@sbyvyl, mark Levin is annoying. His voice is whiny and he's a little too one topic for me, but I listen to his Salem colleagues, Dennis prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt every day. Do you listen to them too?

Hewitt is good. I listen to Beck quite a bit also.

"As I've already clearly said, Al Gore is not a scientist. I do not consider his opinions on science worthwhile. "

It is irrelevant whether or not you, Abge, think Al Gore is worth listening to. To the mindless sheep of society....such as the *millions* of school children that have been *indoctrinated* by his movie being shown *in the classroom*...Al Gore has all teh credibility anyone needs. How is that not relevant?

99.9% of scientists agree when it comes to climate change.

The detractors are usually typical mouth-breathing child-murdering racist american pissy pants coward morons like kkkrellin.

Better hide under the bed, kkkrellin. The terrorists are coming for you sweetie pie.

K, are you argueing about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled

also, how do you back up your claim of the past decade as cooling against data like NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/668

State funding is corruption...
Well, you might as well strike out "state":
*Funding* is corruption. When you meet a funded guy on the street - run.. At least you better shut your ears to whatever he is blabbering...
Alas... The streets are packed with these whores... Nowhere to go... No-one to trust...

Also tue while premise of that attack (ad homine on all state funded science) is bollox - say i propose a $100 million satellite/experiment to study the climate; you ask, but do we really need to spend so much money? And i say, well it is important that we understand our environment, and there is no cheaper way than a satellite, computer modelling only goes so far, we need good data.

You say 'but what if antrogenic climate change isn't really as bad as we think?' - to which i reply, 'well we have to do the experiment to find out'

Pretty much any scientist will tell you that what they want to study is important (see: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/contest/why-particle-physics-matters
) . It is only the one study which challenges the means of wealth extraction of oil tycoons which promotes the Cato institute to attack them - these are political attacks on scientists for no other reason than the funders don't like the results.

And yes, money biases science. That is part of the reason for academic tenure. When your job and funding aren't on the line you can study whatever you like. Unfortunately applications for grants for expensive study is now the norm - there is no way that a professor with tenure would get $1-2 million to spend how he wished. First (s)he'd have to convince some grant body that some specific work would be done...

Academic freedom (like Judicial freedom) needs to be reinforced, not attacked.

Unlike the rest of you I knew someone that spent a year at the NSF deciding on who would get grants in his scientific field. When he returned he explained the process and said the best way to get a grant is to work there so you know the process and what they look for in grant proposals. This is a biased peer review where they toss most proposals that don't fit with a pre-existing lists of criteria. It's institution bias that goes back for years in every government funded research program.

If you want a grant you have to phrase the request with the right keywords and buzz word phrases. It helps if you have already got results to back up your proposed research and not a vague theory that you are right and established research is wrong. After all the people reviewing the requests are already familiar with what has been done. Something that goes against "established" theory isn't going to get funded without a very good reason.

Politicians only get to control what is researched after the fact when they retaliate against the grantor group for spending money where they don't want it. The NEA got reduced for years over art projects it supported back during the Reagan years. Some politicians make specific earmarked grants (pork) to proposals, but these are outside the grant process and usually come from separate spending.

Private corporation research of basic science got cut years ago when they slashed all research that couldn't show it would lead to commercially marketable and profitable products. The era of them funding research for research sake is over at Bell Labs, IBM, Xerox's PARC, Westinghouse, Kodak, .....

And i'm sure Climate research is a tiny fraction of the total grant money spent by the US government...

-U.S. used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

from: http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.ie/2013/06/as-debate-continues-what-manning.html

So US government is controlled by corporations, and uses threats to try and control the rest of the world... good job!

"And i'm sure Climate research is a tiny fraction of the total grant money spent by the US government..."

Regardless of the cost of the actual research is the *overwhelming* cost to the US consumer that result from the cost of regulation resulting from bogus science.

Anybody pay attention to the EPA, the cost of energy, etc?

