to AGW theory, does not make such adjustments. Therefore, but definition, they have abandoned the Scientific method AND ARE NO LONGER SCIENTISTS, by definition.
The burden of proof, since they are the proponents and their hypothesis will cause great hardships, is on the AGWs. The skeptics do not have the onus to prove anything, the AGWs DO!

I've made my feelings about the need for all true scientists to be skeptical about anthropogenic climate change well known in this forum. I don't feel any need to repeat it all.

What I wanted to comment on today is how this topic is like food at a picnic - it brings out the pests like Kalyan and Ozonator quickly and reliably.

Hmmmmmmmmm........
Could it be that the most prescient, holistically minded, scientifically disposed, Captain planet-Al Gore-and the AGW "troofers", were all sooooooo focused on gaia that they neglected to realize "she" is only one planet in a big solar system?!? Kind of like they always say that the U.S. is only a small part of the planet?!?!

Hats off to Messers Wilson, Carter, and Waite for their insightful breakthrough in Astrophysics. Their theory makes perfect sense to those who have studied space sciences. And, thanks to Mr. Spencer for spotting, and publicizing, the scientific hypocrisy of NASA's Dr. Hansen; his fast and loose scientific method should render any of his past publications and statements risable at best and ersatz criminal at worst.

Perhaps the efforts of these gentlemen will ultimately lead to the debunking of AGW; sending it to the dustbin of history along with the other fallacious theories of the past. Then we have freed ourselves from the far left's greatest phony crisis evah, and remove the possibility of the ideological tyrrany they would infligt upon us all through it!!!

P.S. Kaylan and ozonator-wake up to the "inconvenient truth" that our sun-which is truly our only source of warmth as well as light- is the dominant factor in the temperature of the Earth. And, as it is effected by the gravitational pull of other planets, there is a "trickle down" (I know you despise that turn of the phrase)effect on gaia. So, while it is important to leave the Earth pollution free for future generations, we needn't shoot ourselves in the foot striving to solve a problem that humans have virtually no control over!

I like the analogy from George S. Indeed, the debate over AGW is very much like two physicians arguing over diagnosis/prognosis/treatment. We lay people have not enough information to be sure who is right.

The problem is, they are arguing over OUR condition, and the treatments they propose vary from "It's malignant! Immediate amputation required!" to "It's benign, let's do another biopsy or excise it." It is we lay people who must make the decision, absorb the risks, and live with the consequences.

As a true rocket scientist folks in my industry develop detailed models of aerodynamics, critical rocket subsystems, the physical earth (especially shape and gravitational effects), and the environment (wind, sensor energy attenuation, etc.). Prior to conducting any type of flight test we need to present predictions (and show proof that our key subsystem models are believable). After a flight test we need to show correlation between our predictions and what actually occurred in flight. Anomalies occur (due to unmodeled effects) and may result in model refinements to improve predictions in the future. Those AGW folks using models that ignore important effects such as solar influence, ocean currents, air circulation, moisture in the air, etc., claim their predictions should be believed 100 years from now yet can't accurately predict 10 years in the past or 3 weeks in the future. This would be like folks in my industry ignoring gravity, aerodynamics, and other critical factors when making flight performance predictions. We'd be laughed out of our profession very quickly if our predictions were as bogus as those pushing AGW. These AGW proponents are not much more than quacks in my opinion.

For grins and giggles, I dove into this topic and meticulously researched it almost every night for over four months in the Spring of 2007. Here's my conclusion: Global change is real...it's just not caused or influenced by anthropogenic activity. Two, the reason for the almost exclusive (Newt and Pat Robertson notwithstanding) liberal/left obsession with global change is they want to worship something with no rules (i.e. moral absolutes), and they want total control of the economy to impose their totalitarian social and economic policies. Case closed.

To Juan and his children...humble dittoes, sir. I am a died in the wool, card carrying, clinically diagnosed nature crazy. YES! I actually hugged a tree once... a huge shaggy fragrant pine I wrote a poem under, in my hippy days as forest ranger of Allamuchy Mountain State Park in NJ.
I have a personal theory on all that mysterious UFO traffic. Way too many credible witnesses have seen these bizarre craft. Thousands witnessed the Wanaque Reservoir apparitions in NJ circa 1967 that inspired some of Spielberg's SFX in 'Close Encounters'. A terrified reservoir cop, Old Ben, emptied his revolver at one that hovered silently over the frozen lake and melted a perfect 6' diameter hole with an intense beam of light into the ice, then disappeared into the starry sky at warp five. The whole area was on edge. Route 511 was snarled every night for days. The wise gov't intervened by sending loud clumsy low flying choppers across the reservoir to convince folks thats what they saw. Nervous Old Ben was NOT convinced.
I'm saying these beings are interstellar tourists who travel here to to see one the most breathtakingly unique worlds in this corner of the galaxy. They're not at all interested in us...for logical sane rational space alien reasons (see Old Ben.) We're babbling boring barbarian bozos. Mom, dad, and the kids fly out of the cloaked mother ship in their luxurious anti-grav tourist scooters and experience our beautiful earth in all its mysterious ethereal I-Max wonder. They get it. There is no spare in the trunk.

