US House Passes Bill Affirming Global Warming Exists
By Richard Cowen
Reuters



Washington - The House of Representatives Wednesday, aiming to put an end to the debate over whether global warming is actually occurring, passed legislation recognizing the "reality" of climate change and providing money to work on the problem.

By a vote of 272-155, the House approved an environmental funding bill for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 that would increase federal investments in basic research on climate change and establish a new commission to review scientific questions that need to be addressed.

The White House has threatened a veto of the $27.6 billion bill because its overall spending would exceed President Bush's request by about $2 billion. The Senate has not yet debated the bill.

The bill also would require oil companies to renegotiate faulty drilling contracts issued by the government in 1998 and 1999 that have allowed them to avoid paying billions in royalties, or be barred from receiving any new leases to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

The White House "strongly opposes" the provision, saying it could produce legal challenges that might delay future lease sales and would set a bad precedent coming nearly a decade after the government signed the contracts.

By inserting a declaration in the bill that climate change is a "reality," the Democratic-controlled House was trying to move U.S. policy-makers beyond a debate, long stimulated by the Bush administration, over whether there was scientific proof that global warming really is occurring.

A leading promoter of that debate has been Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who has referred to global warming as a "hoax." He chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee until Republicans lost control of Congress this year.

Many scientists worry global warming will produce a series of environmental catastrophes, from more violent storms and the collapse of many species, to worsening food shortages and diseases in some regions.

The climate change commission envisioned by the House bill would make its first recommendations by July 1, 2008 and the panel's work would end in 2009.

A White House statement said the Bush administration was committed to addressing "the important issue of climate change," but that the commission would duplicate government efforts already under way.

Environmental groups have lambasted the Bush administration on global warming, saying it has slowed international progress on controlling emissions thought to cause the buildup of greenhouse gases.

The House-passed bill also would beef up funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by giving the agency over $8 billion next year, $887 million more than Bush sought, mainly for water cleanup and clean air programs.

Source

bought dam time is all i can say! lets hope that %$#&ing yahoo Bush dosnt mess this up to

The House of Representatives, in another of their rather meaningless gestures. Geez. We actually voted these morons in to affirm this?

There has never been any debate on whether or not global warming exists! The House is stupid enough to think there has been debate? C'mon.

Global warming is a fact. It's been occurring for 10,000+ years!


The debate is concerning man-made global warming, an ill-supported hypothesis which has been advanced artificially by a combination of politically motivated yahoos and the acceptance of a large mass of scientifically illiterate people into the realm of scientific fact.

Man-made global warming is mythology at best, and bad science as well.


Money to work on a problem is just fine. The first thing is to define the problem, which they most assuredly haven't.




This is simply bad reporting. Again, there is no debate about global warming. It is a fact of nature. Of course, the reporter probably doesn't realize this.



More bad reporting. This man is debating man-made global warming. There's a huge difference to be noted here.




Environmental groups believe in man-made global warming, a completely unsupported hypothesis. Their actions are among the primary reasons that the price of gasoline is so high, because they have lobbied to prohibit U.S. refinery construction and oil production. Their misguided radicalism will ensure that we depend on the Middle East for the majority of our oil for years to come.


This is just another silly piece of HR work which means absolutely nothing, like most of what they've done, or tried to do, since the Democrats came into "power".

(sigh) here we go again

-edit-

One bill reported in the House from last May-

H.R.2420 International Climate Cooperation Re-engagement Act of 2007 (reported but not passed)

mentioned IPCC, Kyoto, U.N. climate related security imperatives and

-U.S. participation to obtain mitigation commitments from all major GHG emitting countries through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

-Providing climate experts and career foreign service officers, headed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary's Deputy, or the Undersecretary for Global Affairs of the Department of State to engage in serious discussion of possible future commitments under the 13th Convention Conference of the Parties (COP-13, December 2007 Bali, Indonesia), to develop a plans and time-table with the goal of adopting a new international agreement under the Convention that stipulates commitments from all major greenhouse gas emitters;

-That the U.S., along with China, India, and Brazil, at the fifteenth Convention Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to take place in 2009, will seek as its objective a new instrument to come into force by the time the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012;

-Protect United States national and economic interests and United States competitiveness in all sectors by negotiating a new agreement under the Convention that is cost effective, comprehensive, flexible, and equitable;

-Seek international consensus on long-term objectives including a target range for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations, reflecting the consensus of the IPCC;

-Promote the use of American-made clean and efficient energy technologies, products, and energy and environmental management services.

