Heh, I'm selling carbon offsets too. I will stop eating baked beans with my steak, thus reducing methane emissions. I want cash though. Your contribution of $100 will keep me from eating beans for an entire day! $500 will get me to forego sauteed onions.

Oh ... I agree with both of you. By the way, is there anyone who has not seen the item on Al Gore's personal electrical/gas usage at his mansion in Tennessee? Apparently, his monthly consumption rivals the average American household's yearly usage.

Way to go, Al. Way to show us the way!

Also by the way, we have the greatest collection of semi-moronic global warming types up here in the Great White North. Of course, we just want to see the end of winter right now. So I guess we're not deniers as much as wanters.

Regards,
George

Carbon Offsets are what you sell to an environmentalist who can't stop his own massive consumption of fossil fuels, so you start a company to encourage someone else to reduce their consumption to offset yours. It alleviates what I have dubbed "green guilt".

In that vein, I am starting a company to sell Calorie Offsets, to help with out nations problem with obesity.

Details here: http://speaking-frankly.blogspot.com/2007/03/im-promoting-calorie-neutral-lifestyle.html

Frank, you got a rate-card?

Book 'em all, Dan-O.

Wait just a minute here, lady. Are you saying you'd forgo use of your vibrator for an hour for each dollar donated?

It's gonna be a long year.

I think it was John and Ken on KFI who were talking to some organization that planted trees for carbon offsets. I heard the pre-conversation, but didn't hear the conversation itself.

Regarding George Martin, I think his work with America was underrated. Obviously one can understand the fascination with his Beatles and Goons work, but the America stuff truly defined the 1970s (a period of predicted global cooling, by the way).

I want to get ahead of the curve here. I'm selling solar credits. For $100, I won't use any sunshine for a day.

You do know that the Martian polar caps are melting also, so sunlight is the culprit, not Al Gore's emissions.

In Syracuse, it's not like we get much sunlight anyway, so your order will be quickly and easily filled.

> Even though I don't know what a carbon offset is,

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

Sadly, I see you've chosen to take the polemicist route this time, instead of actual informed discussion. You'll get the dittoheads onboard, but thoughtful people won't pay much mind. If you're trying to change the way people think, this didn't do it.

Again, the consensus in the scientific community is overwhelming, no matter how the pundits, fiction authors, and politicians try to spin it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Ah, the return of the corksucker.

Yeah, the weather dude can't get the temp right a week from now, but a bunch of enviro whores paid to come up with the results the envionmentalist orgs ask them to are going to predict the earth's temp.

The same community said we were heading for an ice age not too long ago. They were likely closer to being right than the current crop of guys and gals trying to keep the research money flowing.

Will, even if you are right - time, though, will prove you're not - what do you propose? How many people are you willing to put out of work? How many poor people are you willing to starve so you and your liberal elites can feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

The arrogance of you people is stunning...

BTW, as you folks listen to people like Will and the rest of the Global Warming Jihadists keep in mind that their movement is totally political, and its ultimate aim is more socialism and bureaucracy. They want your money.

The social marketing techniques they use are very similar to those used by the political whores. (I worked in the non-profit industry for a long time and have been "media trained." So, I know all the tricks of pushing your agenda to the media.) When these people are in the media, the stick to their talking-points - no matter the actual question. They are trained to spread their propoganda and to always - and keep an eye out for this - attack the credibility of those who disagree with them. They will mix in ad hominem attacks with subtle insinuations that "industry" is behind everthing -you know those "evil" corporations who are trying to destroy the planet. (They act as if the foundations that fund their side's research is agenda free. Yeah, right.)

Oh yeah I'm shamelessly jumping on the bandwagon. Brilliant Annika. Wonder if I can get my liberal treehugging brother to buy in...

Round 5 with blu...

> Yeah, the weather dude can't get the temp right a week from now, but a bunch of enviro whores paid to come up with the results the envionmentalist orgs ask them to are going to predict the earth's temp.

1. Meterology and Climatology are very different sciences. Conjoining the two is a ploy by vested interests to confuse the uniformed.

2. Which environmentalist organizations paid all of the science academies listed in my post above? In fact, which scientists researching climatology at universities and research institutions are paid off by environmental organizations? If you list any, list the amounts and their source. For a exemplar, see www.exxonsecrets.org

> The same community said we were heading for an ice age not too long ago.

There were some scientists that identified a trend we now know as the cooling effects of aerosols (now regulated). Since the regulation, temperatures returned to a warming trend. For a short lesson, google "aerosols" "climate" "NASA".