We pay a ridiculous amount of money as a result of "saving the planet"....

Global cooling is here....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

Fuck your retarded Krellin, 2 years of cooler then expected weather does not mean global warming is over.

@Fasces: The only reason why the temperatures had been going up in the 20th century was because we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Look it up.

Fasces....did...uh...did you *read* the article, moron?

DOOM! DOOM!! Where all gonna DIIIIEEEEEE!!! A sample of 100 years of "experts" predicting our imminent demise...

http://1299.com/

Actually the investment in new technologies is causing them to become cheaper and more economic - the cost of energy is one of the underlying costs of doing business, so a long term trend of investment in this area will boost the economy and improve provision of services, thus in theory combatting global poverty.

Gve that coal is known to cause illness (respiratory) the health benefits of replacing our current fossil fuel infrastructure with a 'green' infrastructure will have health benefits (this is particularily true in China)

So it is pretty easy to claim that we *should* be forcing the market to invest in alternative technologies while we can afford to (ie while the abundance of low hanging fruit that is oil/gas/coal remains)

I've done a lot of research into global warming, mainly because I use to be a denier and had to search through a lot of information to determine what was an what wasn't relevant to

While yes we are exiting an ice age, that is only part of the story;
There are 3 main reasons for the dramatic increase in temperature during the 90s (peak warming):
We're still in an ice, but nearing the end of it.
The Clear Air Act got rid of chemicals in our atmosphere that stop warming. According to 1 NASA study, between 40 and 50% of the warming during the 80s and 90s was due to a massive decrease in Aerosol emissions in North America and Europe.

This explains why the speed of global warming has decreased since then, from an average change in temperature of 0.026/year during the 90s to an average of 0.004 during the 2000s.

However CO2 is still a massive contributor to global warming, and its why the temperature is still increasing, it since 2005, 80% of the increase in temperature has been due to the incrase in green house gases.

Stop claiming that there is no global warming, there is.

Krellin, have you read the article? You said something about 'no warming in the last decade'

In fact that article says rather certainly that climate change in he past couldn't possibly have been caused by humans - which is true enough - but the conclusion, therefore current climate change isn't caused by humans, is not logically valid.

And i don't see the author's claims the same way you do. His natural variation gives a temporary decrease in tue rate of warming, which will be reversed - and this natural variation on a 30 year cycle is something which human activity hasn't greatly contributed to - but with global average temperature NOT dropping (see: www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm )

That is to say, we may have a natural variation which is helping mediate the effects of climate change for the moment.

The article actually takes a *very* long term look at global temperature trends. Any idiot scientist worth his salt that looks at local trends in data...which, let's be honest, means decades worth of data...isn't just not being honest. You want to understand how the Earth's climate works, look at the history of the earth's climate.

Instead, they take cherry-picked data, some from temperature data taken in the middle of ashphalt parking lots, others taken from other random areas, highly skewed toward the Northern Hempisphere and then...no matter what side of the argument you are on..you look for a localized data trend and try to make a claim.

The whole field of science is horribly flawed, which more often uses computer models which consistently, about 100% of the time, fail in their predictions...and yet they continue to make predictions using these models.

So yes...I'm playing the game...10 years of data shows a cooling trend. But yes...that's bullshit data, I confess.

So this scientist actually examines the *history* of Earth's temperature data as best they understand it, and clearly demonstrates high and low temperature cycles....*completely natural*...and we are currently in one.

You want the real story? The alarmists have claimed for decades that CO2 causes global warming....unfortunately, CO2 levels LAG temperature change. Further, if you examine "Sensitivity" of temperature versus CO2 levels, you will see that, even if there was an affect on termperature from CO2, it is *negligible* at best. CO2 is the most villianized *harmless* gas out there...