Two Comments:

1.There has been an undeniable increase in global temperatures, just as there has been a corresponding increase in the temperatures of our solar system neighboring planets. This increase matches perfectly with an increase in solar (sun)activity over the same period. AGW is not a factor.

2. CO2 is not a pollutant, I don't care how much or how often the AGW proponents try to make the case for "BAD CO2" it simply is untrue. CO2 is less than 0.04% of our atmosphere. It has no thermodynamic charactoristics that can cause any general effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
It is a vital ingredient of our atmospheric envelope. It is absolutly necessary for plant and animal growth, both of which are requirements for mans existance.
This is not yet scientifically proven but generaly speaking our scientists say that 5000ppm (we are currently at 380parts per million, ppm) may be an unhealthy level of atmospheric CO2. If we were to double the current rate of man generated CO2 into our air it would take 1500 years to reach a level that we think MAY be unhealthy.
On the other hand we know that mildly increased levels of CO2 results in very positive effects on plant growth. We have no real idea what the long term effect would be to freeze at current levels or reduce CO2 levels. One could certainly hypothesize that the effect would be negative as we need more and more food to feed ever increasing populations of our planet. We also need ever increasing amounts of energy to maintain and improve mans habitat and lifestyles.
The unvarnished truth about AGW is that it is being used to perpetuate one of the most incredible SCAMS in the history of man. It is a gimmick to bleed the USA of unimaginable amounts of money and put that money in the hands of Globalists and charlatans such as ALGORE.

PC is Thought Control
LEE

The problem with statistics is that it is rare to find anyone who can look at a graph for example, and tell you there is a "trend" one way or another. Mathematics has rules that cannot be violated. To make this short: give me ~529 years of average global temperatures and I may be able to find a trend. I hope my point is made.

The World Wildlife Fund web site says nuclear is no good because it only gives jobs to a few guys watching the equipment and it is not safe to store the waste. Are they that stupid?
I think they just want millions of peasants working on little windmills so we can fit into their Maoist dreams.
Please help us poor stupid peasants oh Great Lord Obama Lama Lama Ding Dong.

Bozonator and Kaylan: world temps are, according to CALIBRATED objective satellite measurements, below the 30 year anamoly, and have fallen almost 1*C in the past 2 years.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

In July 1935 during the coldest month of our Winter an out of season cyclone (hurricane) came down the coast of the State of Queensland, Australia wreaking havoc and sinking a cruise liner off our Fraser Island. I suppose then the global warming clowns would argue that man made global warming was the cause for this freak storm?

Bozonator,
You're quoting a BLOG post???
""In May, astronomers noticed that a third red spot had showed up on Jupiter near the famous Great Red Spot and Red Spot Junior, which itself had appeared just two years ago. The third spot--actually an earth-sized storm of swirling gases--had been white, but then showed up as being red ... was torn apart after it tried to pass between its two big brothers ... days before July 7" ("Only Two Months Old, Jupiter's Third Red Spot Bites the Dust"; by Andrew Moseman in Space; blogs.discovermagazine.com, 7/10/08)."

Is this supposed to provide some credibility to the junk posted because it has a url from discovermagazine?? The funny part is this article cannot be found by any search on discovermagazine.com or blog.discovermagazine.com using the title or it's parts or the author's name (which does return a listing of about 58 articles - none of which match your citation, even remotely.)

It is beyond me that global warming is blamed on carbon dioxide, and that the claim is made that we must reduce drastically the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or devastation will ensue. Whatever influence on climate, carbon dioxide is an essential component of life on earth. Green plants consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the atmosphere. I am not aware of any other major oxygen replenishment mechanism. I believe that action to reduce carbon dioxide have a more dangerous downside to oxygen consumers (make that people) than the possibility of contribution to planet warming.

Bozonator:
"blah, blah blah...the extremist Republicans and Christians...blah, blah, blah..."

What? You missed an opportunity to throw in "Nazi", or "fascists"? I'm disappointed.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

-George Orwell

The truth is, the Global Warming scare is a hoax perpetrated to facilitate the ascension of internationalist collectivism.