> They were likely closer to being right than the current crop of guys and gals trying to keep the research money flowing.

You are making unfounded assumptions. Indeed, this is a recycling of early tobacco company complaints about cancer researchers.

>Will, even if you are right - time, though, will prove you're not

Unsupported assertion.

> - what do you propose? How many people are you willing to put out of work?

You have not established that any or all measures to reduce global warming will put significan numbers of people out of work.

> How many poor people are you willing to starve so you and your liberal elites can feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

How many people are starving so that fat conservatives can pig out on all-you-can-eat buffets? Are conservatives doing everything they can to help feed starving peoples? How many more will starve as more and more land undergoes desertification? The world's deserts are growing, not shrinking, as the climate continues to heat up.

> The arrogance of you people is stunning...

I simply quote the climatology community; you seem to quote Rush, and have the temerity to assign arrogance...

> BTW, as you folks listen to people like Will and the rest of the Global Warming Jihadists

Blatant propagandist name-calling ploy.

> keep in mind that their movement is totally political,

If you believe the bulk of the world's climatology scientists are political, and conversely Rush, Inhofe, ACE, etc are scientific entities, then there is little reason to aportion merit to your position.

> and its ultimate aim is more socialism and bureaucracy. They want your money.

FUD. "It's" has no meaning.

> The social marketing techniques they

Who is "they"? The science academies of the world? The US National Research Council? The American Meteorological Society? The American Geophysical Union? American Chemical Society?

> use are very similar to those used by the political whores. (I worked in the non-profit industry for a long time and have been "media trained." So, I know all the tricks of pushing your agenda to the media.)

So you have skipped a discussion of the science basis and are attacking those who are disseminating the message.

> When these people are in the media, the stick to their talking-points - no matter the actual question. They are trained to spread their propoganda and to always - and keep an eye out for this - attack the credibility of those who disagree with them.

These scientists are skilled propagandists who are lying to us on TV? Or are you refering to others?

> They will mix in ad hominem attacks with subtle insinuations that "industry" is behind everthing -you know those "evil" corporations who are trying to destroy the planet. (They act as if the foundations that fund their side's research is agenda free. Yeah, right.)

I've given you a reference to www.exxonsecrets.org (and Exxon has admitted to funding such organizations, paying for papers attacking climate change science). Please share references you have to your claim above. And Rush diatribes do not count as evidence. And 'yeah right' carries no weight in a debate...

Annika,

In the 1970s, it was "Song of Ice."

Now it's "Song of Fire."

Albertus Magnus told me so.

____________

Will,

A website which names itself "Exxon Secrets" is legit, but Rush Limbaugh is not? OK!

Just prior to citing a conspiratorial, anti-corporate website (how original can you get?) you blame someone else of skiping "a discussion of the science."

Double standards are fascinating.

Meanwhile, in about 24 hours, 18,000 children will die of malnourishment/starvation, but the environmental community's scaremongers poison the air (ironic) with paranoia about a problem which we don't understand and whose effects will not be felt for a century or more.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253899,00.html

On the other hand, enviros have made clear their infatuation with Mother Earth and need to "eliminate" human beings.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jacquesyve204407.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/700229/posts

> A website which names itself "Exxon Secrets" is legit, but Rush Limbaugh is not? OK!

The information at that site is drawn from publicly available information. If there is anything incorrect in the data presented, please post such information here. Did you even access the information tying Exxon's contributions to organizations that are attacking climate change science? In case you wondered if Exxon really did spend $16 million (so far) to put their own spin on climate science, see their own admission.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/09/20/exxon-reviews-funding-for-global-warming-skeptics/

It opposed the Kyoto climate change treaty. In 2001, it pressed the Bush administration to remove an outspoken scientist from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2005, a White House official accused of altering scientific reports to cast more doubt on global warming went to work for the company.

The company has also been accused of financing policy groups as surrogates for sowing doubts about the causes of global warming. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, as one example, received about $2 million over seven years.

While Exxon has claimed to have turned over a new leaf, an organization they have financially supported has been caught trying to pay academics to find fault with the latest IPCC findings.
http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0205/stories/0205_nation_warming.php

Of course, you won't see any of this on Fox...

Rush just spouts his opinion, many times getting the facts wrong. I find that he is an inspirational speaker, and can exhort and persuade others effectively. Of course, so did Hitler...

> Just prior to citing a conspiratorial, anti-corporate website (how original can you get?)

