BTW if Beck did want to dispute that earths recorded warming pattern 1998 is wrong, he has a right to do so. He could take the NASA and climate studies and make his case and instead he focused on an email from an "activist" and never made a case. He has every right to challenge NASA--if I was going to go on TV and challenge NASA I would do a little homework first and have some arguement and data not an attack on anonymous email he claims was an "activist'. He was trying to frame it as only nuts believe the earth has warmed since 1998 and in truth it is NASA whose records are used by the IPCC on global temperatures.

Well, thanks for the conversation. I will keep reading and keep an open mind.

The definition of rightardism is believing that limbaugh and hannity know more about climatology than do most of the world's scientists.

Really? you are paying for it or did you pass this cost on to your clients like any smart business person would do? I suspect your clients are paying for the politics of fear -- consumers usually do. Environmentalism has its cost and that is why we need to be reasonable and sure-footed about what is done.

Your point is well taken, however you are speaking of reasonable environmentalism of yesteryear where the scientific method showed us the ills of our ways....it's gone way beyond being reasonable today. And speaking of what the costs are, and by the way, Global warming/Climate Change is not proven science, but because of this bogus scare we are already seeing the effects on the increase of gas and food costs to name a few recent stories. The similarity to what happened back in the 70's with the DDT scare is frightening. DDT was banned all because of what someone wrote in a book and w/o benefit of real science to back it up... it quickly became a world political issue driven by the environmentalists --- all later to be found totally baseless after causing the deaths of hundred of thousands from malaria alone at a time when we almost had eradicated the disease off the face of the earth. The AGW/CC hypothesis has this same potential harm and more--all without any known benefit-- only speculations.

__________________
"Liberals live in a house of mirrors...that is why they don't like what they see" 1WISEGUY

'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
-- Barack Obama


"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. " Jay Leno

Climate change is no longer in the realm of opinion; it is a scientific fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon acknowledges the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.

See Salon.com News | The cold truth about climate change

The mere point, scientist say it's FACT, then 5 years down the road will recant. That, is not FACT.

__________________
honor the fallen; http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Iraq body count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

when NASA, the IPCC and global temperatures recorded world wide are documented, verified and recorded as rising
There is no credible evidence of this.

__________________
Drill offshore now

Oh really? If it were scientific fact then why the dispute? Afterall, gravity is a scientific fact but I don't see anyone disputing it? What natural /physical laws support your so-called fact? Why is there no one on the pro-AGW/CC side willing to debate the issue, after all it is the pro AGW/CC side who prematurely brought the issue to the public realm?

And there is evidence to dispute those methods and findings, but what we don't have is the utilization of the scenic method to put the matter to rest. Why?

That is what you and all the other "believers" would like the rest of us to swallow, but the "fact" is that the "experiments" have not stood the rigors of the scientific method so the argument is in fact tenable. And to bring in the Pentagon is ridiculous. The Pentagon is paid to do scenario planning. Do you realize we have all kinds of scenario's that our Pentagon has developed, like we have a scenario to attack Canada, does that mean it's a real possibility? NO. Is it scientific? NO. In face of the evidence, the fact is that we do not know conclusively all that is needed to be known about AGW/CC to take action least we have another DDT catastrophe. There are no "scientific facts" that supports your claims--just supposition through experiments and computer simulation.

Let me ask you some questions...

1. What is the optimal temperature for life on Earth? After all if we don't know this temperature then how do we know if we need to stop warming?

2. What is man's percent of CO2 contribution?

3. Given man's CO2 contribution, what natural or physical laws support AGW/CC?

__________________
"Liberals live in a house of mirrors...that is why they don't like what they see" 1WISEGUY

'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
-- Barack Obama


"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. " Jay Leno

Okay.
*'University Hurricane forecaster'=Expert?
*Some 'scientists'. Show me the money, man.
*Read the news. Hurricanes are already increasing.
*Hurricanes aren't even close to the worst part of Global Warming. Sure seems to be your idea of the problem, though.
*There is nothing more alarmist in the Global Warming debate than the people ranting that everything is fine, and that there is something wrong with investing in our planet in the first place. Try again when you find us a pyramid scheme in the environmentalist movement besides Walmart's greenwashing.

Global Warming + Global Terrorism = Globalization. One World Government.

One product is used to capture the minds of those on the right and the other is used to capture the minds on the left. Although both the Right and left are programed to fight and hate each other (Divided we fall) in the end both will endorse globalization .

Turn of the news. there's a war on your mind.

__________________

Your questions are inapposite. You can’t argue with the facts, they are indisputable. As Mr. Romm explained in the cited article “The cold facts about climate change”, opinion is irrelevant on this issue: “What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions.” What the data shows is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and the decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. There is nothing more to see but the consequences; which if something is not done, and soon, will be visited upon us sooner than later.

As to the latter, it is known that climate change occurs naturally over many thousands of years as evidenced by core samples of the earth’s surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years, and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature; and of the ocean currents that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment.

What is needed is to restore the natural balance. The forces of nature are out of balance; and it only takes a very small change to produce big consequences. What nature is telling us is that we must stop polluting the atmosphere to allow the earth to heal itself, or face catastrophic consequences. It is time for us to face the facts. It is not the earth that is delicate - it is life on earth. If mankind is to survive, then it is time to stop quibbling and resolve to change our ways.