Towards the end of the article, he said "And now with a straight face liberals say we'll have to starve the people in order to save the planet. Now who's in denial?"

They aren't in denial as they really don't care about people starving.

Whether we're talking about high energy prices or people dying in the inner city, we're talking about some of the same root causes: Modern Liberals who want everything equal.

They will tear down everything that is good, successful and right while elevating everything that is evil, failed and wrong so we come to the middle and there is nothing left to fight over (or live for.)

Watch the video "HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK" for a glimpse into the mindset of these people.

It's very good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Ozonebreather......Huh? I'd be insulted....if I knew just what the heck you were talking about. Now I'm not afraid to admit that I am not as smart as a lot of these people who post here. I have to plead ignorance, I have no idea what a BREC bathroom is. If your going to insult me, use an insult that I can understand... like you're a poo poo head, or something like that. So, you can see that I am perceptive enough to percieve your crack about a BREC bathroom as a personal attack, even though I have no idea what it means, I do not like being offended in such a manner. If you disagree with me, tell me so. You have every right to do so. You do not have the right to insult me, unless you want to be insulted in return. And by the way, what in the heck does a storm on another planet have to do with anything that happens here? That is just complete nonsense. Take another toke.

I've got news for all of you. Not one bit of this maters. Humanity is a pimple of the ass of the world. This planet doesn't even know we are here and even if it did it couldn't possibly care less. We could set off every single deadly device and release every toxic substance we have on this planet in the same instant and do you know what would happen? Nothing, except, of course, we would all be dead. But guess what? In a couple of weeks plants and weeds would start growing up through the cracks in the concrete and in a couple of short years you wouldn't be able to tell that we were ever here. And this planet is going to keep on spinning. It is the absolute height of narcisissm to think that mankind is that powerfull or that important.
This whole global warming debate (or non-debate) is just the fear mongering of the left. The only true fact about "climate change" is we can't do a damn thing about it.
I remember when I worked for a mining co. for a period and occaisionally we would get protesters. I noticed after they got done with their demonstration they would climb into their BMW's and Mercedes with their cells and jewlery and gold chains and the rest of their regalia and drive away. It occured to me where do these morons think the Bavarians got the metal to make their Beemers? Oh yeah, from mining! By the way people, EVERYTHING we have, without exception, comes from two places, mining and farming. Aliens don't bring it to us. ALF was a puppet.
Fight the real enemy! The communist/soros/totalitarin/facist lies of the people who are ANYTHING but "progressive".

The whole proof for manmade Global warming is based on computer models. The differential equation series used to model global warming were developed and solved in 1922. These equations are still used by climate researchers today. A Hungarian scientist named Ferenc Miskolczi working at NASA got to looking closely at the differential equations series in these models and noticed that the boundary conditions were ignored. This is often done to simplify the solution and many times does not significantly affect the answers the model gives. However in this case it does. To put it in layman's terms the global warming models assume an infinitely thick atmosphere. In reality it is about 65 km thick. When he modified the equations to include the boundary effect of a finite atmosphere the runaway warming went away. The boundary condition imposes a negative feedback factor which at low levels of green house gases has minimal effect but at high levels of greenhouse gases it predominates forcing the greenhouse effect back down. Thus runaway warming goes away.

The first 80 ppm of CO2 has most of the greenhouse effect, from 80 to 380 causes only a small increase in greenhouse effect and further increases in CO2 have even less effect.

Miskolczi used his improved model to model Earth and Mars. When compared to actual recent satellite data he got good agreement and his conclusions are backed up by research done by Steven Schwartz at Brookhaven National Labs. When he wanted to publish his finding he was stopped by his boss at NASA, James Hansen, a big global warming proponent. Miskolczi resigned in protest and published his findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal in Hungary. Miskolczi believes that the motivation to stop him from publishing is money, billions per year for climate research.

My question is if Hansen wants to prosecute Big Oil Company executives for causing global warming, if manmade global warming is nonexistent, should he not be prosecuted for fraud and misappropriation of government funds?

Skorrent:
The decision is not between two even-steven positions. When one side proposes a drastic move, the burden of proof is on them!

Let's say you consult two doctors, and ONE DOCTOR says that the bunion on your left big toe will spread and threaten your life and the lives of your children's children, and that the solution is to amputate both of your legs, but TEN OTHER DOCTORS (33,000 AGW "skeptics" who signed the recent petition vs. about 3,000 IPCC "scientists" who wrote the AGW reports gives about the same ratio) say that the first doctor is wrong, and that a Dr. Scholl bunion treatment or no treatment is the correct approach, which course would you take?

