Joe: Mr. Wahl, in his letter, made it clear that he only wanted "idiots" to attempt to prove him wrong. Since you are not an idiot, you have an unfair advantage over Mr. Wahl and are therefore disqualified.

Is there a place near-by to get stamped an idiot?

Or would finding such a place also be grounds for disqual?

Perhaps even asking these q's displays mental activity beyond the boundary?

This climate change stuff really is tricky.......

For a picture of the Natural Global Warming cycle, see the blog at http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/133317.html

Joe: What you have just done is claim something is proven because nobody has proven an alternative.

Referencing a UN group of politically motivated scientists to prove a theory that would provide the UN with power over the entire world to enforce economic powers upon them, seems kind of silly when you think about it.

Jump on over to the blog and explain to us how the earth has not cycled numerous times, how we are not in the warm part of that cycle, and how we are not within the normal range of temperatures...go ahead, I dare ya.

You are like someone standing on the beach 4 hours before high tide, noticing that the tide is rising, and screaming that the world is going to be flooded to the top of the mountains. All of your data collected over the last hour shows the tide is rising at 1 inch per 20 minutes and at that rate, the ocean will be over Mount Everest in less than three months. We need to stop using gas powered motor boats as they are causing the ocean to rise....oh dear..we need a UN coast guard to patrol the waters...oh the world is ending...oooooohhhhh

Joe, standby. You are about to learn why the IPCC is not credible.

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

For the full article...these people are nuts!

Its all about international government by the looniest leftists in the world.

Yosemite: You are right. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which - combined with carbon dioxide - causes the vast majority of global warming. Eating one pound of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gasses as driving an SUV forty miles.

Methane - The billions of farmed animals crammed into factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces. Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.

Nitrous Oxide - Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.

Go green, go veg.

Pop science maybe...

Birch,

When you put it that way, thank goodness we killed all the plains buffalo! the world would have ended a hundred years ago from all those buffalo farts!

Birch: I have no problem with people eating vegetables and abstaining from eating meat.

I do have a problem with them mandating vegetarianism, or arbitrarily taxing the production of beef so that it costs too much for anyone to afford.

The climate catastrophe argument is a great one for forming socialist/fascist policies because it allows the fascists to claim that they are forcing us into poverty "for our own good".

I'll do my level best to reduce my carbon footprint, I kayak, ride a bicycle and do a lot of walking but no way in hell am I giving up steaks.

By the way, there is an excellent article today about Climatic Change in Yahoo News, it was based on a study of the last 130 years. Bottom line? Yes, there is a warming trend.

Inquisitive: God knows I appreciate facetiousness... but wild, roaming animal herds are nowhere near the same as feed lots.

Yosemite: Who said anything about mandatory vegetarianism?

Get rid of people. They are destroying our lovely planet.

"Soylent Green is people."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a scientific intergovernmental body paid by US taxpayers too represent one world government. I've watch them in congressional hearings on CSPAN. They avoid questions like crazy. "most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." is not what the panel as a whole has said. They hedge and say most likely.

Bulletin: "The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its reports have played a major role in inspiring governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol." UNEP

Tests to prove or disprove that human caused CO2 will cause earth's temperature to rise and cause havoc for our planet such as the fear in a recent letter that all will die in 40 to 50 years is actually quite easy and inexpensive to conduct. Inexpensive compared to the massive billions of dollars being slated for insane attempts to avoid fake disaster. Simply select a few sites of different climate conditions such as ; Mountain foothills such a ours, Valley floors close to sea level elevation such as our California valleys, Mountain high elevations such as near us, Desert floors such as in southern Nevada, Midwest plains such as Kansas, Cold northern state such as North Dakota, Hot southern state such as Alabama, Somewhere near heavy population center such as New York city. Now at each site build two greenhouse enclosures, each cited to receive identical environmental conditions such as sun exposure. Each enclosure will have multiple automatic externally readable temperature recording devices. Now conduct a series of tests at each site. For each test, insure that each enclosure is filled with surrounding air of equal temperature. Now inject a known amount of extra CO2 into the test greenhouse. Now run multiple test of varying time periods and varying extra CO2, recording temperatures as time passes. We will then have non-wish fulfillment data that is the idiots only chance to prove me wrong.

