@calfoxwc said:

Well, Heck, you apparently are pouting that I successfully disagreed with Shep's stupid

"virtually all scientists on earth know mankind is causing gw and the debate is over".

IOW's.... anything to change the subject from heil Obamao, yes?

I've posted from science jounals, I've posted from your CNN... I've posted from

all sorts of places. BTW, I have never said that polls were the end all nothin.

I have always said they were indicators of certain sentiments, when you stupidly

kept insisting that nobody on earth had those sentiments but me, So, I simply showed

you that you were wrong again.

You are really wrong about the stupidass Obamaomarxistcare bill being approved by the Court.

you watch and learn, grasshopper. And then you can share it a bijjilion times to your little woodpecker

until he gets it, too. And yes, the mmgw debate has pretty much been winning for years,by my side. Go figure.

Now take your feeble emotions and quit venting my direction. I have a giant garden to plant.

are you really trying to ignite this 2 year old debate right where you left off?

(I use the term debate very loosely)

"virtually all scientists on earth know mankind is causing gw and the debate is over".

IOW's.... anything to change the subject from heil Obamao, yes?

I've posted from science jounals, I've posted from your CNN... I've posted from

all sorts of places. BTW, I have never said that polls were the end all nothin.

I have always said they were indicators of certain sentiments, when you stupidly

kept insisting that nobody on earth had those sentiments but me, So, I simply showed

you that you were wrong again.

You are really wrong about the stupidass Obamaomarxistcare bill being approved by the Court.

you watch and learn, grasshopper. And then you can share it a bijjilion times to your little woodpecker

until he gets it, too. And yes, the mmgw debate has pretty much been winning for years,by my side. Go figure.

Now take your feeble emotions and quit venting my direction. I have a giant garden to plant.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I apologize in advance, but I find it truly astounding, even after all this time, long past the day when you could write something that surprises me, where you think information comes from, how informed you think you are, and how certain you are about what you think you know. You're a definition of ignorance that walks and breathes. You're everything that's wrong with American politics stuffed into one man - mindlessly partisan, completely and utterly uninformed, easily misled and steered, full of impotent rage, and entirely unwilling and incapable of recognizing - much less processing - new information. I'm sure there are others out there like you, but I bet I could search the nation for years and still not find them.

Cal, my man, you used to give us the results of internet polls from right-wing websites and claim that they were accurate measurements of public sentiment. Why? Because you didn't know any better. Then we explained it to you, and then you continued to use internet polls to support your argument. Because you still didn't know any better. You lack the basic mental capacity to conduct any of these discussions on an adult level. Now you give us three editorials from right-wing news organizations and claim they somehow refute global warming science. Why? Because you don't know any better about this either.

And where did you find these three editorials? You found them on the Drudge Report, which is apparently where you get all of your news, without any sense that the Drudge Report exists to move, design - and create out of whole cloth - opinions for people like you.

The headlines are still up there now:

<b>Uncertainties of 'Global Warming': Sea Level Could Rise in South, Fall in North...

PRUDEN: Turn out the lights, the party's over...

'Are we freezing because of global warming?'</b>

You are truly something. And you will never change. God bless you.

lol, this was the state you were at 2 years ago

He gave two links to scientific sites on the subject.

Follow the links if you can figure out how.

The links have nothing to do with the reporter.

The scientists have nothing to do with the reporter.

You can't think, have no common sense, no wisdom, and you emote algorism

like it's a cult following?

Or what?

"I can't handle the truth, so I'll find a movie clip to make fun of Cal"

LOL

POSSIBILITY? SMALL?

Nothing to do with politics or spread the wealth or global gov?

Nah.

There's a small possibility we might be in a car wreck, so we should

tax ourselves out the wazoo, give up all our wealth and civil rights and freedom,

and never drive a car again because we're emitting co2.

But never a word about preserving the globes rainforests.

Nope. Not one freakin word. You see, rainforests aren't a source of tax revenue, and political power.

You jokers WANT mmgw to be real, so it can benefit the coffers of the gov, and you want that gov

to be a gigantic nanny state. Reward all those have nots for their Dem votes.

And all the scientists who disagree, objectively, to this global warming scam?

Ignore them, discredit them, ridicule them, outlaw them, outcast them.

Why? Because you libs don't care about facts. You care about more political power for

your Democratic (now controlled lock stock and barrel by socialists/progressives) party.

This is America. Not going to happen.

Like the echeck scam. Pollution! Lower exhaust limits on cars! Have gov check for bad emmisions of cars

before they can get plates? No problem?

50 to 100 bucks charged to the customer for 60 seconds of metering? How the hell much does that

checker guy MAKE a freakin hour?

Oh, the state/country needed funds for other things?

Right. So, people rose up and put a stop to that fraud all over the country.

MMGW is a fraud. If it's ever proven to be true, we'll all know it.