Kalyan and Ozonator would go for the amputation; moreover they want everyone to be FORCED to have bilateral amputations - that is how absurd and almost as dangerous I think their position is!

There are parts of the USA where the temperature has increased 7°F over the last 100 years. It's called New York City. The increase is truely anthropomorphic since it's due to the increasing size of NYC.

Are the New Yorkers bothered; no, they just turn up their air conditioners.

We have a scarce resource, money, which should be applied where it can do the most good. Global warming, climate change, whatever the term-du-jour happens to be, is not the best place to spend that money. Read some of the works of Bjorn Lomberg and others who have looked at the world's problems through the eyes of an economist. There are things like, dirty water, poor agriculture, etc., which we can actually do something about which should be addressed. We're wasting time and money thinking we, humble insects known as humans, can alter the climate-for the good or the bad. When was the last time we were able to prevent a tornado, hurricane or earthquake? And looking at the consequences of the ethanol scam, why would anyone trust nameless, faceless bureaucrats, especially those ensconced in the UN to make any of these decisions? As the old commercial used to say, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."

If the world freezes or burns we still need lots of cheep clean power. We can solve almost anything with lots of power. With nuclear power we can run all the air conditioners, desalination plants and electric cars that we want. We could drive all over the place and waste because we would have a cheep abundance of power. Solar, wind and other sources of power may be good as a supplement now; but will increase as technology and architecture advance. We will still need oil but not so much. Economies of the world would thrive as we diversify and increase all of our power sources. Who is stopping this from happening? Let us beat them.

Money is created with each new idea that is brought to the market. Money is limitless. Ideas are held back by a lack of freedom and energy.
Unlimited wealth, with no gold to be found; if only we had more free souls around.

You can safely ignore Ozonator: I see on another site he calls himself "The Bong-onator".

Mike: not only are you correct about AGW being a "non-falsifiable hypothesis", some AGW zealots are claiming that's OK, because they're dealing in what they call "post-normal" science, where the falsifiability test doesn't apply.

Yep. So we're back to the days when the high priests stood up on the pyramids telling the masses that the solar eclipse they're terrified of means the gods are angry with the people, and only they, the priests, can save them.

Sorry. The world is NOT going back to that primitive and self-serving crap.

They can take my 500HP, gasoline burning, V8 Mustang when they pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel. Pardon my hyperbole, but I do get rather upset about this subject.

Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Yet, our esteemed elected officials continue with the onslaught of legislation restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide. We need a better way to effectively communicate our displeasure with this course of action. Fight fire with fire, I always say. Maybe we should have a "Petrol Parade" to spread awareness of AGW skepticism.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I also have worked on models, and I agree that they are generally far too fragile to use as a basis for life-and-death decisions.

Some commenters and emailers worry about the "denier" label. My answer is that I use the term ironically in order to draw its sting. If we racist-sexist-bigoted-denier conservatives can laugh at the names the liberals call us, then their slanders lose their bite.

It's odd though that the terms "liberal" and "progressive" seem to have become pejoratives without anyone trying to make them so. Why is this?

Poor Sissy Chrissy;

A CME predicted only by me on 7/12/08 (enclosed but not posted) from extremist Republicans and Christians' global warming and nobody else. Predicting a CME is far more complex than wondering how you can get your pants on in the morning without breaking your neck. A CME also increases global warming like volcanism.
 
"ERUPTION: Solar activity may be low, but it's not zero. This morning the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) recorded a spectacular eruption on the sun's eastern limb: image. An unstable magnetic filament flung itself into space, traveling as fast as a million mph, something that can happen without the aid of a sunspot. Even during solar minimum, it pays to keep an eye on the sun" ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 7/14/08).

"IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low. ... IIB. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be predominantly at unsettled levels with isolated periods of active conditions for 13-14 July. Quiet to unsettled conditions are expected for 15 July" ("Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity 12 Jul 2008"; Space Environment Center, NOAA; STATUS REPORT; spaceref.com, 7/12/08).

Lying by ommissing is still lying and is covered in at least 1 dusty Bible of extremist Republicans and Christians

resubmitted ~256 AM CST 7/14/08

resubmitted ~217 pm 7/12/08

submitted ~1030 pm 7/12/08 -"It must be global warming baking your tinfoil hat and ExxonMobil check. Your abilities would increase considerably if you weren't Steven Milloy, cloned from his filthy test tube, or the sheep he rides in on as it leads to steal "intellectual" property from Pauly Smally Marchand: "Posted by: Steve M | July 12, 2008 09:03 PM" - "Bozonator ... junk posted ... this article cannot be found by any search ...". An example of just one article about this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=jupiter+storm&btnG=Search+News-
At ~10 PM cst 7/12/08:

"Search news source STORM for jupiter.

