Wiki can be altered by users so I't not a reliable souce for a lot of things.  I use it for a brief and if it doesn't make sense I researce farther.  I cuaght a mistake a whild back about a local location but didn't correct it.

Nancy dear I love you but have you been drinking spell check

C'mon....I'm only asking for one. Surely there is one.

Nancy did that on purpose to make her point Ron.

SO let me get this strait people still think GW is fact even though their are a group of people just as educated and qualified as the ones say it its real, saying its false?

lol some genius put  they didn't do research, um yeah they did.

Look the point is G.W. is theory and one of many, and just because alot of money has been put into and and lot of liberals think its real doesn' t mean it is.

The only thing we know is that pollution is real and I'm all in favor of stopping or at least producing less pollution. Some think I'm misled but some others would think you are. The point is if your out there saying no other opinion is right besides mine on a theory that has not been pr oven fact your an idiot.

lol Now lets get serious and admit that despite the side your on all you can say is that their is doubt, but unfortunately as far a scientists go more agree GW is false and as far a liberal blooger that are not scientists go more agree the GW is True.

I like the let not drill for oil because of the environment argument. Because it is proven that to days methods are safe and that in the case of OIL Rigs it benefits the ocean because it takes the roll of a reef. Plus even through Katrina not a drop was spilt. Plus if we drilled and refined more we would be sending less money to countries that don't like us, Plus...wait this is a GW post my bad...

It scared me I thought she was back on the sause

of course in here with the tin hats the mercury around the UFO'S house's and Random believeing Bush is running again it could drive a person to drink

SO let me get this strait people still think GW is fact even though their are a group of people just as educated and qualified as the ones say it its real, saying its false?

Obviously you can't read - the source you provided isn't credible.  The "scientists" are not experts on the Environment.  Would you trust a Podiatrist to do open heart surgery?  If you would, then you deserve the consequences.

The only thing we know is that pollution is real and I'm all in favor of stopping or at least producing less pollution. Some think I'm misled but some others would think you are. The point is if your out there saying no other opinion is right besides mine on a theory that has not been pr oven fact your an idiot.

So if you're in favor of reducing pollution, why do you care whether the Global Warming theory is fact or not? 

lol Now lets get serious and admit that despite the side your on all you can say is that their is doubt, but unfortunately as far a scientists go more agree GW is false and as far a liberal blooger that are not scientists go more agree the GW is True.

You keep saying that more scientists agree that Global Warming is false, yet you never once prove it.  Oh wait.. that's because you can't.  Just like every other post you make on this site, you write a bunch of crap and then have no clear evidence to back it up. 

I like the let not drill for oil because of the environment argument. Because it is proven that to days methods are safe and that in the case of OIL Rigs it benefits the ocean because it takes the roll of a reef. Plus even through Katrina not a drop was spilt. Plus if we drilled and refined more we would be sending less money to countries that don't like us, Plus...wait this is a GW post my bad...

Hmm.. funny.... the United States produces the vast majority of energy that it consumes:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu...

Also funny.. it would take 10 years for ANWR drilling to begin if we implemented it now..

http://www.usnews.com/artic...

So not one drop of oil was spilt during Hurricane Katrina?  These photos would tell you a different story

http://www.katrinadestructi...

Oh.. and don't forget about the CDC confirming these spills:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disas...

Oh.. and the Rigs to Reefs program you're referring to is only for Oil rigs no longer in service:

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/hom...

.. once again, BS.. you FAIL.

Interesting.   What do you know?  A lot of people in an oil town don't believe in anthropogenic climate change.  I suppose it is similar to a lot of people in Winston-Salem, North Carolina still not believing smoking tobacco causes cancer. 

Those around here who plan for the year 2025 when our personal transportation is nearly all based on electricity from the Sun and wind will be way ahead of the game.  Fossil fuel will go the way of whale oil by then.

Actually, airquality, there are pleny in Winston-Salem who realize smoking tobacco is a killer.  I've had family living in that area since before the American Revolution.

But, when there is still money to be made, science sometimes takes a back seat (as do morals and ethics).

That's true FSG, there are also people living in this oil town that actually believe in science (no not as a religion) and do think that Global Warming is something we need to deal with, although we'll have to deal with it whether we believe in it or not. 

How many "500 year floods" or unusual droughts or melting glaciers is it going to take to convince you?

Tom: re your oceans rising theory--

http://nov55.com/oceans.htm...

