But it will be delayed and hem'ed and haw'ed on until an international crisis takes the public glare away from ObamaCare.

What are my odds, CW?? :D

Michale

crossposted to HuffingtonPost

Is there a scientific consensus on the topic of man made global warming? If you read the news in the major media you would have cause to believe that there is.

The truth is very different. Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a political body appointed by the UN. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the panel's findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted from the reports.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6029/abs/316591a0.html

PALEOCLIMATE:
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: “Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5546/1431b

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
“The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

That should be enough to get you started. I won't even bother going into the scientific refutation of the outrageous claims by the Gore'acle disciples regarding Polar Bears, Greenland's Glaciers, Snows Of Killamanjaroo and robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) "returning" to northern Canada.

If you need more reading material, simply GOOGLE
"Peer Reviewed" Science disputes "Global Warming".

Once you get past all the partisan propaganda (that is present on BOTH sides of the issue) you will see clearly that the science is in dispute.

And, since I have established beyond any logical or rational doubt that the science IS in dispute, the other previously mentioned factors MUST be considered.

Is getting a handle on pollution a worthwhile goal?? Abso-fracking-loutly.

Is getting rid of this country's dependency on foreign oil important. You betcha..

Is the Earth's climate changing? Abso-tively...

Can humankind do anything to stop the climate from changing? Posi-loutly not.

Are we all going to be killed by the huge cataclysmic ecological catastrophe that is GoreBull Warming?? Laughable.

Can humankind actually destroy planet Earth? Sheeya, right.. SUUURE we can... Of course not.

Will humankind cease to exist millions of years from now? Possibly.

Can we do anything about that possibility right now? Yes, massive space travel and colonization programs.

Should we worry about being killed by GoreBull Warming? Knock yerself out... I won't.

Michale....

OK.. Links to follow..

Michale...

Not exactly bowling me over with your links so far.

Show me the science.

Not one link to a major scientific organization or university or a paper that has appeared in hard science publication. Just a bunch of random blog pages.

If it's that "in dispute" I would think you could find at least one.

Guess not.

Hope you can follow it...

Michale.....

So, what you are saying is that there is no credible science and there are no credible scientists who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion.

Is THAT what you are saying..

I just want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying before I let ya have it. :D

Al Gore being a possible hypocrite

is not exactly an argument based in science.

My arguments are based in FACT. Do you have any facts of your own, beyond the cooked data??

The science is in dispute. This is completely indisputable. Therefore, to make a COMPLETELY logical and rational conclusion, completely free of any emotion, one must look at other factors..

The fact that no proponent of the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)religion has significantly altered their lifestyle to any degree that would indicate that they actually BELIEVE there is an imminent ecological catastrophe, is one such factor.

The fact that proponents of the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)religion have refused time and time again to debate the merits of their religion in a purely scientific and fact-finding venue is another factor.

Debates of lesser scale have peppered recent history and, in EVERY one, the religion lost. This is another factor.

The fact that dire "scientific" evidence that proved the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)religion had later been refuted by REAL science as hoaxes, lies and propaganda is still another factor.

When one considers all these factors (as one must, since the science is in dispute) the ONLY logical and rational conclusion that can be reached is that the theory/religion of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is not valid.

Simple logic, rationally arrived at.

Now one can, of course, simply pooh pooh the science away that doesn't support the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion. But then that would weaken the overall SCIENCE IS KING argument, now wouldn't it?

You say that you know people who have significantly altered their lifestyle as if there
an imminent ecological catastrophe.

Who??? One name. Just one verifiable name.

Bullpuckies

From YOUR OWN link..

Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

I rest my case...

Consensus is NOT a scientific argument.

Consensus is NOT part of the scientific method.

Consensus is NOT science. Period.

Consensus is politics, pure and simple. Even though it is an aspect of the scientific community, as your link indicates, it's a POLITICAL aspect. Arrived at more by politics than by anything scientific.

nypoet22,

however, by this time the bill will be so watered-down with loopholes and built-up with pork that it will actually accomplish the opposite of its intended goal. the public option will be gutted of useful provisions, funneling even more money than before into drug companies and insurance companies, with the taxpayers footing the bill to the tune of trillions.

ding, ding, ding!!! We Have A Winner!! Tell 'im what they've won, Johnny!!!!

"Daniel-san, must talk. Walk on road, hmm? Walk left side — safe. Walk right side — safe. Walk middle — sooner or later, get squish just like grape."

Anyone that can quote apropos movie/TV passages is all right in my book!!! :D

Michale.....

congress will complete and pass a bill on health care. the president will sign it, most likely the day before the winter recess, with lots of smiles and handshakes.

however, by this time the bill will be so watered-down with loopholes and built-up with pork that it will actually accomplish the opposite of its intended goal. the public option will be gutted of useful provisions, funneling even more money than before into drug companies and insurance companies, with the taxpayers footing the bill to the tune of trillions.

"Daniel-san, must talk. Walk on road, hmm? Walk left side — safe. Walk right side — safe. Walk middle — sooner or later, get squish just like grape."

Are you denying all this??

Read the graphs. 1998 was a particularly hot year. Very little in science is linear. 1998 was a steep upswing. These last two have been deep down swings. Both do not contradict the basic pattern of the increase of global mean temperature.

Disagree, show me the science.

Since the science is indisputably in dispute, the ONLY form of evidence that has any bearing are the actions of the proponents.

I seen you post some silly stuff over the years but this takes the cake. The only evidence of any bearing is Hard Science. Period. Put up or shut up.

The dispute on this issue among hard scientists about 97% for 3% against last I read. And most of the disputes has to do with timing and severity, not overall effect. Your stand is possible, but as I said before: show me the science.

Do the proponents of the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) actually live their lives as if there is an imminent ecological catastrophe??

Of course they don't.

Pretty sweeping generalization for a huge swath of the world...Al Gore being a possible hypocrite is not exactly an argument based in science.

Do you???

Yes.

Consensus is a POLITICAL term and process. It is NOT science in any way, shape or form..

Bullpuckies.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115711b1c79970c-pi

You want to quote NASA??

How many times has NASA had to REVISE their data because they got caught fudging things and displaying outright incompetence??

News Item: : NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?news.24

Forget NASA for the moment.

Think back on ALL the claims made by your "peer reviewed" so-called scientists that turned out to be nothing but garbage...

Greenland Glaciers melting... Polar bears eating their own... Snows of Killamanjaroo melting... And on and on and on.. Grandiose claims of "proof" of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) that turned out to be, at best, utter and complete crap and, at worse, outright lies..

Greenland and the arctic region are presently no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/

And on and on and on...

For every peer reviewed document that you can show me that "proves" there is Human Caused Global Warming, I can come up with a corresponding document that "proves" just the opposite...

So, what does one do when the science is in dispute?

One looks at the actions of the leaders of the issue at hand..

In his book ASSAULT ON REASON, Al Gore castigated the American Public for the lack of debate in the run up to the Iraq war.

Yet Gore pushes his Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) con with unrestrained speed and haste.. How is this not hypocritical??

Can you show me ONE scientist, activist or proponent of the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion that has significantly altered their lifestyle based on the alleged "imminent" ecological cataclysm?? Just ONE... Just ONE person..

No, you cannot... Everyone gives LIP Service to the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion but, like religious fanatics, when it comes to actually putting ecological practices to work, it's a DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO attitude..

Don't get me wrong.. There are many things in today's world that is worthy of fear. There are LEGITIMATE fears out there....

The idea that humankind can actually destroy the planet is simply borne of ego and arrogance and is NOT one of those legitimate fears.

Humankind is a man sitting in a dingy in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean who flops his wee-wee over the edge and pisses in the ocean. Yea, it's probably not the best thing for the immediate area.. But the idea that, by doing so, he can raise the temperatures and the level of the entire oceans of the entire world is ludicrous to the point and far surpasses said point of absurdity...

Michale.....

So, you deny that the planet has been cooling since 1998 and that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that Global Average Temps peaked in 1998.

Are you denying all this??

Is there some reason I should give a flip about these two? I realize the climate change deniers have made them their poster child to hate, but to follow the science of climate change, these are not who I go to

Since they are the two major proponents of the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion, yes... I would think you would give a flip about them. Not to mention the fact that they stand to make BILLIONS by keeping people like you scared.. I would think that fact alone would piss you off...

But here is why you should "give a flip" about those two.

Since the science is indisputably in dispute, the ONLY form of evidence that has any bearing are the actions of the proponents.

So the ONLY relevant question is this.

Do the proponents of the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) actually live their lives as if there is an imminent ecological catastrophe??

Of course they don't.

Do you???

You want to convince me that consensus is wrong, you are going to have to come up with something real.

A, there is NO consensus.. 2, even if there WERE a consensus it wouldn't mean squat. There was a "consensus" that the earth was flat...

Consensus is a POLITICAL term and process. It is NOT science in any way, shape or form..

As far as something real??

They will be in the next post, when CW get's his lazy arse outta bed!! :D

Michale.....

Can you point to ANY action that the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson has taken that would indicate that there IS a dire climatic emergency??

Is there some reason I should give a flip about these two? I realize the climate change deniers have made them their poster child to hate, but to follow the science of climate change, these are not who I go to.

I prefer major science organizations like NASA, NOAA, Scripps, NAS, The Royal Academy to name a few. You know the ones with unfettered access to satellites and super computers. There is pretty much a scientific consensus on global warming. You want to convince me that consensus is wrong, you are going to have to come up with something real. Every link on the matter that I have seen you post is to some political site with a vested interest in the outcome or some paid hack from a rinky dinky backwater university with a minor science program.

Lets see some peer reviewed articles from major scientific organizations or universities that appeared in hard science publications.

Can you point to ANY action that the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson has taken that would indicate that there IS a dire climatic emergency??

ANY action whatsoever??

Let's see..

The TALK alot.. The fly around in private airplanes and drive around in private limos. Branson is even building his own SPACESHIP to take a handful of tourists up into low orbit, while spewing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere..

Al Gore lives in his 20 room mansion and has his very own tin mine.

So, tell me.. Why should I live like Al Gore and Richard Branson want me to live when even Al Gore and Richard Branson don't live like Al Gore and Richard Branson want people to live??

If you take all the BILLIONS of dollars that have been spent on simply TALKING about Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) and put that into PRACTICAL, USEFUL and WORKING solar projects, you could put a REAL DENT in the so called "imminent" catastrophe..

Of course, THAT wouldn't make Al Gore and Richard Branson richer, so that's not even an option..

Do you know that the Carbon Trading market is expected to be a 1O BILLION dollar a year bonanza for those who have sounded the alarm..

Now, maybe it's just me.. Maybe I am being silly..

But here we have Al Gore whining and crying and yelling and screaming about an alleged imminent catastrophe and he stands to make BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR, if people believe him and follow him..

Now, where I come from, that is called a, stay with me here.... "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"...

And I am simply gabberflasted that there are really ostensibly intelligent people out there who actually BUY INTO Al Gore's con and COMPLETELY IGNORE the ***FACT*** that Al Gore stands to make BILLIONS from his disciples...

Don't you find this the LEAST bit odd???

Michale.....

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Global+Cooling&btnG=Google+Search

The data you put forth has already been proven to be "cooked" data, both literally and figuratively...

What kind of MORON puts a temp sensor in the middle of an asphalt jungle??

Further, if you do more research, you will see that record LOW temps, even in the middle of summer are the norm these days.. Areas of New York and Mass are saying that they aren't really having a summer.

All this points to one inescapable conclusion...

Climate changes.

OH MY FRACKING GODS!!! THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!!!! QUICK!!! LET'S PUT OUT SOME LEGISLATION TO PREVENT THE CLIMATE FROM CHANGING!!!"