Jupiter, full moon to light up night as planet 'king' makes ...
Palm Beach Daily News, FL - 6 hours ago
These clouds are whipped by winds of more than 200 mph, and within the clouds are big storm systems, including the Great Red Spot that's large enough to ...

Discover Magazine
Only Two Months Old, Jupiter's Third Red Spot Bites the Dust
Discover Magazine, NY - Jul 10, 2008
The third spot--actually an earth-sized storm of swirling gases--had been white, but then showed up as being red in Hubble Space Telescope images. ..."

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/boards/philboard_read.asp?id=2529
"Forums Home > ?? > Abortion definition as chosen by the NY Times
Replies in this thread : 9
...
Ozonator
Website Member
Posts : 3443
12/1/2006 : 1:23:48 PM     
this post has been edited 1 time(s)
quote
posted by paulmarchand1 aka ran outa things to carp about with Islam
....comments:
* "expulsion" : sounds like the baby invaded the womb
* products of conception: sounds like groceries, or hardware
* before the embryo or fetus is viable: hmmm. Then a child 2 years old is also not "viable", as they need support, feeding, clothing, heat, medical, etc. The retired, the unemployed, the ill, welfare queens: none are "viable", but that does not mean that we should abort them.
* interruption: sounds pretty sterile, non-bloody
* health of the mother: so, if she is going to be "stressed" (with no real objective measure thereof), it is "therapeutic" (and therefore "good") to kill the baby? And if the mother gets a headache, or stomach-ache, I guess she needs the "therapy" of an abortion?"

Submitted once at "American Thinker: Comment on New Hope for Global Warming Deniers 7/12/08 3:05 PM"

"Ooops! I dun plume forgets to do mi houma werk and din't spell Chrissy's name correct in my itty bitty international pub as it is not part of the real scientific method for bona fide scientific predictions

Just to make thing easier for the bathroom boys of American Stinker:

"Daily Sun: 12 Jul 08 ... The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI" ... Sunspot number: 0 ... Updated 09 July 2008 ... Far side of the Sun ... This holographic image reveals no sunspots on the far side of the sun. Image credit: SOHO/MDI" ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 7/12/08).

"With condolences to Cuba, South Florida, New Orleans, California, Pope Benedict XVI, astronauts, spacecraft, Obama - McCain, and other victims forced to enjoy the monsters of environmental racism and racketeering of the ExxonMobils' global warming

...

A. Our Ozonator's Preamble for Survival (OOPS), usually more hard science than the regular GBRWE Introduction.

1. The logical extension of catastrophic GBRWE earthquake, volcano predictions, and hurricane predictions includes the planet Mercury and our Moon ... Desperate for free ExxonMobil money, American stinkers now want us to believe that sunspots come out of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus overlooking their global warming evilness. In honor of EPA and the White House, Allah and other moral beings will connect the dots for the creators of global warming with an abundance of major earthquakes, solar flares with proton storm seasonings, sunspots blasted out of the front and back of our star, and exploding firestorms (especially in the US West - Marlboro Country - and Florida). After all, extremist Republicans and Christians practice a scorched earth ideology and then claim it's global cooling. ...

Solar wind and CMEs should be of the man-made varieties on both sides of the Sun with monster CMEs, proton storms, and x-ray type flares of X5+. The Earth should generate earthflares of 2,000 - 24,000 REFs, IMFs, GSIs, sprites, and/or NCLs. From Saturday to Saturday, the 68th SEERCH Model (7/13 - 19/08) should produce a an increase of the sunspot number (spaceweather.com). The 41st BAZS=ERC Model (7/13 - 19/08) predicts 40 - 140 sunspot number with the significant introduction into the new solar cycle ...

Harvesting humans is a specialty of extremist Republicans and Christians like Cardinal Pell and Evil Inhofe. After getting environmental grants for his drought stricken ranchers from the American taxpayers and Chinese loans ... ("Inhofe: EPA too powerful, could damage economy"; By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau; tulsaworld.com, 7/12/08) ... ("Pope wants to awaken consciences on ecology"; AFP; terradaily.com, 7/12/08).
...