-$16 trillion needs to be invested in energy-supply infrastructure worldwide by 2030, half of total energy investment will take place in developing countries, where production and demand are expected to increase the most;



Regarding the OP-

H.R.2643 was reported and passed in the House. It is far different, and much less ambitious than H.R.2420. Probably because the House and Senate will seek "climate legislation" outside of both the House's Interior Bill, and the Senate's Energy Bill, in September.

H.R.2643, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008

It contains-

TITLE V--GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

SEC. 501. [a] The Congress finds that--

(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods, droughts, and wildfires;

(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and

(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

[b] It is the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that: (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.

-------------------

In September, Congress will finalize and then send something up to the President. It will be up to him to sign or veto. We shall see.

Congress finds?
Despite the fact that we do not understand the "natural variability" of temperatures to any substantial degree whatsoever, and there has been nothing substantial which proves that increased greenhouse gasses are causing a rise in temperature (quite the contrary actually...we know that greenhouse gasses increase as does temperature...).

The "substantial risk" cited here is unsubstantiated...completely.



There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is a meaningless thing.
What there is...is a growing mania among the constituents of many members of Congress, fueled by personal ignorance, bad science, and a biased mainstream media. Congress, is, in a change of affairs for them in recent times, responding to their constituencies so as to be able to hold their offices.




And there it is, an allusion to draconian measures which will require you to pay higher taxes so as to expand government and fund ridiculous programs to adress what is now nothing more than a myth.





As nebulous as this paragraph is...it is dangerous, because it confirms what I previously said.

Know what mandatory, market-based limits are?

You'll see them in $4.50 per gallon gas prices and in income tax rates that are higher than you've ever seen.
You'll also see that the U.S. economy will indeed be adversely affected by such things.

What is necessary, logically and pragmatically, is the following:

1) Lifting the ridiculous restrictions on oil companies and their researchers and allowing them to drill for the vast quanties of oil that we have.
2) Allowing the building of refineries to meet the capacity demands that exist.

Folks, suffer no illusions...oil is the life blood of the worlds economy. It's not going anywhere any time soon, no matter what radical poilitical ideology or pseudoscientific blurb says about the future of mankind and the climate.

The results of these measures will be as follows:

a-) A pronounced decrease in the price of gasoline.
b-) Independence on middle-east and other foreign oil suppliers.
c-) A profound improvement in an already solvent economy, involving hundreds of thousands of jobs across a large spectrum of skilled and semi-skilled levels.


Then,

3) The promotion of and incentives to encourage active research and development of alternative energy sources.
4) A gradual conversion of the industry into these new and sources of energy generation, once they are fully fleshed out and shown to be economically viable (which they will be).


This Bill in the house has VETO written all over it.
The only obvious thing about this bill is that we need a new Congress...

I don't believe anything the government says...

I don't consider it meaningless. I think at this point most Americans, both liberal and conservative, are wincing at Bush's apparent lack of scientific understanding. Bills like this are rallying calls that say "you aren't the only one who has problems with Bush's ecological policies". The significant Republican response to the bill assures Ultra-loyal Republicans that they can be true to their party and still support alternative energy initiatives.

In a way, it diminishes Bush's ability to dictate a "correct" Republican stance.

As someone who dislikes radical left-winger and radical right-wingers equally (well... maybe I dislike the right wingers more, but the radical left is only marginally better), it gives me great pleasure to see a bipartisan support of scientific reality.