And after THAT, the hysterical Left can support legislation to stop the Earth from rotating and also create the committee that oversees the T.E.C. Ron Silver is probably available to head the committee...

Climate is ALWAYS changing.. Climate has changed LONG before humankind was a little bitty amoeba swimming in the primordial sludge and Climate will continue to change long after humankind has gone the way of the dodo (Some SHOULD make it there sooner then others, if there is any justice in the world)...

The simple fact is, nothing mankind can do, can destroy the planet...

It's the epitome of arrogance for humans to think they have that kind of power.. And, trust me.. I know arrogance when I see it...

So, don't worry.. Be happy... :D

Michale.....

Towhit, take all the billions and billions of dollars (79 billion at last count) that has been spent on the crock 'o crap that is Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) and create Hybrid Trade In Programs.

Really?

Would anyone eat in a restaurant where the cook refused to eat the food he prepared for others??

Of course they wouldn't..

So, why are are ya'all pushing for a HealthCare plan that Congress itself won't even subscribe to??

Do as I say, not as I do. I don't know any other way to explain the sheer arrogance of Henry Waxman.

So he's fine foisting this health care monstrosity on us, just not Congress. Waxman says members of Congress do not have to join the public option government health plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535945,00.html

Cavuto makes a valid point.

Michale.....

So, um, you're saying that an Obama scheme is so wildly successful that it ran out of money, but then the Dems in Congress added more to keep it going? As I understand it, C4C had two goals — get old cars off the road, and get people to buy more cars. Seems like it's working…

It remains to be seen whether or not Congress will add more money.

But my point is, this SHOULD have been anticipated and SHOULD have been planned for.. This midnight scramble for more cash is simply another check in the BAD MOVE column of the Obama Administration. And, sad as it is for me to say (I DID vote for the guy) the checks in the BAD MOVE column are far outpacing the checks in the GOOD MOVE column. I am still shocked that the Press is giving Obama a pass on the Honduras situation.

Actually, no I am not shocked.. However I AM shocked that I am not shocked. But that doesn't shock me.

"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
-Austin Powers

But they'll take my 65 Rambler when they pry my cold, dead hands off it, I have to say, personally…

hehehehehe

But this IS interesting. If you have read any of my Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) rants, you will know that I suggested something like this a LONG time ago.

Towhit, take all the billions and billions of dollars (79 billion at last count) that has been spent on the crock 'o crap that is Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) and create Hybrid Trade In Programs. Drive in with a running gas vehicle and drive out with a nice economical Hybrid. That would get MILLIONS of gas powered pollution causing vehicles off the road and would actually DO something for the planet instead of just making the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson rich..

The C4C program is a good start, but it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Michale.....

Sigh.

Busy, busy, busy, I guess...

:-)

-CW

So, um, you're saying that an Obama scheme is so wildly successful that it ran out of money, but then the Dems in Congress added more to keep it going? As I understand it, C4C had two goals -- get old cars off the road, and get people to buy more cars. Seems like it's working...

But they'll take my 65 Rambler when they pry my cold, dead hands off it, I have to say, personally...

Heh heh.

-CW

I'll address your FTPs point by point later.. It's a real hectic weekend... :D

Michale....

Chris,

While you are reminding us to eat our veggies before dessert, the health industry is following the ancient dictum to always pillage BEFORE burning.

I take the position that whatever might pass cannot be construed as health reform. If something does pass, it will be a tinkering with insurance plans. No insurance company has ever cured a single malady.

Whatever passes will be in lieu of seizing the moment to pass real reform. It will suck all of the energy out of any effort in the foreseeable future to address the issue again.

Might I suggest either giving the MDDOTW trophy to Max and retiring it or admitting that he doesn't meet the primary qualification of being a Democrat.

Those supporting single-payer can sign a petition at: http://www.healthcare-now.org/petition/

Don't you find it interesting that al-PhARMA, the AHA and the AHIP have stood by Obama's side announcing their support for reform while making unprecedented efforts to defeat every significant aspect of reform via the Blue Dogs?