Obama approval rating dropping like a stone

[KazDog]

the debate isn't over global warming, it's over man made global warming.

Let me post this again. Read it carefully. It came from your story.....

"Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice."

Is there a difference between 6 years and 20-30?

And as I stated VERY clearly. I will side with the over 3000 scientists who have agreed that global warming is caused to a certain effect, by humans.

You can go on believing whoever it is that you believe.

[flarendep1]

WRONG!

It's meant to bring about incentives for less greenhouse gasses. Less pollutants. It worked for President George H.W. Bush. That's right. Your buddy president Bush senior signed onto a cap and trade when he was in office.

Wha? Can't be? A republican that instilled a cap and trade? Look it up. And it's still working today and is a model for the one they are talking about now. Keep up that fear mongering. Hopefully for you, people are listening.

Cap and trade back then was for real pollutants like lead in gasoline and sulfur dioxide NOT Carbon dioxide which is an entirely different animal. CO2 is made to out to be a greenhouse gas yet trees and plants need it to survive. CO2 is not a pollutant.

[husker]

Al Gore's global warming theories are very factual and most scientists are in complete agreement that global warming is REAL and that humans are the contributing factor to global warming. To say global warming doesn't exist is like saying the Earth is flat. That is not fear mongering.


KAZ

i wouldn't expect anything else from a gore sheep.

[KazDog]

i wouldn't expect anything else from a gore sheep.

And I wouldn't expect anything less from internet troll

[KazDog]

Cap and trade back then was for real pollutants like lead in gasoline and sulfur dioxide NOT Carbon dioxide which is an entirely different animal. CO2 is made to out to be a greenhouse gas yet trees and plants need it to survive. CO2 is not a pollutant.

It worked as a means of decreasing SO2 at a fraction of the cost and it will work in decreasing the CO2 at a fraction of the cost.

But why should we concern ourselves with the environment? Let's just continue to pollute and act like nothing will ever happen to the environment, our sources of food and our sustainability to survive as a planet in years to come. Keep ignoring all the warnings from a majority of scientists that agree on the outcome and cause.

I'm done arguing with you. Believe what you want....

[ctt8410]

CO2 is made to out to be a greenhouse gas yet trees and plants need it to survive. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is very much a greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect relies only on the ability of a molecule to transmit visible radiation and absorb infrared radiation, which CO2 does well.

Its role in photosynthesis is entirely unrelated. In fact, water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect and none of us would be alive without water vapor because no water vapor = no water, but too much of a good thing isn't good.

Humans make no significant contribution to water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, so it's never really mentioned, but increasing atmospheric temperatures does increase the amount of water vapor that can be present in the atmosphere before saturation. This is part of the positive feedback loop that leads to runaway global warming.

It's actually really simple stuff.

[BigWeiner]

They don't believe in Science CTT, you're wasting your breath

[harold_bush]

They don't believe in Science CTT, you're wasting your breath

It's hilarious to me how a few of you just refuse to admit there is another side to this story. A credible side with just as credible scientists that have a different view. You may not agree with it, but to act like there isn't a credible counter argument makes you look foolish. I don't agree with man made global warming, but I'm not so closed minded to not realize there is that argument out there.

[flarendep1]

Carbon dioxide is very much a greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect relies only on the ability of a molecule to transmit visible radiation and absorb infrared radiation, which CO2 does well.

Its role in photosynthesis is entirely unrelated. In fact, water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect and none of us would be alive without water vapor because no water vapor = no water, but too much of a good thing isn't good.

Humans make no significant contribution to water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, so it's never really mentioned, but increasing atmospheric temperatures does increase the amount of water vapor that can be present in the atmosphere before saturation. This is part of the positive feedback loop that leads to runaway global warming.

It's actually really simple stuff.

Runaway warming, really??

Data show the Earth is cooling
In a Friday letter, a physics professor tried trivializing a column by George Will critiquing global warming alarmism. Will's commentary correctly points out that not only are global temperatures no longer warming, they've been cooling for several years, directly contradicting all the climate modeling predictions on which global warming hysteria was founded. The professor says Will has it backwards and asks "what planet Will has been living on." He references a Web site to prove that, in fact, the "past decade is the warmest recorded."

First, we know from both historic and geologic records that the medieval warming period (800-1200 A.D.) was warmer than today. Ice core samples from both poles and the discovery of Viking settlements excavated from underneath present-day glaciers prove that the Earth was warmer 1,000 years ago.

Second, the professor's assertion is based exclusively on NASA's GISS research. However, NASA is not the only game in town. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies, the University of Alabama earth-orbiting satellite, and the Remote Sensing Systems earth-orbiting satellite all show that global temperature averages have been declining since 1998. A good explanation of this data and why the discrepancy with NASA exists can be found at Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ? The Register.

The planet that Will and other skeptics are living on is the one where all the evidence is considered.

What makes people like "Scientist" Al Gore think we can control this phenomenon. In reality we cant do shit if the earth goes into a warming cycle just as we could not do shit about it if we were headed for an ice age. Man is no match for Mother nature.

[husker]

It's hilarious to me how a few of you just refuse to admit there is another side to this story. A credible side with just as credible scientists that have a different view. You may not agree with it, but to act like there isn't a credible counter argument makes you look foolish. I don't agree with man made global warming, but I'm not so closed minded to not realize there is that argument out there.

it's the gore kool-aid, they can't help it.

[BigWeiner]

Who caused the hole in the ozone?

[Jamaicanman]

Who caused the hole in the ozone?

The guidos and guidettes of The Jersey Shore!

[BigWeiner]

The guidos and guidettes of The Jersey Shore!

Correct

[Jamaicanman]

It worked as a means of decreasing SO2 at a fraction of the cost and it will work in decreasing the CO2 at a fraction of the cost.

But why should we concern ourselves with the environment? Let's just continue to pollute and act like nothing will ever happen to the environment, our sources of food and our sustainability to survive as a planet in years to come. Keep ignoring all the warnings from a majority of scientists that agree on the outcome and cause.

I'm done arguing with you. Believe what you want....

I think it would be pointless and disasterous if the US were the only ones to limit emissions. Getting other industrialized nations to participate is next to impossible. And what would probably be impossible anyway is enforcement.

[KazDog]

I think it would be pointless and disasterous if the US were the only ones to limit emissions. Getting other industrialized nations to participate is next to impossible. And what would probably be impossible anyway is enforcement.

Hence the summit. Not so sure about disastrous. It has to start somewhere, and nothing wrong with the US leading the way.

KAZ