With your logic, anyone who questioned Enron or Tyson, etc a few years ago would have been labeled "anti-corporate". Sorry, that won't fly.

> you blame someone else of skiping "a discussion of the science."

I was referring to the interference in the scientific process, which has also been well documented in the Bush Administration.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5763/917

> Meanwhile, in about 24 hours, 18,000 children will die of malnourishment/starvation, but the environmental community's scaremongers poison the air (ironic) with paranoia about a problem which we don't understand and whose effects will not be felt for a century or more.

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253899,00.html

Let's see, this seems to blame environmentalists for starving children? As the climate heats up and desertification continues to grow, more an more children will starve. So reducing the effects of global warming will reduce to potential number of starving children.

Is feeding starving children a top priority among conservatives, or is it the GWOT, abortion (which reduces the number of unwanted starving children), and cutting taxes, which includes international aid? Funny, the people who have been harping about terrorists (and not starving children), are harping about others not creating government programs to feed starving children. Hypocrisy at it's best...

> On the other hand, enviros have made clear their infatuation with Mother Earth and need to "eliminate" human beings.

> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jacquesyve204407.html

This is just a list of quotes, not a quote to support your claim. Perhaps you were referring to this Cousteau quote;

"One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

Note that he specifies a condition (stabilizing earth's population) and what would have to be done if that condition needed to be met. No one in their right mind would beleive that Cousteau meant that 350,000 people per day should be slaughtered.

> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/700229/posts

Primarily a mishmash of quotes about establishing truly wilderness areas. Here's some more, see if you can guess who made them before you finish the last one;

"There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy and its charm."

"We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so."

"The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased; and not impaired in value."

"Conservation means thoughtful development as much as it does protection."

"The extermination of the buffalo has been a vertible tragedy of the animal world."

"We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams."

"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."

"Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us."

--Theodore Roosevelt

"Did you even access the information tying Exxon's contributions to organizations that are attacking climate change science?"

For brevity's sake, I'll just link Lee's take on that.

Not much here, I'm afraid;

>the IPCC is doing exactly what the Bush administration did on Iraq, finding the answer they wanted then picking the data to support it.

He may be right about the Bush Administration, but has no support for his statement about the IPCC. Does he even discuss what the data sources are? No, he simply makes this blanket statement hoping that that no one understands what he is talking about.

> The process itself is inherently biased and unfair.

Simply because he says so? Does he even know what the process is? He shows no signs of even the vaguest clue.

> Sierra Club gives money to researcher? Good. Exxon gives money to researcher? Ooooh, bad, evil!

Another weak attempt at deflection. Look at the scientists involved and identify the ones that the Sierra Club funded; The science academies of the world? The thousands of scientists of the IPCC? The US National Research Council? The American Meteorological Society? The American Geophysical Union? American Chemical Society?

It's absurd to make such a broadsweeping statements that have no basis in reality; after all, what kind of people would lend any credence to this lack of evidence? If there is evidence, let's see it.

On the other hand, I typing this while listening to a stirring message by King Abdullah of Jordan, once a young monarch thrust into his position, now a maturing leader with a moving appeal. Of course, I prefer democratic leaders, but a ME leader such as he is a welcome example.

Will:

1. Think tanks need money to survive, and most are supported by major contributors, some of which are corporations. Should we discard all research because a corporation is supporting it financially and might have a vested interest in the outcome? Or is it just when ExxonMobil wants research done on an area which impacts their business? THEN we should be suspicious?

2. Assuming that Exxon is pouring money into such research, you have not proven that Exxon has any fraudulent/evil intent, nor have you proven that the research must therefore be incorrect.

3. Anyone who opposed Kyoto is 100% correct. If the intent of the Kyoto Treaty is to help the environment (which I doubt), it is a tragic attempt at doing so. Among the plethora of problems with it, it exempts 1/3rd of the global population by ignoring pollution from China and India. It is so cost prohibitive that countries are having trouble complying with it already. It will have virtually zero impact on temps. The Senate voted down this disaster in 1997 (?) during the Clinton years by a razor thin margin of 95-0.

4. No, I never blamed enviros for starving children! I brought them up to illustrate a tremendous lack of priorities on the part of environmentalists. If your toddler is about to be hit by a car, which would you do first: (1) try to save his/her life immediately, or (2) set up a college trust fund?

5. Your apologizing for Cousteau is depressing and you again misunderstand my point. Cousteau assumed that population must be "stabilized;" it does not. The problem is not the numbers of people but overcrowding. Again, 1/3rd of the global population is concentrated in 2 countries. Much available land mass is EMPTY.

Even if Cousteau was 100% correct that population must be stabilized, to suggest that 350,000 people need to be "eliminated every day" means EXACTLY that. He believed that 350,000 people must lose their lives every day in order to achieve some greater goal. Whether he wanted them killed, or just wished away in a cornfield like a certain Twilight Zone episode, is irrelevant. His quote fits with the enviro general belief that humans are a pestilence consuming and wasting too much. (Of course, such a suggestion would never include HIM.)

6. Placing Rush Limbaugh and Hitler in the same sentence is not worthy of a response.

7. My reaction from your quotes from Roosevelt: "So what?" Of course, the environment must be protected. Of course, wildlife must be protected. No one disagrees with this and conserving is not the issue. The issue is whether currently rising temps are an anomaly and if they are, will they cause the doomsday scenarios that Al Gore and others believe it will. I might agree with them if they had the science to support their claims; they don't. Theirs is a purely political agenda of wealth re-distribution, of power and control. If Gore truly believed what he preached, would he consuming 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American? I suspect not. Libs cannot speak on any topic without the word "hypocricy." If Gore is not a prime example of it, the word has no meaning.

"Simply because he says so?"

Lee did a follow-up on my previous link. Timothy Ball would back him up.

"King Abdullah of Jordan, once a young monarch thrust into his position, now a maturing leader with a moving appeal."

I wouldn't get too attached since he might get Shah't depending on the ultimate outcome in Iraq.

"Of course, I prefer democratic leaders, but a ME leader such as he is a welcome example."

Agreed.

Hey Will,

Please tell everybody how much the temperature in the US has gone up since the time of the Industrial Revolution. It must have gone up 5 or 10 degrees, right? After all, we are the world's biggest polluter. So, clue us all in, Will. How much has the avg temp gone up?

While you are at it, give us your excuse for why the avg US temp went down from around 1940 through the early 70's.

> 1. Think tanks need money to survive, and most are supported by major contributors, some of which are corporations.

Precisely the point: Think tanks generate the ‘analysis’ needed by corporations for eyewash, and they get rewarded by saidorganizations.  Only too frequently, the results are so predictable that the think tanks get paid in advance.

>Should we discard all research because a corporation is supporting it financially and might have a vested interest in the outcome?

Any critical thinker would be highly suspicious.

> Or is it just when ExxonMobil wants research done on an area which impacts their business? THEN we should be suspicious?

Covertly buying shill scientists through indirect payoffs should raise alarm bells in any citizens mind. Why would they have to pay for such research if it were not obvious or at least had convincing data support?  First, it was “There is no global warming”.  Then it was “There is
no human contribution”.  Now it’s “we simply don’t know exactly how much human contribution there is”. The line has moved so many times it isn’t funny, but each time, we are supposed to believe them??

> 2. Assuming that Exxon is pouring money into such research, you have not proven that Exxon has any fraudulent/evil intent, nor have you proven that the research must therefore be incorrect.

It is not my job to prove them incorrect, because they have simply said, “We don’t know”.  One can’t
disprove a negative. Conversely, the scientific community has established a 90% link that humans are causing the major portion of global warming, so I invite you to present evidence that will convince them that they are wrong. Here’s where we have an exercise in expert testimony that Anni may have already studied in school.

> 3. Anyone who opposed Kyoto is 100% correct. If the intent of the Kyoto Treaty is to help the environment (which I doubt), it is a tragic attempt at doing so. Among the plethora of problems with it, it exempts 1/3rd of the global population by ignoring pollution fromChina and India.

You first statement is simply a bald pronouncement.  You are correct about the population that is currently exempt.  The first stage (Kyoto) is intended to reign in the excesses of the developed world.

Remember, the average American uses about 20 times the energy that the average Chinese uses. So sitting in one’s SUV and pointing out that there are still a few places for Chinese and Indian people to hang off the outside of buses is a pointless argument.  The second stage is where the developing world is encouraged by the carrot and stick (technologies and trade) to implement the next round of emissions reductions.

> It is so cost prohibitive that countries are having trouble complying with it already.

Most of the European countries are significantly below their 1990 emission levels, while the US
has seen a 16% rise from 1990 to 2004. 
In the same time period, the UK
greenhouse gas emission dropped 14.6%.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-pt3.pdf

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

> It will have virtually zero impact on temps.
The Senate voted down this disaster in 1997 (?) during the Clinton years by a razor thin margin of 95-0.