I'm not going to debate whether it's man-made or not ( Do it here ) because I'm never going to convince anyone to my side, so I'd rather be content knowing what I do and let the rest of you duke it out. However, on the topic at hand, it's a relief to hear any kind of progress on this issue, while simultaneously frustrating because it's such a baby step when we needed a giant leap, 30 years ago no less. It almost seems to me that it doesn't really matter at this point. It seems too late to do anything if the sun is the cause (a questionable "if", in my opinion); and if man is the cause, give or take in 30 years oil will be pretty much out of the picture as an energy source anyways. At this rate we'll be lucky if in 2037 Congress has decided any course of action. I feel like at this point the bill has accomplished way too little, way too slowly.

I've hoped something would be done all my life. Ever since I can remember I've been a total "save the earth" nerd, but at this point I almost feel like saying "Who cares."

They were doing something more than 30 years ago...fighting global cooling.

I think what nasayers to global warming need to realize is that it's a combination of things. Yes the sun is a huge factor in global warming, but not the only factor. To say man is not helping it along is just silly IMO. There is enough research to send up the red flags and get our act together. To the non believers that mankind has nothing to do with global warmming, ask yourself this, What if Your wrong? It deffinitly makes more sence to act then do nothing. If it turns out man has nothing to do with it, well at least our little blue home will be clean.

I totaly disagree with you there MID, man made global warming is certainly NOT A MYTH and it has been PROVEN. But lets keep this at the other thread, I dont even know why the author of this thread created the thread already being one in the same board.

I think the threads are separate ideas. The one is about the cause of global warming, while this deals with a supposed political step towards dealing with it, although as I said above I doubt anything will come of it. I suppose they could be combined, I don't see a need to though.

Indeed they were...!
We were being warned of an impending ice age by the wackos in the mid 1970s...despite the fact there was absolutely no evidence for that either...we were, as we are today, warming.

I suppose that depends on perspective. England and Northern Europe are predicted to become something similar to Scandinavia in the near future, whereas northern Canada is warming and the permafrost is melting. So if you live in Europe, then I guess you would be fighting against "global cooling". This isn't to say Europe would want to add to the global warming, though, as the melting of the polar ice caps is the very thing that's predicted to cause the cooling of northern Europe.

"its a little to late to do the right thing now" yeeehaaaaa

They are "predicted" to become that by people who are bowing to politically motivated pressures.
Hell, Greenland's going to melt in 20 years, and New York City is going to have serious problems with half of Manhattan being under water. This is gibberish, politically motivated, un-scientifically coroborated nonsense.

The fact is, we've been warming for 10000 years or so, and that trend is natural, and cyclical, and there is no soilid scientific proof that man has anything to do with it. It's not a matter of perspective. It's a matter of what's happening, what has been happening, and what will continue to happen for some time.

From what I've learned, it doesn't matter if it's caused by man or not. If the currents stop bringing warm air to Europe then the continent is basically going to freeze. You say yourself that the warming trend is occurring, whether that's naturally (as you believe) or due to man (as I believe). I'm obviously not a scientist and I have no idea if you are, but I've tried to learn as much about it from either side as possible and I like to think I at least know a little on the subject. If you do have any scientific background on the subject, maybe you could clarify how just because it's a natural occurrence it won't mess with the Gulf Stream that warms the European subcontinent?

$10,000 to discredit global warming

One example of the poitical pressures that the skeptics are bowing to themselves.

My whole belief is that it doesn't matter whether man has anything to do with it. We're running out of oil anyways, CO2 emissions may contribute to global warming, so we should try and conserve a bit and try and fix this problem. We all know it's occurred naturally before, but I don't think that should logically lead to sitting around and waiting to see if we were wrong or right. We're running low on oil anyways, why not conserve and try to find an alternative energy source; we're going to have to sooner or later anyways, why not do it sooner and shut up the debate about human contribution to global warming in the process? Then the skeptics won't have to be annoyed with the debate anymore and we'll have a solution to the oil shortage.

I think it matters. If it's being caused by man, then man has the ability to stop it.
The problem is, there's nothing concrete to lead anyone toward that conclusion. It is an hypothesis, and a weakly supported one, based upon politics.






This paragraph is loaded with things; some common sense, and some things that seem to come right out of the Al Gore playbook.

It does matter if man has anything to do with it. If man does, we can undo it. However, we have no evidence scientifically that supports it.

We are in no way running out of oil. It is a renewable resouce. No one alive today has any worries about oil supplies, and no one will for generations to come, if ever. There is, and has never been an oil shortage. We are dependent on foreign oil, insanely, for our needs in America. If the manufacturers decide arbitrarily to cut production, the prices go up...it's that simple--basic economics. We have no control over them. And that is the major problem we face.

Why do gas prices go up?

Demand goes up and supply remains constant.
Demand remains the same and the Middle East cuts production. This is not a shortage. This is the Middle east sticking it to their buyers for profit.
Demand goes up, and we don't have the refining capability to keep up. Prices go up. This also has nothing to do with a shortage...it has to do with restrictions imposed by environmentalist wackos and the government on the oil industry.

Basic economics 101.

The oil companies have nothing to do with this. Their profits are no better than any average American industry that stays in the green...maybe a little less. And that's not bad given that they are the most highly regulated and taxed industry in the country.

No one advocates sitting around and seeing if we're wrong. Science doesn't do that. Science takes an hypothesis and conducts testing and experiments to affirm of cancel an hypothesis. With man-made global warming, there has been nothing done but a politically motivated circumvention of the scientific method.

That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with searching and researching alternate energy sources. Given the state of local environments, this is something that should be, and can be done.

As I've plainly stated before, the first thing is to rid ourselves of dependency on Middle Eastern and other foreign oil. This will involve eliminating the restriction on American producers, allow drilling where it should be done, and the building of more refineries.

The only effects of this will be a superbly vigorous American economy and lower prices. It will also provide for the ability to adequately research and develop alternative fuel sources so as to clean up the local environs around our major cities, which are repositories of pollution.

This is the only action that actually makes sense, economically and environmentally...


But to bow to the illusions put forth by people like Al Gore is the height of folly, and will result in absolutely nothing happening of a positive nature. Going "green", as the popular sentiment goes, will involve a complete investment in American Oil Companies. They employ people who are at the top of their fields in research and development and engineering. Thos people will lead the charge to new energy sources, and should be allowed to do so...but it's never going to happen when people like Al Gore are permitted to spew nonsense to the masses.

The first quote of mine you took almost entirely out of context. However I did phrase it similar to the following paragraph you quoted, in which I was saying that I don't believe it matters whether it's manmade or not, so I'll assume you weren't doing it deliberately. I'll clarify what I meant.

For the top quote: you said previously that Europe is not going to freeze, that it was "gibberish" and "nonsense". I replied that it does not matter whether global warming is manmade (the sentance you quoted) in regards to temperatures dropping in Europe. The temperature in Europe is predicted to change, it's not linked exclusively to warming caused by man. I then asked why you believed a temperature change in Europe was "gibberish". You must have either overlooked this part or ignored it, but I felt this part, along with the link, were the more important parts of my post, so the question still stands.

The second part of my post you quoted was merely my opinion. It wasn't meant to distract from the main part of my post, but I guess it did. I rather wish I had left it out, because now we're on somewhat of a different topic. I've never heard what you're claiming about oil reserves, but I'll look more into it later. I just think it seems rather odd that so many scientists are out to blatantly lie and play politics about both oil reserves and global warming.

I probably did overlook your point in that respect.

I previously said the following:


I addressed specifically the contention that Greenland's going to melt and that New Your City's going to be underwtarer in 20 years.
The point is that any doom and gloom predictions which aren't based upon sound science are gibberish. I simply included your talk about temperatures dropping in Europe in that category because I'm focused on the current global warming doom predictions.

We probably did stray for the main point...however,

I think that the global temperature is logically predicted to be dropping in the future. The trend may well begin in the lifetimes of many people alive today, perhaps sometime after, but evidence indicates it will indeed occur, and very probably, 10,000 years in the future, many habitable northern regions will be ice covered, as they were perhaps 150,000 years past.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would disagree with that conclusion, a body made up of dozens of scientists and contributors from dozens of countries. And before you start crying, " But, But, it's political!" Keep in mind that it goes the other way, too. Just look at the Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers from that link I posted; there's a segment in there where the Chinese and Middle Eastern Contributors (the latter of whom have exactly zero interest in seeing CO2 emissions curbed, since they believe that will lead to the use of less oil) made them include a disclaimer.

Incidently, whether or not global warming is man-made is only relevant to the extent as to whether it is something that we humans do that must be stopped (like curbing CO2 emissions), or whether we have to do more drastic measures.




There's a vast amount of evidence scientifically for it, and the IPCC is only among the most conservative in estimating the effects of Global Warming. It's not quite as well established as Evolution, but it's getting there.



If by "renewable" you mean "several million years of shale formation followed by significant periods of time sitting in the oil window between 7,500 and 15,000 feet below surface". Don't tell me you buy into that idiotic theory about oil coming up from under the Earth, even though, with very exceptions that prove the rule, we've never found oil below the Oil Window; only natural gas.

Tell me, do you know why America is dependent on foreign oil, and has been, for the most part, increasingly so since 1970? It's partly a combination of shale oil being too difficult and costly to produce en masse, and the failure of Americans to keep the conservation and efficiency movement of the late 1970s going, but mostly it's because American oil production peaked in 1970, at around 11.3 million barrels a day. Since then, it's been an almost steady decline from there barring a few years when the Alaskan North Slope fields came online, and even they couldn't get us back to the peak (and after their discovery, US oil production continued to go downhill from there).




I assume you aren't including Exxon-Mobil in that statement, who pulled off the highest profit in corporate history in 2006.



Like I mentioned, the IPCC, plus the vast majority of the scientific community involved with climate research, would disagree. Try actually reading the IPCC report next time, instead of simply repeating what you've no doubt heard from political pundits and conservative blogs.



As the Alaskan North Slope discovery proved, you're running up against the hill of peaked American oil production. Even pulling of the rules in ANWR or off the California Coast would not be enough to reverse that trend, unless you combined it with a very strong push towards reducing oil consumption. Or unless Middle East oil suddenly becomes so expensive that Shale Oil becomes profitable to produce, assuming it can be produced en masse economically.



I like how naysayers always focus on Al Gore, choosing to personally attack him even though he's simply said he's an advocate of compensating for Global Warming, and not really an expert.

You realize, of course, that the IPCC conclusions, produced by dozens of scientists, on various topics, and their methodologies, have been criticized vehemently by thousands of non IPCC afilliated scientists worldwide for a long time...?




The statement defies description.



Do you know why America cannot go beyond this peak of oil production you refer to?

It's because we're not allowed to! We haven't drilled for more oil and we haven't produced a single refinery in the United States for decades! American oil production peaked because that's as much as we're allowed to produce...because of laws in place which have been influenced by environmentalist nuts who don't realize that we have the full capabilities to supply our own energy needs withoiut harming the forests and such. Oil companies are the most highly restricted, costy, and highly taxed businesses in this country, which is a travesty seeing that these companies are essential ingredients not only in the U.S. economy's health, but in the world economy's health as well.

The reasons for foreign oil dependency, and the increased price of gasoline, are obvious. The methods of correcting those conditions are obvious, and doable as well.




Perhaps you are confusing after tax corporate profit with net income?
I think so. Exxon-Mobil made more money in numbers than anyone else because they sold more than anyone else, and they are one of the largest corporations! Of course they got more cash. They also happen to have greater efficiencies in their operations, and thus have returned a higher percentage to their shareholders than other companies. Their approximately 8 cents per net represents an OK operating ratio ...certainly not stellar, but not too bad, especially considering the restrictions on efficiencies that all oil companies are placed under by regulations from Federal and State governments.

You act as if a major company returning a half-decent profit is evil or something. It's what they're in business for.

And, if the restrictions on production and refining were lifted, they'd make great ratios, and the economy would be climbing out the roof, and more money would be invested in R & D on alternative sources of energy, which could be phased in gradually as the methods and sources are developed.

ExxonMobil does as well as it does, despite the constraints it has to deal with, because it is well managed and operated, and it sells more than the rest of the oil companies do.

What is really evil...and generally not understood by the average person when confronted with high gasoline prices, is that between 45 and 75 cents per gallon of gasoline are going into state and Federal government coffers...in the form of high taxes that YOU as the consumer are paying the governments (You already paid taxes on the money you're using to put that $40.00 of gas in your tank, and the Government is getting between 7 and 10 dollars of that $40.00!). Profits unearned, right into the government's account. Want to know how much money the Government made...unearned, on gasoline sales last year? The number will astound you, and makes ExxonMobil's net income look like peanuts.




Perhaps it might be better if you quit with the assumptions and did a little research apart from the IPCC report. The vast majority of climate scientists do not agree with that report, and balk at any conclusions regarding the man-made hypothesis. This in itself renders the IPCC "consensus" (which is not possible in science) moot.

Research, experimentation, and reproducible results are required for any hypothesis, in order for it to be tossed in the trash, or advanced to the state of scientific theory. This process is hardly even started concerning man-made global warming. What so many scientists are arguing is not the hypothesis itself, but the declaration that it is a fact, when it hasn't been adequately researched. The level to which impressionable people have been influenced by this...prompted by the influence of Mr. Gore, is what makes it especially irksome for the empiricist.


p.s...I don't read blogs, and if conservative political pundits are getting it right, they're getting it right. I have nothing to do with that either.



He has also simply stated that we're in for hell in just a couple short decades, and has even become a major holder of a company to provide "carbon credits"(!) He is preaching conclusions about something which has nothing behind it scientifically. Al Gore IS the focus here. He is responsible for the propagation of a non-scientific fact, and the reasons behind this particular strategy of his are pretty darn transparent.

So MID, and moderators please take note.... this "NEW" thread is nothing more than an extension of "Theodores" thread about global warming.... you need to merge it.
MID... who the H*** is Al Gore? Actually I do know, but what makes you think he is someome of significance in Europe? He is / was a US politician nothing more. He has absolutely NO INFLUENCE at all outside of the US.
And dont start whining on about how much a gallon of fuel costs in the USofA, in europe we pay 6dollars a gallon, we complain sometimes but also know that that our taxes are being used to find alternatives.
YES THEY ARE , PRODUCE YOURS!
IPCC actually have many , many , hundreds of experts, not dozens.

Go back to your "Love - in" with THEODORE on the other thread and stop wasting everybody elses time with a "new" thread.

Some heat, and some light, keithisco. But, I'll say this. MID has paid his dues (from what I infer), as far helping to insure the safety of persons involved in aerospace programs. On this board, he exhibits a "narrow-band" of conservative opinion, but may branch a little to cover the "wings" of a topic.

It's just his way, once in a while, but I just try to give a reasonable response. I'm liberal in that regard, since it is a small number of posters on some threads. But, considering the importance of the topic, I understand your position.

MID, aren't those gasoline taxes going for road and bridge work? You know, since the '70s, doesn't Uncle Sam taketh away, and only return if your skies are free from smog? It is an inducement, I thought.

magnetar,
An eloquent response!

I do tend to be rather conservative, politically, although I am not what is defined completely as a conservative. I'm actually quite liberal regarding some things...

However, that's not really the point here. Science and poilitics rarely mix. Keithisco is allowing his emotions to overun his common sense. It appears he misses my point as a result. Politics is at the heart of this recent man-made warming concept. That...from the perspective of empirical science, is mighty transparent. In this concept, science is bent, modified, and indeed perverted to fit its requirements.

Ostensibly, all taxes are used for some public benefit. However, given the conditions of roads in many areas of the United States, I would say that the money supposedly collected for infrastruture improvements is not entirely being used for that purpose. Of course, the skies around those local environs that had smog in the 1970s still do today...so perhaps that's the reason why the roads are in such sorry shape?!



You know, kiethsco, I appreciate this viewpoint. I truly do. I actually think he is of no significance anywhere, or at least shouldn't be. Unfortunately he is. He is the primary reason why this man-made global warming hypothesis has any legs at all. If not for him, and his realization that he could make this a major platform position for himself, few would've paid any attention to the recent IPCC restatement of the hypothesis they issued years ago.

You may note that his ugly mug was all over the world yesterday, as his "concert for a climate in crisis" (sic) took place. Also significant was the utter lack of major news coverage and network live coverage of the event(s). There was virtually none. That I find completely bizzarre, especially given the nature of the mainstream media. 2 billion people worldwide were supposed to have seen this stuff happen. Without any major network covering it, I am curious as to how many people, other than those attending, actually saw any of it.

I also find that absence of "Live Earth" quite significant.



At any rate, you probably should mellow out a bit. "Love In" with theodore...

You obviously don't know our contentious history.
I just happen to agree with his position on solar influence on climate change, which is obvious from the record. We approach the subject from different perspectives, but when a truth is expressed, I will support it...no matter who speaks it.


The entire issue here revolves around man's influence...indeed man's causality in the matter of warming. The premise is completely untenable given present data and evidence and the scope of our observational abilities and its duration. Lots of people hop on the most visible bandwagon and get vehement about it, even if they don't understand it, even if they don't see the forest for the trees, which is generally the case in things such as this.

Allow a minority of scientists with an organization that's been questioned in its methods for years combine with a whack job political has-been who sees an opportunity, and in this day-and-age of an entire generation and a half or so that is sufficiently lacking in scientific and technical knowledge, one can create a movement that has energy and legs...despite it's untenable basis.

That is what has happened.


This of course does not deny global warming, which has been established scientifically. Nor does it deny the potential that man could possibly have an effect on it in some small way. What it says is that it is an hypothesis that requires research and emirical data to support it (and lots of it), which hasn't been produced.

The mentality that allows this weakly supported hypothesis to be advanced to the state of scientific fact, despite the lack of empirical data to support it, is the same mentality that allowed people to actually believe the completely unsupportable position that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

However, one is of course permitted to believe whatever one wishes to believe. That includes you.
But belief is not in the realm of science, any more than the IRCCs "consensus" is.


That may be "conservative" in some views. So be it. But it's merely common sense in another: the viewpoint of science.

Don't try to dodge my point; you said that there was no scientific evidence for Global Warming, and I specifically linked to the IPCC, which has conducted scientific research, represents a diverse body of scientists and researchers from multiple nations (including those whose governments have no interest in strong preventive measures on Global Warming, like the United States and several Middle East nations), and thus created a body of scientific evidence for Global Warming.

Incidently, I'd like to see real proof of these "thousands of scientists", since, from what I've read, they've tended towards more of a small but vocal minority. I'd guess at this point, you'd bring up the Petition Project.




Why? The vast majority of scientists involved in Global Warming research do believe that it is anthropocentric (meaning humans are mainly responsible for it). Hence why various scientific organizations beyond the IPCC, including the American National Academy of Sciences, officially endorsed human-caused climate change.




Hardly. In fact, search for oil by the large oil companies in the United States sharply increased in the 1970s, following a wave of nationalizations of oil production in various third world countries like Venezuela and several nations in the Middle East. And that includes attempts at oil production in the United States, like the failed drilling for oil in the Mukluk structure north of Alaska, which cost the companies who did the drilling over $2 billion dollars. And, as I pointed out, even the discovery of the enormous North Alaskan Slope field, representing the largest discovery of oil since the East Texas discoveries in the 1930s in America, failed to reverse the overall trend towards declining US oil production. What this has meant is that the remaining oil in America, far from simply being cut off due to restrictions on oil companies, is not used because it is "hard to get", like Shale Oil (which Exxon attempted to set up in the 1980s, then dropped when the oil glut from OPEC drove oil prices down dramatically). Unless you are willing to massively subsidize that kind of production, then you aren't going to get a reverse of the declining trend.

To be completely blunt, North America is probably the most explored-for place in terms of seeking potential oil production in the world.



If by "obvious" you mean either massively subsidizing the production of shale oil or the Albertan tar sands in order to flood the US market with "safe oil", or by reducing gasoline usage in America.



You claimed that the oil companies were making only an okay profit. I pointed out that that's not strictly true, at least in the Exxon-Mobil, and that their stock has done well because of it.



I said no such thing. I merely used Exxon-Mobil as an example of a corporation making a good profit, reflected in great stock prices, without comment as to whether or not this was "morally good".



Not unless you either start importing a massive amount of crude into the country, or vast new usable oil reserves in the United States suddenly pop out of thin air.



Nice red herring, since I never actually commented on the morality of Exxon-Mobil's profits, only that they seemed to be highly profitable. Incidently, the piddling amount of gas tax paid is America is dwarfed by that paid in most of the other Western Nations (including most of Western Europe).



As this article points out, that statement is full of sh**. The vast majority of climate scientists do agree with the idea of anthropocentric global warming, whether or not they agree with the specific conclusions reached by the IPCC (which is actually generally seen as conservative in its conclusions on the effects of Global Warming).




Hardly; the amount of research plowed into Global Warming has been enormous, with its roots in the 1970s but really coming to a steam after James Hansen's statement in 1987.

OK, well, if you're going to argue from a political and emotional standpoint, you will find it full of SH**. The actual facts stand in stark contrast to your statements.

I do not think you undersatand the science , or lack thereof behind this contention, nor do you see the point.



I think you should realize that the same brand of people who today are pressing the hypothesis of man-made global warming are those who in the 1970s were pressing the idea that a global ice age was impending...for very simlar reasons.

They looked at a few years of data, and made an unfounded and un-scientific conclusion. It was like looking at a teaspoon of water taken from the ocean, making an observation, and declaring that they understood the entire ecosystem of the ocean.

If you wish to adhere to such things, fine.

There is in reality little that science will do to change the mind of one who is hell-bent on accepting the contrary.

I present an article to you pointing out that, in contrast to what you stated, the majority of scientists involved in climate change research do believe that humans are at least one of the major sources of climate change, and suddenly you say that I'm arguing from an "political and emotional standpoint"? Unlike you, I actually provided a source for my point about you being wrong on that statement.



Considering that I presented an actual link in my post to a source of the science behind anthropogenic climate change (the link to the IPCC), it's highly ironic of you to claim that I don't understand the science. Since I am not an actual researcher on climate change, I actually provided a source; it's called evidence-based reasoning.Are you suddenly a researcher on climate change yourself, able to make definitive statements without providing any real support for that position?



No, a few popular magazines, including Newsweek, were saying that back in the 1970s, as this site points out. Nearly all of the actual scientific work done, however, recognized the effects of things such as aerosols in terms of cooling the temperature, but mostly said that it was too soon to tell the effects of this on climate (they were also looking at the cooling trend of 1940-1970, and what caused it, like said aerosols).



Read the above, and take a look at the actual link.



That's somewhat ironic coming from you, since you accused me of arguing from an emotional standpoint when I actually bothered to provide support from links for my posts. I'm not a researcher on climate change, but I've at least tried to get a layman's understanding of it, including the reading of both skeptical books (like Patrick Michael's book Sound and Fury, along with much of the Third IPCC Assessment Report and the 4th Assessment Report's Summary for Policymakers, among other books).