Citing the IPCC as proof of AGW is clear demonstration of an idiot's ignorance.

Has anyone ever heard of DSCOVR?

http://cloud.ucsd.edu/dscovr/mission_summary.html

It was designed to find out if climate change is caused by humans. It was build and paid for and was suppose to launch in 2003 but was squashed by president Bush. Was it because he really didn't want to know the answer? Or was it because it was an Al Gore idea. Either way, I hate it when politics sticks it's nose in science.

Give up your car. Turn off your heat and lights. Stop cooking your food. Until you do these things, you have zero credibility.

More socialism.

Jongreen,

Your first. I promise to follow. Really.

Just watch the campfire scene in "Blazing Saddles" and you can get some scents ( :) ) of the magnitude of our impact on global warming.

Joe-

Have you checked out who is on the IPCC and what they're scientific credentials are? You make it sound like you must have done this to come to the conclusions you are comming to. I maintain that the IPCC is a political body that takes good scientific information (in some cases) and does whatever they want with it so as to meet their political agenda. Many of the scientists who see their work misused by the IPCC aren't very happy about it but this doesn't make very interesting news. You haven't made a very good case for man made global warming which is perfectly understandable- since there isn't one.

Global Warming somehow relates to Socialism? Better lay off the nitrous oxide........................

"Gaia, as Mother Nature, personifies the entire ecosystem of Planet Earth. Mother Nature is always working to achieve and maintain harmony, wholeness and balance within the environment. Mother Nature heals, nurtures and supports all life on this planet, and ultimately all life and health depend on Her. In time, Nature heals all ills." Don't worry, be happy, Gaia will take care of global warming or cooling. We need to stop allowing the UN to dictate, we are citizens of a sovereign nation with a leadership void.

Fourgen, Well said.

jon and four - I need a bit of clarification...are you two saying that humans are incapable of taking some action that would result in Earth being unable to support human existence?

Bastiat, You mean like nuking everyone? Humans could try this but still there would be human existence on the planet that actual could sustain life. If whatever took out the dinosaurs happens all bets are off. It wasn't human intervention.

so you are saying that human beings do not have the capability to set into motion some series of events that would make the planet unable to sustain human life?

Mother Earth will do what she wants to... like any woman....and maybe we humans are just part of her natural plan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Yeah...yeah...yeah.......thank you for sharing. Now I'm going to enjoy the next few months of global cooling before global warming season (AKA SUMMER) comes back again. Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Birch, I posted the link.

A relatively high level member of the IPCC, a British Lord, he was the one that was saying we need to get rid of meat in our diets and the way to do it was going to be proposed at an upcoming meeting in Copehagen.

They are going to put a CAP & TRADE tax on meat and start public relations campaigns against meat.

Sorry for not making it more clear but the Journal limits our content, thus I provided the link instead of quoting him.

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

Member of the IPCC promoting a tax upon meat to dissuade people from eating, to put cattle ranchers out of business.

UNITED NATIONS — Just weeks before an international conference on climate change, the United Nations signaled it was scaling back expectations of reaching agreement on a new treaty to slow global warming.

Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general's Climate Change Support Team, said Monday "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go" because the U.S. Congress has not agreed on a climate bill, and industrialized nations have not agreed on targets to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or funding to help developing countries limit their discharges.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made a new climate treaty his top priority, hosting a Sept. 22 summit on climate change to spur political support and traveling extensively to build political momentum for a global agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which only requires 37 industrialized nations to cut emissions.

Pasztor told a news conference "there is tremendous activity by governments in capitals and internationally to shape the outcome" of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in early December, which "is a good development" because political leadership is essential to make a deal.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0

Its all about the global government

Fourgen is correct. Mother Nature great. Man puny.