B. The specifics of the Giulaino - Gansu Model (7/13 - 19/08) of extreme earthquake warnings with included statistics, analysis indicates for regions (magnitude in Richters) are:

1. Moon Walk Model:
a. Nicaragua (6+) - Jamaica (5+) - Cuba (6+) - Louisiana (3+) - LABI, Missouri (4+) - Colorado (4+) - Northern California (7+),
b. South Sandwich Island (7+) - Chile (7+) - Easter Island (7+),
c. Indonesia (6+) - Vietnam (5+) - Philippines (6+) - Marianas (5+),
d. PNG (6+) - Australia (4+) - Western Indian - Antarctic Ridge (6+);
2. Sri Lanka (4+) - Chagos Archipelago (6+) - Arabian Sea (5+) - Iran (5+) - Georgia (5+) - Turkey (6+); and
3. Aleutians (7+) - Siberia (6+) - Svalbard Island (6+) - Iceland (6+).
...
D. With included statistics, warnings for the Pickerell Model (7/13 - 19/08) of qualitative volcanic activity:
1. Svalbard - Iceland - Greenland - New York - Mississippi - Texas - Mexico;
2. Kurils - Japan - Korean Peninsula - China - Pakistan - Saudi Arabia - Ethiopia; and
3. Indonesia - Cardinal Pell, Australia - New Zealand - Antarctica.
...
Copyright © 2008 ... and/or the Ozonator. All rights reserved ...
-Made, and more mad, in Louisiana-"

("GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08's Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities"" Ozonator "Supplemental; GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08, 7/12/08).""

When Al Gore just started out with his hystria, oops campaign, the whole issue was about "man made" global heating.

Then some scientists, (don't ask me for any names, because I really don't know anymore), calulated that the human contribution to the problem was about 1%.
So even in the worst case scenario, ( a temp rise of 10 degrees), the elimination of All man made CO2 would make it 0.1 degree less.

After this got known, the term "man made", got quickly dropped.

And now mr. Gore and his friends are just telling us that we humans are the only cause of global heating.

This is what gets me angry, any lie will do just fine to suck billions of dollars of tax payers money, so mr Gore and his friends can get filthy rich.

Oh BTW, if you have any trouble with a factory or anything that emits to much CO2, you can always go to mr Gore and buy some emission rights from him.

Now ain't that reassuring?

CO2, everyone knows is a component in the Global warming equation. Until the 19th century humans man largely burned wood to heat his home, cook his food. The industrial revolution and steel production really opened up the Man Made CO2 production.

The evidence that All Gore and others cite which gets everyone hot and bothered is in the melting of the ice caps, and glaciers. Their retreats are quite arguable. We know CO2 contributes to warming.

It may not be the only culprit. Global Warming may be a part of solar and planetary imbalances, Plate tectonics all of which are out of our reach. Reducing Carbon dioxide production is with in our reach. If we reduce it we could change the direction of the warming trend. Then it would prove the quation. If it doesn't work we will know it is a small part of a greater equation. Right now - in the short term carbon based fuels are very volatile commodities and reducing their use would be in our economic and political interest as US citizens to do so. Oil is merely a carbon chain and carbon is widely available in nature. Until very recently the United states used 75 percent of the worlds oil with less than 25 percent of the worlds population. Unfortunately we have done a very good job turning communists into greedy bastards other wise known as "capitalists". Gee they want our lifestyle. Something had to give. What gave was the cheap oil equation with excess supply and refining capacity to finite supply and finite refining.
We also need Nuclear, wind, solar, thermal and based upon a decentralized distributed power generation model. We aren't going to eliminate oil use it but we need to reduce its effect upon our economy. Arguing about whether Carbon Dioxide is a part of global warming is really a moot point. We all know it is part of the equation we just don't know if it is the only reason. We do know we can do something about how much Carbon Dioxide we do produce.

Will those of you who believe carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" and/or "destroying the environment" please immediately stop exhaling and let the rest of us get on with our lives already!?

(and good on the government of India for refusing to condemn most of their citizens to the 16th century.)

Just "follow the money."
A. Gore sells carbon credits.
Academics get research grants.
Simply follow the money.

Dear Heather has 2 mothers (Robert Young, Dutch, and Steve M. for parts)

Somebody(ies) at American Thinker witnessed more global warming history along with an international community with my correct solar flare prediction. To put in perspective with your COO-ESSO logic failures, "Dr David Cole, director of the Australian Government's space weather service ... " ... solar explosions are random ... solar flares are hard to predict because there are no models of how they work" ("Freak solar explosion disrupts satellites"; Anna Salleh; ABC Science Online; abc.net.au, 12/15/06). "ERUPTION: Solar activity may be low, but it's not zero. This morning the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) recorded a spectacular eruption on the sun's eastern limb: image ..." ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 7/14/08). With the last major solar flare under 5/18 - 24/08, " A. Our Ozonator's Preamble for Survival ... 1. ... In honor of EPA and the White House, Allah and other moral beings will connect the dots for the creators of global warming with an abundance of major earthquakes, solar flares with proton storm seasonings, sunspots blasted out of the front and back of our star, and exploding firestorms (especially in the US West - Marlboro Country - and Florida). After all, extremist Republicans and Christians practice a scorched earth ideology and then claim it's global cooling" ("GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08's Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities" ... Ozonator ... "Supplemental; GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08, 7/12/08"). "HOT COMET: On May 23rd, a comet plunged toward the sun, overheated, and disintegrated ...  In the movie, the passage of the comet seems to trigger a coronal mass ejection (CME): diagram. This is almost certainly a coincidence ... " ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 5/25/08).

