The Global warming blow-hards...

[Busyman™]

Man should be as practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.

Is that not simple enough?

This, as opposed to what you do.

You still haven't figured out what I think.

Maybe no one cares to figure that out.

I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.

Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.

Shit or get off the pot.

Ditto

I was off the pot well before you posted, fellas.

Apparently neither of you can read, or your normal selectivity has once again led you astray.

Again, you muck up your posts with "You still haven't figured it out."

Besides that, man is not being practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.

Why? The dollar many times overrules simple safety protocols already in place. What the hell do you think happens with pollution?

So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.

[GepperRankins]

i'm sorry i've kept out of this too long because i knew i'd get wound up. why is J2 still bumping this? i'm pretty sure that when i was following this he was doing his CnP from a guy who's paid by the oil giants. A guy that uses irrelevant points like because ice on high up mountain summits is not melting; that means the actual facts of rising sea levels from melting sea ice and record temperatures are untrue.

so like, someone sum it up for me plz

[kazaaman]

Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.

[j2k4]

Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.

That sounds so cryptic...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.

I thought that was what this was all about:

Man broke it, man must fix it.

Isn't that right?

[j2k4]

So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.

And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.

You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.

Climate of fear

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006

BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."

The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.

Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.

Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.

Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.

Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:

In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.

So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.

Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.

Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.

Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.

...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.

Literally, figuratively or both

[j2k4]

...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.

Literally, figuratively or both

As I've read the sentiment, it seems the global-warming fear-mongers qualify it thus:

If we can, we should.

If we can't, then we still should, as penance.

If it develops that the tide recedes on it's own, history will be revised accordingly.

[Busyman™]

71 degrees today in the DC area.

Normally we have snow and ice on the ground. I could go outside with a short sleeve shirt and shorts.

[Busyman™]

So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.

And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.

You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.

Climate of fear

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006

BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."

The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.

Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.

Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.

Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.

Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:

In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.

So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.

Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.

Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.

Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.

Nope I didn't read it. If you wanna talk about ignorant, bring up the fact that you have nary a word to say until there is finally something backing your stance.

When there's overwhelming scientific backing of an opposing stance well.......

[Biggles]

"There is global warming because the globe is getting warmer" thus spake Zarathustra.

Actually it was GW but I was close

If the globe is getting warmer, and certainly my garden seems to think so, then we have to decide what this means for us and make adjustments accordingly (without panic). If we are responsible, wholly or in part, then it might be an idea for us to at least stop digging until we see where where the hole has got us to and what if any impact we can muster to change things. Although the world is warmer place than when I was a kid I would not say it is any worse or better - just different. My Uncle is in his 70s and has a large kitchen garden - he is growing plants he would not have considered possible 50 years ago. However, there comes a point when too much of anything is enough.

I don't subscribe to the idea that it is all some ghastly conspiracy but neither do I think media panics are of much help. If anything the latter just make people cynical and consequently ignore advice that might be genuinely useful.