Of course, the language of the bill stated ”the United States should not be
a signatory to any protocol to…which would would
result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”;
  this was the poison pill that no one would
stand up and say, “I’ll vote for that!”.

> 4. No, I never blamed enviros for starving children! I brought them up to illustrate a tremendous lack of priorities on the part of environmentalists.

And what are the priorities of the conservatives with respect to starving children around the world?  Those pundits that started this assumed their followers would not recognize hypocrisy…

>5. Your apologizing for Cousteau is depressing

And your attempt at spinning Cousteau’s words are even more depressing.

> 6. Placing Rush Limbaugh and Hitler in the same sentence is not worthy of a response.

I take it you’ve never uttered or typed the word, "feminazi"?  Or is that ‘different’ in your mind, hmm?

> 7. My reaction from your quotes from Roosevelt:"So what?" Of course, the environment must be protected. Of course, wildlife must be protected. No one disagrees with this and conserving is not the issue.

Then you are at odds with the former GOP majority that sought to turn the park service into Walmart temps and sell off park and BLM land at firesale prices.

> The issue is whether currently rising temps are an anomaly and if they are, will they cause the
doomsday scenarios that Al Gore and others believe it will. I might agree with them if they had the science to support their claims; they don't.

Yours is a minority view, a minority that has shrunken drastically in the last fifteen years as drove after drove of reasonably skeptical scientists have considered, evaluated, and accepted the data and analysis behind global warming.  Note that they don’t get their information from Fox News or New Republic.

> Theirs is a purely political agenda of wealth re-distribution, of power and control.

On the contrary, scientists have in mind the pursuit of insight and knowledge. One doesn’t get a PhD in geeky science fields to be a political string puller, or a stock market manipulator.  While science is not completely free of politics, the influence of money from vested corporate interests is completely and irrefutably bent on dominating the scientific discussion in the direction of profits, at the expense of the truth.

> If Gore truly believed what he preached, would
he consuming 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American? I suspect not. Libs cannot speak on any topic without the word "hypocricy." If Gore is not a prime example of it, the word has no meaning.

>You have a good point here; if Gore doesn’t practice what he preaches, does that mean that all those scientists are wrong? Think about that.

And Al Gore purchases green power, from wind, hydro, solar, and biomass.  So while he spends quite a bit of money, he does not pollute the way some would like you to believe.

I myself have put my money where my mouth is. Our house is passive solar heated (with
efficient woodstove backup), powered by photovoltaics, and the entire house is highly energy efficient, from the refrigerator to the
dishwasher to the building insulation and clothesline.
 
We both have hybrids, though I take the bus
to work.  Etc, etc.  And I bought my Honda Insight while still a stalwart Republican (as did Pat Michaels, who still is).

So when the president says that "America is addicted to oil", I agree with him, and have taken steps for my part to free America from dependency on expensive foreign oil that helps to fund terrorists. Who here is helping to fight terrorism in such a way, by deed instead of word? Let them cast the first stone...

>> "Simply because he says so?"

> Lee did a follow-up on my previous link. Timothy Ball would back him up.

One Canadian complains about one environmentalist? Not much when compared to;

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-11-02-white-house-scientists_x.htm?csp=34
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5763/917
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-21-kerry-ideology_x.htm

> Please tell everybody how much the temperature in the US has gone up since the time of the Industrial Revolution.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

> While you are at it, give us your excuse for why the avg US temp went down from around 1940 through the early 70's.

I’ve provided references several times, but will assume you haven’t read every one of my responses;

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opinions1.shtml
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Reprint02-6.pdf
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/July-2004/Historical-changes.pdf

I asked about the US.... where temperature has SKY ROCKETED ABOUT (drum roll) half a degree and much of this can be attributed to heating around urban areas.

With regard to the .7 or .8 claimed for global temperatures, we know that the data for most of the planet was highly unreliable until only recently.

So, the enviro-nazis have set about to scare children and bankrupt economies for a rise in temp of about half a degree.

I can't wait to sit back and laugh at you people in about 20 years. I'll be Simon; you, Will, will be Ehrlich.

> I asked about the US.... where temperature has SKY ROCKETED ABOUT (drum roll) half a degree

Global temperatures are what truly matter, as those will provide indications of how the entire system is reacting. If you want to zero in a few specific areas, then you miss the big picture. For example, if you zeroed in on Alaska, you'd see significant permafrost melting to the point that roads are buckling and housed foundering on their foundations.