Along with solar flares, other flares and tectonics were correctly predicted from the "hoax" of global warming. American Thinker readers are some of the few on the cutting edge of science.

With 2,000 - 24,000 REFs (Electron 2MeV Integral Flux) predicted, the Ozonator Star Model produced a correct prediction with HooShooToo Model, Earth - type flares that can include Noctilucent clouds (NLCs): 6 - "ALERT: Electron 2MeV Integral Flux exceeded 1000pfu" (9290 pfu) ("Alerts Issued by SEC"; sec.noaa.gov, 7/15/08). "NOCTILUCENT SURPRISE: Noctilucent clouds (NLCs) are supposed to be a high-latitude phenomenon, most often seen in Canada, Russia and northern Europe. So imagine the surprise of veteran astrophotographer Tunç Tezel on July 13th when he saw noctilucent tendrils peeking above the horizon of Turkey ... "This view of noctilucent clouds may be one of the farthest ever from the poles ... It was amazing! ... Why are they spreading south?" ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 7/14/08).

Of 18 volcano regions predicted, 2 (Indonesia and Japan) were correct the first week. "D. With included statistics, warnings for the Pickerell Model (7/13 - 19/08) of qualitative volcanic activity: 1. Svalbard - Iceland - Greenland - New York - Mississippi - Texas - Mexico; 2. Kurils - Japan - Korean Peninsula - China - Pakistan - Saudi Arabia - Ethiopia; and 3. Indonesia - Cardinal Pell, Australia - New Zealand - Antarctica" (""GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08's Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities"" ... Ozonator ... "Supplemental; GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08, 7/12/08"). Reporting Period 7/13 - 19/8, 1st reporting --Volcanoes were reported (volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs): GARBUNA GROUP New Britain; OKMOK Fox Islands; BATU TARA Komba Island (Indonesia); KILAUEA Hawaii (USA); RABAUL New Britain; SAKURA-JIMA Kyushu (Japan); TUNGURAHUA Ecuador; and UBINAS Perú. For the 1st week in 4-weeks under Week 338, the Goma Model recorded (predicts) volcanic activity in regions (range of active volcanoes): 5 WPI (6 - 12), 3 Americas (4 - 10), 0 EAA (1 - 2), and 8 total (7 - 17).

With global warming generating at least 3 holy grails and 1 dead victim, a total of 27 regions and intensities of earthquakes were predicted for 7/13 - 19/08. The random chance of predicting a significant quake in one of these regions OR significant intensity is 3.7%. Combined, the random chance of predicting the region AND intensity is 0.14%. "B. The specifics of the Giulaino - Gansu Model (7/13 - 19/08) of extreme earthquake warnings ... for regions (magnitude in Richters) are: 1. Moon Walk Model ... LABI, Missouri (4+) ... c. Indonesia (6+) - Vietnam (5+) - Philippines (6+) ... 2. ... Turkey (6+)" (""GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08's Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities"" ... Ozonator ... "Supplemental; GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08, 7/12/08")." 1. Reporting 6.1 while I predicted a 6+ under 7/13 - 19/08, "Strong quake rocks northern Philippines" (The Associated Press; nola.com, 7/13/08). "Earthquake swarms jolt Luzon; new storm brews" (By Joel M. Sy Egco; manilastandardtoday.com, 7/15/08). 2. While I predicted a 6+ for Indonesia under 7/13-19/08, correct within established prediction parameters, "An earthquake measuring 5.5 on the Richter scale jolted Aceh waters on Monday at 11.44 am Western Indonesian Time"("Earthquake rattles Aceh on Monday"; ANTARA News; antara.co.id, 7/14/08). 3. While our American extremists act so scientifically stupid as to drown while looking up in a rainstorm, all the good people of a third of the Mediterranean Sea are motivated to lay claim to my correctly predicted quake (off Turkey). With condolences for the appearance of being pushed by extremist Republicans and Christians while protecting a child, "One woman died on the Greek island of Rhodes as a result of a strong undersea earthquake measuring 6.3 points on the Richter scale ... The woman tripped and fell down the stairs while fleeing from her house" ("One dead after strong quake hits Greece"; AFP; news.theage.com.au, 7/15/08). " A strong earthquake struck Tuesday near Greek islands close to the Turkish coast, according to the U.S. Geological Survey" ("Earthquake hits near Greek islands"; edition.cnn.com, 7/15/08). "An earthquake off Turkey's Agean coast near the Greek island of Rhodes ... was felt in Turkey's southwestern tourist region" ("One dies in 6.3 magnitude quake off Turkish coast"; AFP; hurriyet.com.tr, 7/15/08).