But ONE FREAKIN TREE RING out of millions of acres of forest? You have to be kidding.

Oh, and Algore? Brilliant? LOL. NO. He's a political con man who is heavily invested in his mmgw crap.

Obamao ? Brilliant, eloquent, post partisan, going to bring us all together..?????? ROF,LMAO !

Give it up. Your idealogy is your own worst enemy.

AL Gore and the rest of his loonies are trying to pull off the biggest scam of all time all in the name of fear.

All AlGorians like Heck can be very annoying with all of their propaganda and lies.

The most urgent reason to take action is because there's a small possibility of some really, really bad things happening. It may only be a 3-5 percent chance, but this is why people have fire insurance and flood insurance and life insurance - to protect against the possibility of catastrophe. The more likely probabilities are that things will just be regular bad, or really bad.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Let me quote a couple famous scientists from the Blazing Saddles institute.

"A man drinks like that and don't eat; he's gonna die!"

"When?"

But yes it's the same old things.

How serious is it?

What are all the causes?

How long do we have before it's too late?

How much is anyone willing to sacrifice to avert the natural disaster?

But I haven't heard anything new so far.

But I understand you're at least partially serious about the threat besides the fact you love to bicker.

WSS

You should drop that talking point. It's not a good one.

If you refuse to accept that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts global warming theory as real and dangerous and potentially disastrous there's no helping you. You're obviously living in your own information bubble, like many of your other anti-intellectualists on the right.

Hope it's cozy in there.

You're using the word "theory" as if it's a bad word. The only other people that do that are creationists. Vapor

**************************

You completely miss the point, Heck style. It isn't the opinions of the deductions of the columnist that are important.

Go to the highlighted links and judge for yourself. Or, just keep parroting the progressive party line. Your choice.

It's just that he refers to the facts about the 17,000 scientists.

Let me help you deal with the facts in the article:

*********************************************

So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?

''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. "

''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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''

The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?

No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.

The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.

The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.

More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org.

What is going on in Buenos Aires is a costly exercise in futility. The United States has not signed the Kyoto treaty; even if President Clinton does sign it, there is no chance the Senate will ratify it. And without US participation, any plan to curtail CO2 emissions is doomed - as it ought to be.

Nevertheless, it is important to explode the myth that most scientists are worried about global warming. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to hijack science in their pursuit of power. Environmentalists and journalists with an antibusiness itch to scratch should be cross-examined whenever they claim there is only one side to an issue of public policy.

We've been down this ''consensus'' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? ''The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,'' Newsweek claimed in 1975, ''that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.'' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.

As Newt Gingrich said, "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."

And clearly, that's what he's talking about. But old beliefs die hard. I bet you won't see either Cal or T acknowledge this.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Neither ever happened. The opposite side just likes to pretend it did, or doesn't know.

You're using the word "theory" as if it's a bad word. The only other people that do that are creationists.

Aye aye aye.

Always the same shit, over and over. See what I mean, Steve?

Have a gosh-bejeebers happy day !

But you're wrong.

I am right. mmgw claims of being "fact", is bogus.

The debate was NEVER "over".

That pretty much settles that. @@

See: <A href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/309/Scientists_don_t_agree_on_global_wa.shtml">Boston Globe Article

Underway in Buenos Aires is a giant international conference on global warming, a follow-up to last December's United Nations-sponsored confab in Kyoto, Japan. Delegates to the summit aim to put teeth into the treaty that came out of Kyoto, which calls for the world's leading countries to reduce sharply their use of energy over the next decade and a half. If implemented, the treaty would force the most productive societies on earth - the ones that have led the way in making human life comfortable, safe, and prosperous - to slow their economic growth and degrade their standard of living.

The organizers of the Buenos Aires conference take it for granted, of course, that global warming is real. The ''consensus'' among scientists, it is said, is that the planet's temperature is rising, the cause of the rise is the use of fossil fuels, and disastrous climate changes are looming unless drastic changes are made. The media likewise tend to take it as a given that the experts are in accord on global warming. So do many politicians. ''The evidence of global warming keeps piling up,'' says Vice President Al Gore, who has made the issue a personal crusade, ''month after month, week after week.''

So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?

''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

''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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''

The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?

No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.

The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.

The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.

More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org.

What is going on in Buenos Aires is a costly exercise in futility. The United States has not signed the Kyoto treaty; even if President Clinton does sign it, there is no chance the Senate will ratify it. And without US participation, any plan to curtail CO2 emissions is doomed - as it ought to be.

Nevertheless, it is important to explode the myth that most scientists are worried about global warming. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to hijack science in their pursuit of power. Environmentalists and journalists with an antibusiness itch to scratch should be cross-examined whenever they claim there is only one side to an issue of public policy.

We've been down this ''consensus'' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? ''The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,'' Newsweek claimed in 1975, ''that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.'' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.

Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist.