I tried to post this above, but got an error message:

Merry Christmas, GM. I tried to send you a recorded messay, but I don't know what the hell I'm doing with this new technology.

Posted by Always On Watch at December 21, 2006 07:30 AM

GM, one of the things I don't quite understand about the global warming theorist is to suggest that we are going to end up under water, completely.

Even though 2/3 of an iceberg are under water.

I guess my point is, that water expands when frozen. If one were to fill up a glass with ice, then fill it up with water 90% of the way, then let it sit, would the level of water in the glass increase or decrease?

Posted by Louisiana Conservative at December 21, 2006 08:55 AM

LC, actually ice floating in water will not change the water level as it melts. Archimedes figured this out in his bathtub just before he was spotted running naked through the streets of Syracuse few years ago (well, maybe more than a "few" years go).

The problem comes with non-floating ice, primarily glaciers over land (especially Greenland and Antarctica). Were these to melt and flow into the oceans faster than new snow and ice deposition, the mean sea level would indeed rise. The rate and extent of such sea rise is a matter of dispute among GW advocates. However, not even Al Gore is predicting baptism by total immersion.

Posted by civil truth at December 21, 2006 12:23 PM

GM..happy holidays!.hope u received my mail...seems people will be arguing this theory for decades! Happy holiday my friend to u and yours!!!

Posted by Angel at December 21, 2006 12:28 PM

LC, wait a minute, when I wrote my last sentence, I thought you mean the whole world when you wrote we.

However, looking again at your name, I wonder if you meant the State of Louisiana when you wrote we. If so, I haven't studied the calculations that would determine whether Louisiana would theoretically be covered by water if all sea and land ice melted. In any case, even if the most extreme GW predictions were to turn out to be true, my understanding is such a meltdown won't happen in our lifetimes. So don't get out the lifeboats quite yet.

Posted by civil truth at December 21, 2006 12:39 PM

Here's another link to Gore's
Inconvenient "Truths".

And, just for fun, the global warming alarmists most recent "cause" of global warming, cow flatulence. I'm eating all the beef I can in order to eliminate this problem. (I can't get the link to post due to "questionable content." The word "fart" maybe.

I suppose Mr. or Ms. Troll would have us unquestionningly accept any piece of drivel some "scientist" feeds us. Any good scientist knows tht trying to prove yourself wrong is one of the most critical steps in scientific investigation.

BTW - I'm working from home today. My 10 year old daughter is watching TV in the next room. I'm not sure what prompted her but she just yelled out, "Democrats stink!" Makes a Dad proud. :-)

Posted by DADvocate at December 21, 2006 01:52 PM

such a meltdown won't happen in our lifetimes.

I'm certainly not worried about global warming during my lifetime. None of us should be. On the other hand, if you have gran' kids... well...

Posted by e. nonee moose at December 21, 2006 02:08 PM

I'm too worried about the problems passed to us by our grandparents. We can't solve real current problems now if we're worrying about potential future problems a hundred years from now.

Posted by Woody at December 21, 2006 04:02 PM

We can't solve real current problems now if we're worrying about potential future problems a hundred years from now.

I disagree. I do think we can do both at the same time.

Posted by e. nonee moose at December 21, 2006 04:48 PM

Moose, my answer was a little flippant. Of course, we can do both. It's a matter of priorities and how to allocate limited resources. If I had a choice of spending money on education and medical research vs. spending the same money and passing restrictive laws to attack global warming, then I would choose education and research, for which the problems and solutions are much clearer and more likely to provide a greater return on investment.

Posted by Woody at December 21, 2006 05:46 PM

Is it getting warm in here?

Posted by jim hitchcock at December 21, 2006 06:55 PM

I humbly offer this rebutting of Al Gore that uses science and, gasp!, scientists to disprove many of Gore et al.'s preaching -

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

It is a thing of beauty.

Posted by jcrue at December 22, 2006 08:26 AM

Well you've shown us how a shell game works. Now how do we get rid of this infernal music? 2006 had the hottest summer ever, so there's your first problem. It's a balmy 80 degrees here and almost Christmas. The again it snowed in Denver, so when compared you get the same nothing as ever shown by local comparisions. The mean temp is compared worldwide. I challenge the claim made on that blog.

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 08:38 AM

jcrue, thank you for that link. It's worth reading and bookmarking.

P.S. I enjoyed reading your posts at your site. http://jcrue.wordpress.com/

Posted by Woody at December 22, 2006 08:41 AM

Yeah Lumo the writer of that blog is out to lunch according to his peers.

"Warmer and Cooler
Based on data from 1983-2003, surface warming trends in the Arctic have been eight times greater than trends over the past 100 years, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. The sea ice melt season has increased by 10 to 17 days per decade. However, while average temperatures are increasing throughout the Arctic, there are several places where there appears to be cooling. "

Source NASA.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html

Sorry Charlie. They rate higher. Those numbers are false in The Reference Frame.

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 09:08 AM

GW, regarding the music, you can join us and enjoy it (currently, the Hallelujah Chorus) or you can click stop on your tool bar at the top, stop on the play button of the music, or mute your sound through the control panel or a short-cut on your bottom tool bar and miss a wonderful piece of work that Handel himself said was divinely inspired. It might have more meaning if you read the words. Have a Merry Christmas.

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

The kingdom of this world is become
the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and of His Christ;
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever

King of Kings,for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
and Lord of Lords, for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

King of Kings,for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
and Lord of Lords, for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

King of Kings,for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
and Lord of Lords, for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever

King of Kings for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

and He shall reign for ever and ever,
for ever and ever,
King of Kings,
and Lord of Lords,
King of Kings,
and Lord of Lords,
and He shall reign for ever and ever,

King of Kings,
and Lord of Lords.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Posted by Woody at December 22, 2006 09:10 AM

GW: "surface warming trends in the Arctic have been eight times greater than trends over the past 100 years, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. The sea ice melt season has increased by 10 to 17 days per decade."

so, in 100 years we have an average increase of the ice melt to about 130 days... add to that the normal ice melt time of about 100 days and we are up to 230 days or 2/3's of the year... patently false. Too, 100 years ago we didn't see the CO2 we are supposedly seeing... so, what caused the ice melt then GW? Come back when you have facts not suppositions.

Posted by GM Roper at December 22, 2006 09:17 AM

GW, I'm losing all respect for the Goddard NASA people like Gavin, who are on a mission to push their ideas rather than consider all points. In reading his site, I have never seen so much excuse making and rationalization for previous false claims and bad data and so much editing out of opposing information.

Here is a balanced report:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001802.html

Posted by Woody at December 22, 2006 09:17 AM

GW: Yeah Lumo the writer of that blog is out to lunch according to his peers.

Then Lumo is in good company, along with Galileo, Fermi, Einstein, Darwin, etc. That is the problem with you folk methinks.... You consistently mistake consensus as fact... sigh... go back to science 101

Posted by GM Roper at December 22, 2006 10:35 AM

Thank you for the kind words, Woody!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Posted by jcrue at December 22, 2006 11:25 AM

You've never taken that course from the looks of it. The handful of fakirs who deny measured results are few and on someone's payroll. Hint: like my guys it isn't NASA. Get yourself some real scientists and we'll talk. Channel Galileo and the rest because they refute everything he says.

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 12:10 PM

Should be "unlike" my guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 12:13 PM

Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

NOAA

Funny, every government agency on Earth disagrees with you and your so-called sources. Why do you suppose that is? A plot against the "real scientists"?

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 12:17 PM

Hmm...link problems today.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 12:21 PM

I'm not going to argue whether or not warming is occurring. The climate warms and cools and warms and cools. I'd argue whether we could do anything about it though. And Kyoto is a farce, so discount that right off the bat.

Posted by Oyster at December 22, 2006 12:35 PM

GW, private enterprise has just as much right to research and publish its findings on global warming as do government employees who steal time from the taxpayers to pursue their left-wing causes and to obtain more funding.

Posted by Woody at December 22, 2006 12:52 PM

The funding chase fallacy. These scientists work for Bush. How can they find false conclusions, even if he wants them? The trouble is your private so-called scientists can pass an introductory math class. No legitimate scientist beleives the crap you guys are citing. That's because it's incorrect mathematically.

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 03:14 PM

The findings to recap aren't peer reviewed by amyone in the field private or public. Published on a web;og without something else behind it, doesn't count. it doesn't count because without a filter anyone can say anything. Just like here.

Posted by GW at December 22, 2006 03:16 PM

GW, plain and simple, anthropologic global warming has not been proven to be the significant factor in temperature rises, and the outcomes of global warming have been extremely exaggerated. "Your guys" have financial interests and peer pressure to accept global warming claims. Global warming has become the "emperors new clothes" that many pretend to see to avoid punishment.

Posted by Woody at December 22, 2006 08:27 PM

"GW, plain and simple, anthropologic global warming has not been proven to be the significant factor in temperature rises"

Unforunately it has. Just because you don't believe it is irrelevant. The only distortion is this sort of propagandistic claim. There simply is no so-called pressure to produce a desired result on my end but there is in yours. Why are your deniers like Pat Michaels on ExxonMobil's payroll?Who is dictating to NASA to concoct bogus results in favor of AGW? This is a Real conflict of interest. Where's the conflict in the government? Since the president is a denier himself? This has to be the best example of failing critical thought available. My view is it's genetic and you guys didn't get the gene. No worries. In the new year the dimmer switch will be turned off. Let there be light!

Posted by GW at December 23, 2006 07:44 AM

It is in fact proven:

"The SAR concluded: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. That report also noted that the anthropogenic signal was still emerging from the background of natural climate variability. Since the SAR, progress has been made in reducing uncertainty, particularly with respect to distinguishing and quantifying the magnitude of responses to different external influences. Although many of the sources of uncertainty identified in the SAR still remain to some degree, new evidence and improved understanding support an updated conclusion.

There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.

There are new estimates of the climate response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, and new detection techniques have been applied. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years.

Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone (i.e., the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century. However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century.

The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance). The anthropogenic sulphate aerosol forcing, while uncertain, is negative over this period and therefore cannot explain the warming. Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely to explain the warming.

Detection and attribution studies comparing model simulated changes with the observed record can now take into account uncertainty in the magnitude of modelled response to external forcing, in particular that due to uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. Furthermore, most model estimates that take into account both greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols are consistent with observations over this period.
The best agreement between model simulations and observations over the last 140 years has been found when all the above anthropogenic and natural forcing factors are combined. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed.

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Climate Change 2001

You should read before you speak. This is why Internet bloggers are better at propaganda than anyone, but not much else.

Posted by GW at December 23, 2006 08:13 AM

GW: This is why Internet bloggers are better at propanganda than anyone, but not much else.

Propaganda? Do you mean like you did above by re-referencing GW skeptics as GW deniers, an intentional propagadist tactic to make opponents appear worse?

Your so-called proof is still short-term linking of human activity with temperature changes without considering all variables and meeting accepted scientific methods of verifiable proof. GM's linking of pirate activity to GW meets your standards.

Posted by Woody at December 23, 2006 08:29 AM

Tis the season for the gift of education. Long may it rein.

"With each passing year the evidence has gotten stronger — and is getting stronger still," said John M. Wallace.

1995 was the hottest year on record until it was eclipsed by 1997 — then 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Melting ice has driven Alaska Natives from seal-hunting areas used for generations. Glaciers around the globe are shrinking so rapidly many could disappear before the middle of the century.

As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.

"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.

The truth about global warming

Posted by GW at December 23, 2006 08:32 AM

The real truth about global warming

The real truth about Al Gore

Sorry. I don't fall for mass hysteria.

Posted by Woody at December 23, 2006 10:32 AM

To recap your response: Cartoon and Google: wingnut.

Posted by GW at December 23, 2006 07:06 PM

"without considering all variables and meeting accepted scientific methods of verifiable proof."

Pfffffttttttt!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah and a cartoon does!

Posted by GW at December 23, 2006 07:08 PM

Oh, you must have changed your mind about cartoons, because over at RealClimate I commented on a post that they had praising editorial cartoonists who supported global warming, none with science credentials, while attacking legitimate climate scientists who disagreed with them. In that thread, you supported the cartoonists over the scientists. Or, maybe you forgot.

Posted by Woody at December 25, 2006 11:04 AM

The "legitimate" scientists aren't. They have a conflict of interest e.g. on ExxonMobil's payroll. Perhaps you don't know that? In addition they're a distinct minority, and their positions and numbers are disproven. One can claim anything. Backing it up is another matter. Your guys can't, but I don't know what incident you're talking about frankly. It's possible a cartoonist can actually understand the issue since you have to know what's wrong before you can know what if anything is funny about it. South Park apparently isn't one of those.

Posted by GW at December 26, 2006 08:29 AM

Link removed by administrator.

Yorkie, if you want to comment have the huevos to do so in spite of being banned, don't just put up a link to a Global Warming Toadie Site

Posted by publius at December 26, 2006 11:21 AM

It looks like facts are tough for you to accept? e.g. conservative lobbyists and business advocates funded by ExxonMobil account for all of the deniers of global warming. Painful to witness actual bias isn't it? I don't know who Yorkie is, but that link is valid and true. Or do you deny that too?

More pain: Polar bear listed

Posted by GW at December 27, 2006 07:38 AM

York, aka GW aka publius: ...conservative lobbyists and business advocates funded by ExxonMobil account for all of the deniers of global warming.

First, I'm a skeptic...not a denier. Next, where's my check from Exxon?

Serious problems that I have with people who make global warming claims are the extreme exaggerations and hype of consequences, the linking of unrelated, naturally occuring, and historical changes to Earth, the insistance that mankind is primarily responsible, the constant corrections and retractions that they have to do with their own "definitive" data, the left-wing, anti-capitalist politics that they have injected, the conflict of interests that they have with study grants, the ignoring of realistic human and dollar costs to attack a problem immediately that first needs more study and whose proposed solutions have questionable merit, and, finally, their rabid attacks against skeptics showing that they fear debate and being exposed as frauds. That's all.

Posted by Woody at December 28, 2006 07:19 AM

"the linking of unrelated, naturally occuring, and historical changes to Earth, the insistance that mankind is primarily responsible, the constant corrections and retractions that they have to do with their own "definitive" data, the left-wing, anti-capitalist politics that they have injected, the conflict of interests that they have with study grants, the ignoring of realistic human and dollar costs to attack a problem immediately that first needs more study and whose proposed solutions have questionable merit, and, finally, their rabid attacks against skeptics showing that they fear debate and being exposed as frauds. That's all."

This is a problem with your understanding of science and reality in general. You just made a false statement. There are no conflicts of interest on our side. Just truth, albeit inconvenient for you and your ilk to grapple with, but it's great to see Secretary Kempthorne acknowledge this reality of global warming. That must mean he thinks your science is junk. It is. It's going to be a tough two years here in the bunker, and beyond as your squirrelly views are recognized as nuts and rejected. That's all.

Posted by GW at December 28, 2006 03:34 PM