They're both ...sensus (meaning feel), but with global warming "con" means "crooked" and with Hesb'ollah "con" means "with"--at least, to me. The left sees it the other way.

So,global warming has a consensus of con artists.

Posted by Woody at July 24, 2006 10:19 AM

Since its the politicians that are pushing "global warming", what does that tell you? For me, it just says it all.

Posted by Vulgorilla at July 24, 2006 11:38 AM

The left will claim SCIENTIFIC evidence with the Global Vorming stuff. They will claim OIL for anything bad with the Middle East.

They're stupid. What can we expect?

Posted by Raven at July 24, 2006 01:40 PM

It's whatever the left/media wants it to be at a given time.

Posted by Ogre at July 24, 2006 01:40 PM

Orwell's 1984? You know--word games.

Posted by Always On Watch at July 24, 2006 06:47 PM

The mind of the leftist is schizophrenic. Thus holding conflicting ideas in no more difficult that believing people are tapping your brainwaves, or having multiple personalities.

Posted by DADvocate at July 24, 2006 07:03 PM

Global Vorming?

Spend too much time in Germany? ;-)

Posted by Oyster at July 24, 2006 07:15 PM

this is the hotest summer in recorded history! everyone should report that, the hot tempture in the US has had no effect on the tempture in the polar regins. Nobody shoudl report that.
It is the business that cause heat and repress people, the reason for business is to provide jobs for people so they can buy stuff.....

wait, I am all confused now.

Posted by Michael at July 24, 2006 10:09 PM

Yet, while all the scientists receiving grant money to "research" global warming keep telling us they believe man is contributing to it, I have yet to see an actual evidential report supporting their "beliefs".

Liberals espouse the cause because its success would mean making things tougher on corporations and creating major unemployment.

Destabilization of an economy is one of the tools marxists have historically used to bring down governments.

Posted by Seth at July 25, 2006 01:49 AM

Seth, here's picture proof that man contributes to heating the atmosphere: http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/183755.php

Posted by Woody at July 25, 2006 07:34 AM

GM; your post is a mite confusing. ie: Consensus-- An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Do you think that a person,or group of persons may or may not reject the "consensus" of an unrelated group.
For example, I am in total agreement with the scientists report on global warming. I completely reject the Arabs consus on Hezbollah. Will you allow me that?
And to Seth, do you seriously believe that liberals want to hinder corporations and increase unemployment? You do know that liberals also have to work for a living.

Posted by James Melbert at July 25, 2006 11:48 AM

Actually Jimmy, I suspect that you haven't been keeping up with the Global Warming hysteria. If a consensus is, as you say, "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole," then GW is false on it's face because there are many climitoligists who do NOT accept the GW science. Too, you being quite a scientist yourself know full well that if you have one example in which the theory is disproved, the theory doesn't hold up. That is true in logic as well.

Lastly, I will note that the left has harped not on the science so much in GW, although that is there, but on the fact that a "consensus of scientists" accept that GW is true, there for it must be a fact.

Given that, if a consensus is the end all, be all, then logically one should accept any concensus because it it is a concensus, and that was my thrust.

Besides, I'm wating for scientific proof not consensus and damn sure not consensus based on computer models. You do know of course, that both Mars, and Jupiter (and we can imagine Mercury and venus as well) are demonstrably hotter. No anthropomorphic CO2 there so what is accounting for the rise in temps there over the last 10-15 years? Bush? Even you don't believe that. Maybe it is the activity of the sun in a normal sun warming cycle. And that too is my point, we don't know do we?

Posted by GM Roper at July 25, 2006 07:12 PM

no its the usually the "general consesus"..whatever that qualifier means!..lol..:)

Posted by Angel at July 25, 2006 08:22 PM

Wow Guy, that was a erudite answer. I apreciate you reasoning. But I know you have heard about straining at a gnat, but swollowing a camel!
The camel is as you put it. GW. Please tell me that you agree that the earth is warming at an unnatural (historically) rate. The gnat is the cause of the warming.
If there is a incremental action that will reduce the rate of warming, until the natural cycle swings again, do you really reject the action? GW is a fact! the reason or as I prefer reasons are manifold. Certainly greenhouse gases may not be the total culprit, but certainly it is a contributing factor. Now that is a irrufutable scientific fact.
I do not think that the US is any more culpable than say Germany, China, SE Asia and India. But certainly a Statesman (diplomatic?) like administration could build on or originate some accord with all the nations involved. Bush l was able to get accord for war. This turkey rejects diplomacy out of hand . He is only trying that in the Israeli/Hezbolah problem because he ihas run out of armed forces.
Enough, my mother, your grandmother always said that I would argue with a fence post. I suspect that my sister told you the same.

Posted by James Melbert at July 26, 2006 09:37 AM

James, I think we all can agree that a global warming trend is currently under way.

I use small letters because this is part of a long-time record of temperature rises and falls. It's not Global Warming, as though an uninvited guest has suddenly dropped by without warning (despite what our local rag said this morning). But I'm digressing.