Of course you'll just declare it to be quackery. Mattloch, help save me. ........ (con wikki - haha!)

 http://www.ucsusa.org/globa... Here is what these "guys" think...

You dispute the scientists named because you say they are not credible, SO below is a break down of the signers.

FSG, you igonrant little guy, I can want a cleaner earth even if I don't buy into the made up GW crap you believe.

Prove it ok well you guys have alist of 40,000 right? where the one I know of and Al GOre speaks of only has like 6 or 7 k and some have been found to be dead or have degrees in completely unrelaed fields, you paint a good picture that looks good FSG, that is untill you get close and see the crappy brush stokes...lol..

Its funny aren't Repulicans constantly blames for suppressing differnet views, but it is most often people like you that do it.

Heres the list broken down, and after reviewing and seeing the fact that again you have either been lied to or were just wrong by yourself, what exactly will you do to justify your postion, I have met many people like your self and it is alway fun to watch them as they try to explain past the facts...

http://www.petitionproject....

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment  (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)

2. Math (686)

I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)

I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)

2. Aerospace (585)

I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry ( 3,156)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I)  Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)

Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)

2. Medicine (2,343)

General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)

I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)

2. General Science (241)

ANY Questions libs?

Ron..you need to use spell check when you remind me to use spell check.  lol

Anti...Thanks..I needed an excuse other than the "sause."

Truth is I have a new laptop and after using an ergonomic split keyboard for 4-5 years I'm having trouble typing on this dinky thing.  I'm afraid to touch anything for fear of losing all I typed.

Bear with me folks..first thing I need to do is cut my nails..Long nails and tiny keyboards are  not synonymous with me.

"Nancy dear I love you but have you been drinking spell check ".....that's a relief I thought there was a new drink out there called spell check! 

Geez, I give. How simple is this Supe. None of the scientists you quote are climatologists. EVERY single major scientific organization in the world says global warming is real, and are fairly certain that anthropogenic activity is accelerating it.

I ask again, name one major scientific organization, no not some offshoot fiction writing medical doctors Exxon funded response, I mean real scientific organizations.

And you have the gall to think science is on your side? If you believe that, then there is no hope for you to see what is in front of your eyes.

Besides the IPCC, whom all you naysayers must think are perpetrating a conspiracy, here's my list...... 

JBS made a point early on this thread that China is pretty much the biggest polluter on earth and no one here or anywhere else is willing or able to do a thing about it other than buy some curly light bulbs made in China. 

It has been said before and I'll say it again, I'll believe it is a crisis when those that tell me it is a crisis start treating it like a crisis.

Now, feel free to continue talking over each other. 

OK, I'll bite.  I believe we ARE having global warming, the signs are there.  What I also believe is that it's cyclical and always will be.  We've been in a warming cycle for ages.

I give, I'm going to have to buy a mouse for this thing  That little pad is causing me no end of grief.  How DO you guys type on those PDA thingy's or whatever they are?

The IPCC give me a break its a UN political appointee committee, the few scientist they actually have most have sued to get their names off the damn report. Yeah that's 3000 Politico jobs lol. The IPCC give me a break.

The actual fact regarding consensus on this issue is that there are many more scientists who dispute the claims regarding global warming than there are who support them.

The IPCC reports rely on a particular computer model which projects temperature changes due to "positive feedback" reactions in the atmosphere. The IPCC report claims that as CO2 levels rise, temperatures will also rise causing more water to be evaporated into the air. Since water vapor is by far the leading greenhouse gas, increased water vapor is supposed to accelerate the global warming process in a runaway feedback loop. The actual scientific data, however, do no support the positive feedback model. The basic methodology used by the IPCC cannot be supported by actual data so the panel relies on the news media to filter the news that reaches the public.

Just for the record you think Bush and McCain are wrong about everything else but this right? lol

First off how can you get past the empirical evidence that actual measurements of the earth's temperature shows no man-made warming .Over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly. How do you explain this, cause no scientist has.

 In Al Gore's famous ice core data, showing the supposed correlation between temperature and CO2, what he neglected to say was that there was an 800 year time lag between a rise in global temperatures and the following rise in CO2. Yes, temperature goes up 800 years before CO2 levels rise.
 

During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering . ... they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

The paper also presents a large amount of temperature measurement data, from a variety of sources, such as balloon and satellite, all of which show a slight downward trend in global temperatures, not a rise as would be expected from the IPCC computer models.
 

Give me a break Anti- you can not dispute what others say because you don't want to accept them. But I do like a cleaner earth just don't try to tell me that I'm causing global warming when there is not proof except model that used made up projection that do not coincide with actual data. Plus the fact that earth goes through warm and cool cycles, and has done that for years.

But I guess your right if you discount climatologist that you site that ignore little facts like this. Climatologist? wtf where di d that come from? what s the requirements watching Gores movie and claiming it as fact? lol

GW is, in its gestalt, is just a way for :

1) Al Gore to be relevant

2) Get the US on a  "level playing field" with backward nations (read lower our standard of living)

3) Give the UN more power (see #2 above)

4) Socialists to gain power as it is, in its very essence, anti-capitalism..............

The rest is all useless palaver

You obviously have trouble discerning weather from climate. For instance, if global warming occurs, europe will actually get colder. Sounds silly huh, but true. I'm not making the claim that global warming is occuring because it's 100 degrees at Pismo Beach today, if you don't discredit it as being boulderdash because next week it's 65.

Al Gore means nothing to the discussion. He's not a climatologist or even in a related field. I personally know Susan Solomon of the IPCC. She is an American who has spent many a cold night in the antartica working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You might have heard of them. She is a National Medal of Science recepient. She might be a little more qualified than the Oregon Institute of Evolution and Tobacco caused Cancer naysayers. You discredit all of these scientists, the tops in their field, simply because nations fund them, and not Exxon. Yeah, that makes sense.

A consensus means a consensus. When 95 out of 100 scientists in an organization concur, it is called a consensus. You still haven't mentioned a major scientific organization that agrees with you, but you still make the claim that there are more scientists that dispute it than believe. That my friend is so absurd, it really does boggle the mind.

If you want to continue to believe the Oregon Petitiion which has been roundly criticized by the scientific community because it fits your politics, fine. As for myself, I'll believe NASA....

"Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

God spare our grandkids from ignorance.

BS.. if anyone is ignorant, it is you.

I have B.A. in History but that doesn't make me an expert on EVERY part of history.  For example, if you asked me something about African History, chances are I'm not the guy you want to be speaking to.  Me signing a petition regarding facts about African History wouldn't make the petition credible.  The same goes for any other subject field.  To take the word of these scientists really holds no water, because chances are they have little to no real experience when it comes to the subject matter.

Also, if you look at what it takes to actually sign the petition, you'd see that any Joe Schmoe could fill in the information and send it out.  There doesn't appear to be any way of verifying the credentials.

Yes, Al Gore is not a scientist.  However, he is someone with the power to bring these issues in the open. 

It's all moot folks, if you believe the Bible.   Read  2 Peter - Ch. 3

  That's the only global warming anyone SHOULD be concerned with.

OOORRRRRRRRRRR...................big surprise - maybe it is just good old mother nature doing her thang! Tornado's, floods, earthquakes, too hot here too cold there. Too much rain there not enough here!  Looks like mother nature is reclaiming her own territory to MOI"!!!!  Which means.............................NOBODY knows what the hell they are talking about!!! 

How about THAT sports fans!!! Can anybody say extinct dinosaurs???

mother nature ??????? 

YA DCS!  you remember the lady! make flowers & grass & trees grow. Makes the little birdies go tweet, tweet, tweet! Brews ups storms, sunshine, rainbows!  THAT mother nature! The one we can't fool.................anymore. We humans have all but destroyed this world and she's takin' it all back!  Dinos must have really ticked her off - they are extinct!

Every so many millions of years, there are major floods, ice ages, deserts (one 's' or two?) made. Happens on all the planets! It's our turn again!

But we can appease her by buying a hybred! 

Don't you mean hybread?

Brid  -- brid  --  brid  ------    smart###    : )

  P. S.   I am bent like my tree  -- I was going sideways, and now I'm going up.

Federal Report: Warming = More Harmful Climate Extremes

The first thorough federal review of research on how global warming may affect extreme climate events in North America forecasts more drenching rains, parching droughts (especially in the Southwest), intense heat waves and stronger hurricanes if long-lived greenhouse gases continue building in the atmosphere.

The report is distinct from last month’s federal review of specific impacts of warming on agriculture, ecosystems, coasts and the like in the United States, focusing instead on how weather patterns will change. It also largely echoes, at the regional level, findings on global impacts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year.

The report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, is online at climatescience.gov. The biggest impacts of global warming will be from the shifts in the frequency and duration of extreme events, not the slow rise in the average temperature, it concluded.

Plenty of changes driven partly by the growing human climate influence are already apparent, the report said:

For example, in recent decades most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense. Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions.

The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades, though North American mainland land-falling hurricanes do not appear to have increased over the past century. Outside the tropics, storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are becoming even stronger

http://dotearth.blogs.nytim...

If it gets colder = Global Warming (in addition to it getting hotter)

If we have flood, tornadoes, pestilence = Global Warming

The pinheads have all the bases covered

And the beat goes on

And the idiots will lap it up

They will convince you to accept the US as a Third World Country

Its what they (Dems) do....... after all.............

Every so many millions of years, there are major floods, ice ages, deserts (one 's' or two?) made. Happens on all the planets! It's our turn again! 

I, for one, intend to go out swinging.  Maybe she'll notice the sincere effort...

On the other hand, one of the longest-surviving species is the cockroach, if I recall correctly.  Maybe *THEY* own the planet.

Well RF, if only the cockroaches survive then I guess you and I are good to go - to survival that is!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!

gotcha!!!!  Sorry bud, you walked (crawled!) into that one!!!!!!

Chico, perhaps we're trying to *PREVENT* the US from becoming a third-world country.  If the flow of cheap oil gets shut off, and we lose major growing regions to drought, and the major population centers in coastal areas get inundated...how will our economy look *THEN*?

.

In terms of energy conservation we're talking about basically going all the way back to the 60's consumption level or so.  I don't think *THAT* constitutes poverty conditions, if we do it *SMART.*

Actually, WP, it's my spouse whose informal nickname is "cockroach."  The doctors have tried to kill her so many times I've almost lost count, and she keeps bouncing back somehow.

I'll believe it's a crisis when those who say it's a crisis start treating it like it's a crisis.

LOL  RF!!!! good for her!  La Cookaracha!!!!!

I still think mother nature is involved in this global mess - silly me!!!!!

We're trying, dril.  It's the oil companies who keep feeding phony "petitions" into the system and holding things back.

.

The thing about reality, as Philip K. Dick pointed out, is that it doesn't go away when you ignore it.

And while North America scorches, Europe will get cooler..is that what you're saying?

That could well happen if the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down.

.

And it's no disproof of "global climate change," as Global Warming should be named.  Just because I've got ice cubes in the freezer doesn't mean I won't be sweltering everywhere else in the house today.  The thing about GW isn't that we couldn't open up new areas for agriculture and settlement--it's that we've got a huge investment in the situation as it is.  If Bakersfield becomes uninhabitable do we have a place to go, or are we SOL? 

As long as they think they have Bush, oil companies, etc. to blaim, it is reason enough *NOT* to do more themselves.

Actually, it's reason enough to get *RID* of Bush, overrule the oil companies, get the ?*%! out of Iraq, and start solving the problem *NOW*.

.

Next step is November 4, when we prevent George Bush's third term.

That is still not enough to keep *YOU* from doing something yourself.  But, as you are admiting, it's not an environment issue to you, it's a political issue. 

Anyone who doesn't believe that we're having a negative effect on the earth with the pollution we're creating is lying to themselves.

I believe that global warming is going on, I'm just not convinced that the effects will be totally negative.

and anyone who doesn't believe there are forces who want to utilize the pollution caused by man to gain power for themselves is just stupid

Huh?   That's a little too obscure for me Chico.  

Those who wish a socialistic agenda for the US will utilize the enviro-weanie-whackos to convince people like yourself that, yes, we indeed need to do things like:

LET THE GOVT TAKE OVER OIL COS

REGULATE ALL OTHER BUSINESS TO THE POINT WHERE IT WILL BE EFFECTIVELY RUN BY THE GOVT

TAX WHATEVER PROFIT BUSINESSES DO MAKE IN ORDER TO  "INVEST" IN  "GREEN" ENERGY SOURCES

PROLIFERATE SHAMS LIKE CARBON CREDITS WHICH OF COURSE ARE  "SOLD" BY THE ENVIRO-WEANIES LIKE GORE

RE-DISTRIBUTE WEALTH TO THE  "NON-POLLUTERS" OF SOCIEITY E.G. THE  "POOR"  (DONE THROUGH ADDITIONAL FORMS OF TAXATION OF INCOME (PROFITS)

Of course it will seem obscure to some. Were it too blatant, even those who don't normally pay attention just might.