Alaska’s climate has warmed about 4°F since the 1950’s and 7°F in the interior during winter. The state experienced a 30% average increase in precipitation between 1968 and 1990. The growing season has lengthened by two weeks. Sea ice has retreated by 14% since 1978 and thinned by 60% since the 1960s with widespread effects on marine ecosystems, coastal climate, and human settlements. Permafrost melting has caused erosion, landslides and damaged infrastructure in central and southern Alaska. Recent warming has been accompanied by “unprecedented increases in forest disturbances, including insect attacks. A sustained infestation of spruce bark beetles, which in the past have been limited by cold, has caused widespread tree deaths over 2.3 million acres on the Kenai Peninsula since 1992, the largest loss to insects ever recorded in North America” (US Global Change Research Program, National Assessment, 2001).

For more recent information that shows a continue of the damage, see http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewalaska.htm

> and much of this can be attributed to heating around urban areas.

No, this excludes the urban heat island effect. Data points are purposely adjusted to account for higher amounts of asphalt, fewer trees, etc. The few denialists scientists know this, but repeat it because they know most of the people the are victims of their propaganda won't take the time to look it up.
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

> With regard to the .7 or .8 claimed for global temperatures, we know that the data for most of the planet was highly unreliable until only recently.

You make this claim, though you provide no evidence to back it up, so this is simply a bald assertion.

> So, the enviro-nazis

Oh, so it IS ok to refer to Rush and Hitler in the same sentence? But now you are talking about the scientist that specialize in climatology, and such words ring hollow.

>have set about to scare children and bankrupt economies for a rise in temp of about half a degree.

The research is targeted at adults, and bankrupting is already underway via the Bush Administration. If you plan to reference any economic models that support your latter statement, be careful to cite ones that don't come from institutes that Exxon has funded.

spruce bark beetles?! hit em with a little DDT. problem solved!

; )

"No, this excludes the urban heat island effect."

Actually, Will, it doesn't. Not to the proper extent. There are cities within a 200 miles of NYC that have seen almost no warming over the past 100 years. If your global warming theory were correct, this would not happen since the rise in heat in NYC has been significant. Hey Will, I'm curious do computer simulations count as "scientific proof" in other fields? LOL. You guys haven't proven anything.

Will, one thing I know for certain after debating you is that you are not a scientist. I suspect you are a marketing schmuk with a BA. You do a good job plagerizing other people's ideas but have virutally zero independent thought and almost zero analytical abilitiy. I've graded papers of graduate students similar to you - people without their own voice. So, arguing with you is pointless. You will just parrot the ideas of those with whom you agree. When the day comes that you have actually graduated with a Masters degree or higher in ANY subject, please let me know.

>>"No, this excludes the urban heat island effect."

> Actually, Will, it doesn't. Not to the proper extent. There are cities within a 200 miles of NYC that have seen almost no warming over the past 100 years. If your global warming theory were correct, this would not happen since the rise in heat in NYC has been significant.

You have misunderstood the heat island effect. Why do you believe it would effect reading 200 miles away? And why would readings in one small area of the world extrapolate to the rest of the world? That's called cherry picking data, and is unrelated to global climate patterns.

>> Hey Will, I'm curious do computer simulations count as "scientific proof" in other fields? LOL. You guys haven't proven anything.

Hmm, you ask a question, then provide your own answer. Models are used throughout the scientific community from epidemiology to astrophysics. Most are used to make projections, and normally require attention to assumptions and unknowns in order to establish margins of error.

>> Will, one thing I know for certain after debating you is that you are not a scientist. I suspect you are a marketing schmuk with a BA. You do a good job plagerizing other people's ideas but have virutally zero independent thought and almost zero analytical abilitiy. I've graded papers of graduate students similar to you - people without their own voice. So, arguing with you is pointless. You will just parrot the ideas of those with whom you agree. When the day comes that you have actually graduated with a Masters degree or higher in ANY subject, please let me know.

My undergrad is in Electro-mechanical engineering and my masters is in Computer Science, with a focus in Scientific Computation (physics, specifically). I am technically not a scientist in the traditional sense, so make no direct reference to scientific findings of my own research. Indeed, referencing the work of scientists is the only way to debate the subject, unless you simply want to get into layman speculation, which isn't work the time to key in.

So 'independent thought' is a desirable trait when discussing philosophy, politics, and other opinion-driven topics, but simply pontificating about unsupported, unscientific opinions concerning a scientific domain is pointless and unfruitful.

Ask a lawyer why they have to call in subject matter experts on some topics in court.