The problem is that calling this warming historically unnatural begs the controversy, for as I understand, the whole "hockey stick" dispute centers precisely over whether the current warming trend is historically unprecedented.

Though CO2 is rising, a second part of the controversy, if I understand correctly, is whether this rise is an unmistakable "signal" or whether it is part of the "noise" formed by a multitude of temperature-altering factors. Given that there was a temperature decline a few decades back, perhaps the CO2 rise is counteracting a global cooling. This is something the scientists have to sort out.

The real breakdown in your analysis though comes with the "what to do". Kyoto was ineffective (and kaboshed by the US long before Bush II). Frankly, it's a fantasy to think that the world today is united behind CO2 emissions control and that the U.S. is blocking the way -- and that if we only signed Kyoto then the world would be saved. I don't think you're saying that, but a lot of the anti-Bush crowd seems to believe that.

Rather, this is one area that the U.S. does not control. There are many parochial national interests, all of which want to push the costs onto someone else. It's always politically difficult (rightly so) to accept significant costs today in exchange for a diffuse (and uncertain) benefit tomorrow. And thats a third part of the controversy -- what degree of climate benefit will result from incremental changes in CO2 emissions.

Besides, if the arctic data indicates the onset of a natural positive feedback cycle, that will swamp any human intervention regarding CO2 emissions actions that we might attempt. Sometimes nature is stronger than us ("usually" is more the case) and takes the matter out of hands, taking us along for the ride.

This, of course, is a different matter than what steps we voluntarily decide to take as individuals. It the invoking of the coercive power of the state that we need to view with great caution and deliberation.

Posted by civil truth at July 26, 2006 10:45 AM

Jimmy, would you like fries with that camel? (very large grin inserted here)

Posted by GM at July 26, 2006 11:14 AM

Dear Civil Truth, I don't remember considering that the US did, could or would controll the world greenhouse gas production. I suggested that the US could note the word, could be a force in diplomacy that may, repeat may cause some, repeat some incremental reduction in that production.
It seems to me, that even a diehard conservative republican, who is despritaly trying to confuse the warming debate with every concievable rationalization, would be in faveor of a small effort to help the situation.
If you think that the warming trend has not been greater that historically recorded, just notice that Glacier National Park is now, just a national park. The glaciers that have been there since the ice age are gone. The glaciers in Alaska are going, goimg......
Oh say Guy, fries would be good. Maybe if we wait, and the GW continues, baked camel will be readily available.

Posted by James Melbert at July 26, 2006 09:34 PM

If the liberals would quit lighting candles every time that they have a cause or protest, that would cut global warming.

Posted by Woody at July 27, 2006 06:25 AM

"Maybe it is the activity of the sun in a normal sun warming cycle. And that too is my point, we don't know do we?"

No it isn't, and yes we do. Roper just because your eyes are shut doesn't mean things aren't happening. CO2 has increased to 380 ppm i.e. 33 percent of the atmosphere in the last 100 years. It is measured at stations all over the world. This is FACT. The global temp has risen one degree Celsius in that time. FACT. There is no natural source for the increase. FACT.

This comment has been truncated by me because of a couple of things. As usual, Mark A York has tried to bypass his banning from this site. His comments above were left because that is the sole argument (if you can call it that) that he makes, the rest was just the usual disjointed stuff that Yorkie usually publishes. I will answer the above in a seperate comment. I will also note that Yorkie was banned because of persistent cursing... he denies it but I thought I'd point out the email address he used on this comment... ja@gotohell.com... oh yes Yorkie... let's see you deny it this time... Or will you claim that I edited it to make you look bad... well, I could have, but the only thing I edited was your scurrilous commenting on points unrelated to the post.

Posted by Johnny Appleseed at July 29, 2006 11:51 AM

"This is something the scientists have to sort out."

No CT they have sorted it out and the cooling period 20 years ago is an anomally in an overall warming period. Driven by anthropogenic CO2 additions from burning fossil fuels. FACT. I truely feel sorry for folks this dazed and confused. There isn't one assertion you haven't screwed up from proven ignorance. What you say is simply not true. It's just you can't handel the truth.

War Hero Passes

Posted by Johnny Appleseed at July 29, 2006 12:10 PM

York, I'm sorry your dad passed away. I lost my dad in 2000 and I know that it is a difficult process to get through, but I have no doubt that you can, like I did, get through it.

Posted by GM at July 29, 2006 12:44 PM

Yeah you must have. I saw the posts and he didn't curse. Well, if hell is cursing then we have a new high bar set. Oh fudge!

Posted by Joe Cone at July 29, 2006 02:22 PM

Duly noted Roper. My condolences as well. I will indeed get over it. I did all I could and his testimony will live on at www.loc.gov/vets I made the tape just in time.

Posted by MY at July 29, 2006 02:27 PM

Appleseed/York/Cone give it up... you know very well that this is just the tip of the iceburg... you just can't handle anything that challenges your precious GW theories without flying off the handle... and you are right, the bar is set high on this site. My site, my bandwidth, my rules.. if you don't like it, don't keep coming back.

Posted by GM at July 29, 2006 07:14 PM