I don't know what you all are worried about. We all are going to come down with the Rosie O'Donnell flu and die anyway.

I think it is the sun's fault. A good carbon dioxide level would help shade the earth. Every notice how fresh the air is after it rains?

JG - do you honestly believe that fresh air following a rain has something to do with CO2?

Bastiat asked: "so you are saying that human beings do not have the capability to set into motion some series of events that would make the planet unable to sustain human life?"

Anything is possible. probable? Not much of a chance. The dinosaurs did not cause their own extinction and science has yet to come up with anything more then theories that can not be proven beyond a doubt. Oh, wait a second that is what science is? A succession of theories that stand as fact until proven otherwise, then they become scientific fact.

Goddess Gaia will take care of the world.

There is no goddess Gaia.

...that's because, "Soylent Green is people".

Wait.. am I the only one old enough to remeber the "Global Cooling" crisis we were warned about. I still have my down jacket and thermal underwear along with 18 pounds of freeze dried bean curd in my YK2 survival kit ! The sky is falling has been big business. Those who get government grants to study theories and whip up the hype Americans feed on need us to get hysterical or they will be out of jobs. Quick I think I need to grab my space age umbrella, it is beginning to acid rain!

To appease Gaila and Obewan- Mother Earth is having a hot flash!

Bastiat: Yes, it has to do with Mother Nature maintaining the eco system. Follow the money, global warming is a scam. Our planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years and man has only been around for 3 to 4 million years. What caused the little ice age and the warming that followed? What is causing the movement of continents? I don't think it was man or woman.

If the planet is warming we can not stop it. We can however develop crops that prosper in warmer weather. We can increase water storage facilities. We can use more nuclear power. We can do a lot of things but we can't stop Mother Nature.

MRex221 - Gaia, "Environmentalists have often invoked Gaia during environmental actions. To many, Gaia is the spirit behind all such actions. She exemplifies the earth as a living entity. As such, she infuses these acts of reclaiming with the divine.

Recently, then, she has been given a new face -- that of all we must preserve, reclaim, create. We need her to survive. She is the cycles, the seasons, the regeneration. She is that which is within us which spurs us to acts of right livelihood. (Like composting, recycling, using public transportation) Read Starhawk's "Dreaming the Dark." I promise you'll become an activist after reading it, and you'll understand that taking a stand for the earth is a witch's responsibility.

My experience with Gaia? She was with me on every march, at every rally. She goes with each bus to the Nevada nuclear testing site. She is with activists who raid the Hanford Nuclear Power Plant, and with the witches as they weave their magick at the entrance to the Oak Ridge nuclear plant (picture 3 witches in robes on Samhain banishing the use of nuclear weapons). She sits with the treehuggers in the tops of trees in Oregon and she empowered protesters at the Champion paper mill in North Carolina.

She witnesses all. She empowers all. She is our breath" http://www.earthwitchery.com/gaia.html#anchor525446

JG - you are a master at answering questions that nobody has asked.

wakefield - you are confusing popular media generated public "panics" with SCIENTIFIC warnings. There is a difference. Global cooling was NEVER a valid SCIENTIFIC concern / warning...alll media no substance...urban myth taken from a single scientific study that was generally misinterpreted and then communicated to the masses via the idiotbox...no science problem...a media problem. I am not aware of a SCIENTIFIC concern / warning related to Y2K...again all media, no substance...a valid concern that some computers and associated applications might not work properly but if you were paying attention to the media instead of the SCIENTISTS you may have been led to believe that the laws of physics would no longer apply following Y2K and there would be anarchy and bloodshed. Acid rain was / is a real phenomenon...there was plenty of SCIENCE to support that this was real and there was plenty of SCIENCE involved in mitigating it.

For some reason lot's of intelligent and literate folks are incapable of discerning between a SCIENTIFIC theory and the opinion of a scientist...the two are worlds apart yet consistently mistaken for one another by many. I wonder why that is?

You could not have made my point better Bastiat!

It seems that there are a lot of intelligent and literate folks who are incapable of discerning between scientific FACT and scientific THEORY! Let's not confuse the two. Unfortunately scientific theory is often taught as fact. Can you say piltdown man? Lucy? The school text books and museums are full of theory that are taught as fact.The two are worlds apart yet are consistantly mistaken for another by many. I wonder why that is?

Answering questions that nobody asked is something that you need to think about to expand your knowledge base. Perhaps it is an answer to a question no one wants to ask because the question is outside of their belief system, experience, of view of the world.

wakefield - I agree let's not confuse the two. can you tell the difference? from the examples you cited I don't believe you can.

JG - in this case your avoidance of answering a direct question is your tactic to avoid the truth...avoiding the truth is not the way to expand anyones knowledge base. nice try.

Bastiat- do you disagree that scientific theory and even scientific hypothosis is taught as fact? There is a difference. Actually, there are three different tems: hypothosis, theory and law. Good science is based on Scientific theories that do not contradict Scientific Law such as the second law of thermo-dynamics. Global warming -where man made CO2 has been the catalyst for destruction is based on hypothosis. Al Gore's inconvenient truth was really an inconvenient hyposhosis.

"Can you tell the difference? I don't believe you can."

I can tell the difference between a hypothosis, a hyposhosis, and a hypothesis.

Can you tell which one is spelled correctly? I don't believe you can.

Bastiat, so sorry about the misspelled word I should have consulted a convenient dictionary before discussing the issue of inconvenient truth. I guess one of us should stick to science and the other to grammar. Obviously you have the corner on the spelling market. Good job..keep up the good wok...I mean wirk..OOPS Keep up the good work.

Wakefield and Bastiat- there must be some truth to the global warming theory becuse you are both getting a little hot under your collars. Simmer down...no pun intended.

Fourgen, I thank you for that post. That did more for me and the side of regular folks than any other post I've seen.

Just realized as I posted I misspelled "because"...sorry. In case Bastiat is grading on spelling/grammar I thought this was an outcome based blog..

ah yes...an "outcome based blog" wakefield lecturing about how the "second law of thermo-dynamics" is somehow more "real" than a scientific theory is a complete joke and proves that he / she doesn't understand the first thing about what those terms mean. the poor spelling on his / her part happened to be "an inconvenient truth". don't mind misspellings, in fact do it myself all the time, but it seems a bit ironic to me that someone purporting to lecture about the scientific precision of hypotheses, theories, and laws should at least know how to spell those things even if he / she doesn't really understand what they mean.

Bastiat-I thought this thread was about science. You are admitting to misspelling words all the time, but are now can't accept someone elses? Wow that is a little hypocritical. You have done a great spell check job as I mentioned before. But most of your latest posts have been on the misspelling of hypotheses and very little on the subject of differentiating between scientific law, theories and hypothesis. I am wondering if you really understand what they mean.

Good news Bastiat! This is my last post on this thread. While you sit in front of your screen correcting grammar,attempting to decipher what I could possibly know or not know based on one misspelled word like a real CSI criminal profiler- I'll be outside enjoying some fresh fall air.

Best of luck Bastiat.

wakefield - I was writing about science...not really sure what you were writing about...it is probably best that you go out and play while the grownups have a grownup conversation.

Sorry, bastiat, it seemed like you have been talking about spelling, I haven't really heard much substantial info on science other than the fact that you can spell hypothesis and I can't. Still amazed at your talent for knowing someones level of knowledge based on a misspelled word. You should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

FYI there is a difference between grownup and grown-up - if you can't figure out the right useage maybe you aren't one either. Maybe the real reason you aren't outside is that you do not play well with others.

okay then back to the discussion at hand...tell us again how a scientific law is somehow more "real" than a scientific theory.

oh...and wake...since we seem to be trading spelling corrections you misspelled "useage" s/b usage...fyi