The closest planetary ecology is to a religion is holy grails. "Earthquake prediction must at least give the location and likely magnitude of the event with reasonable precision - together with enough warning to get those affected to safety ..." ("The science is still shaky"; Robert Matthews; thenational.ae, 5/18/08). "A holy grail in the earth sciences is the ability to predict earthquakes ... " ("Earthquakes"; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; whoi.edu, Last updated: July 5, 2007). "... Earthquake prediction is the holy grail ... there currently is no accepted method to accomplish the goal of predicting the time, place and magnitude of an impending quake" ("Earthquake Facts & Earthquake Fantasy"; earthquake.usgs.gov, Page Last Modified: November 17, 2006). However, from one of LABI Limbaugh's pilonidal cysts who also thinks Intelligent Design requires stupid Americans, "A demonstration of why climate models produce too much global warming: Has the Holy Grail of Climate Sensitivity Been Found?" ("Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat"; by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., corporate whore for emperor of corporate whores - LABI Limbaugh; weatherquestions.com; Posted June 28, 2008).

As a Louisiana native, I can explain that a "BREC" bathroom would be a public facility installed by the Baton Rouge Recreation and Parks Commission.

I have no idea why Ozonator would make such a reference, except to further illustrate that he lost his damned mind at some point between his birth and today. First James Carville and Britney Spears, and now it looks like I have yet another fellow Louisianian to apologize for. Sorry, America: we'd have stopped them sooner if we only knew.

And let me say: Ozonator has done more damage to the AGW cause with his non sequitur, Dennis Miller-Lite ranting than a thousand climatologists doing a thousand hours worth of independent research ever could. If he's seriously hoping to win over any new converts to the church of global warming, he's going to have find a way to make his rants 110% less retarded than they are now.

Second submission "July 20, 2008 03:33 PM"
First submitted "July 19, 2008 10:04 PM"

Dear American Thinkers,

With no lies rising to the level of a prediction, the extremist Republicans and Christians' rape and pillage of the planetary ecosystem proceeds to high heaven as only I predicted from their global warming.

""Solar wind and CMEs should be of the man-made varieties on both sides of the Sun ... From Saturday to Saturday, the 68th SEERCH Model (7/13 - 19/08) should produce a an increase of the sunspot number (spaceweather.com). The 41st BAZS=ERC Model (7/13 - 19/08) predicts 40 - 140 sunspot number with the significant introduction into the new solar cycle ..."... Posted by: Ozonator | July 14, 2008 04:00 AM".

"Daily Sun: 12 Jul 08 ... The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI", "Sunspot number: 0 ... Updated 09 July 2008", and "Far side of the Sun ... This holographic image reveals no sunspots on the far side of the sun. Image credit: SOHO/MDI" ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 7/12/08).

Making the SEERCH Model correct but not the BAZS=ERC Model. "Daily Sun: 19 Jul 08 ... Tiny sunspot 1000 poses no threat for solar flares. Credit: SOHO/MDI", "Sunspot number: 11 ... Updated 18 July 2008", and "Far side of the Sun ... This holographic image reveals a possible sunspot on the far side of the sun" ("What's up in Space"; Dr. Tony Phillips; spaceweather.com, 7/19/08).

"Studying the controversial relationship between the Sun's energy output and Earth's temperature ... demonstrable connections between our Sun's changing energy outputs and Earth's climate ... Figure 8 ... Here, I show a most interesting correlation between the coronal hole and the temperature of the Earth's lower troposphere. This data is taken from the well-known satellite records of atmospheric temperature constructed by Drs. John Christy of the University of Alabama and Roy Spencer of NASA-Huntsville ... leads to two more questions: ... evidence to support this novel idea that cosmic and solar charged particles influence Earth's climate? ... changes in brightness of the planet Neptune for almost twenty-five years ... is the clear indication of a correlation between changes in Neptune's brightness and the number of sunspots, which Dr. Lockwood used as an activity indicator for changes in cosmic rays" ("Solar Variability and Climate Change"; by Willie Soon; marshall.org, 1/10/00).

"RUSH ... I love Roy Spencer" ("Rush's Estate Cools Palm Beach"; Mr. Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity Extremist Republican and Christian