I won't post data...you'll ignore it even if God himself wrote the data for you. You will either have a shred of intellectual integrity and look it up yourself....you know, educate yourself with a variety of sources and draw your own logical conclusion...or you will continue to listen to Al Gore and his merry band of government-funded "scientists" with their flawed, skewed interpretation of data driven by their need to keep their funding in place.

Massive oil spill = millions of death and complete devastation of fishing industries
Massive solar spill = nice day

How about we look at it from the "not proven" part. Has it been proven untrue? No. So we, in short, have reason to believe that it *may* be true and *may* be caused by humans.

So then there are two possibilities here if we continue with the status quo. We could continue to destroy wildlife for little bits of money, continue to mine away mountaintops, and continue to fight with environmentalists till the end of humanity, and lose on the chance to sell away renewable resources - ones that will never go away as long as we're around - in favor of oil, which we already know will eventually not be here anymore. OR we could experience the greatest worldwide disaster in 10,000 years, and we may or may not be able to a) keep up our lifestyle, or b) survive at all. Remember, in this scenario, we simply don't know. Both are undesirable.

And there are two possibilities if we do instead change our ways to a point that we think would prevent any potential disasters. We could be completely ready for said climate disaster and avert it from wrecking our way of life, at which point the environmentalists will rejoice and forget all about it soon enough and all will be well again, and we'll still have wildlife to enjoy and plenty of resources for thousands upon thousands of years to supply ALL of humanity. And, the other scenario if there is no disaster: we have too many solar panels and windmills.

Pick your poison.

"in favor of oil, which we already know will eventually not be here anymore."

That statement has already been proven untrue. Oil *does* renew itself in a way. Oil wells that have been wrung dry have been returned to years later and found to contain a great deal of oil. In part because we have better technoilogy for extracting it but also because the Earth continues to "manufacture" it as a fossil fuel.

Plus, we now have synthetic oils that work better than natural ones for lubricants and I've no doubt we will develop synthetic gasolines that work better than what we put in our cars now.

But the ultimate burning fuel is wood. And it grows and grows and grows and grows!

Way to completely avoid the point of my post. And please, sources. Lots and lots of sources. I have lots and lots that disagree.

Yes draug, Wood, a perfect example of a renewable resource. Not being a fossil - also increased wood production (for use in products) acts as a carbon sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it until you burn the wood) so if we can ramp up wood production (while keeping wodd burning at a fixed (low) percentage of the total wood production, then we will be doing some excellent carbon storage - any form of synthetic oil which takes carbon from the air is also carbon neutral, with lubricants a form of carbon storage. (new tech, i'm in favour of technology, so long as it takes a holistic approach to understanding the environment)

But at the moment atmospheric CO2 is over 400 ppb (if my memory serves) and @K - if CO2 has lagged temperature in the pas (and that is hard to show) that doesn't mean it can't drive temperature change now. In fact, if you are right and a temperature change will CAUSE a CO2 increase (like higher sea temp releasing dissolved CO2, which i suspect is exactly how water and CO2 interact) then we could be about to see a positive feedback effect where our CO2 production nudges global average temp up a few degrees, and then the lagging CO2 'natural variation' accelerates this man-made increase.

And that is without understanding Methane frozen in the perma-frost in Siberia/Canada; without knowing what increased atmospheric water (cloud cover) will do to surface temperatures (maybe trigger a new ice-age a little bit early)

In ANY case, the more alternative energy sources we have available the better prepared we are for the unknown.

@ora - I'm all for alternative energy research. In fact, I'm a big fan of fuel cell technology. I was just pointing out the flawed statement regarding fossil fuels being non-renewable. They renew, just as a very slow rate.

Draug may I suggest an alternative definition of "non-rewable resource' than the one you have offered.

This is from Wikipedia:
"A non-renewable resource (also known as a finite resource) is a resource that does not renew itself at a sufficient rate for sustainable economic extraction in meaningful human timeframes"

By that definition oil is not renewable.

I think the Wikipedia definition is more useful than Draugs definition. That is why I have put it out there.