[LiberConservative]

As skeptical as I am I had to say "hmmm" to this. Please discuss.

[GOPJ]

I’m old enough to remember “Global Cooling”, the population bomb, the hole in the ozone, and any number of other tidings of doom.

The Club of Rome, Alar, AIDS will kill us all etc. etc.

Liberals incite their base - the mob - with fear and manipulation and promises of grants and power for the vain and stupid.

It's how liberals rule...

[glasseye]

Had to knock down a few ‘straw-men’ to get through that.

Should have started with “as you know...”

Given the choice I much prefer warming to cooling....like we have a choice.

[BigBobber]

As the author states in the opening, there are three test questions for AGW. Others have said the same. To paraphrase:

1) Is warming real?
2) Is it a bad thing?
3) Are people causing it?

I will add a fourth:

4) Can we do anything about it?

I used to think question 1 had be answered “yes”. Since Climategate, and after doing some follow-up research of my own, I’m pretty sure not even question 1 has been answered. The “experts” agree. They are in the process of redoing the entire historical temperature database. They know it’s been screwed up beyond repair by “scientists” with political agendas and is indefensible in its current state.

Don’t believe the experts when they tell us only “climate scientists” can interpret the data. The temperature record is not science, it’s bookkeeping. Anyone with a high school statistics class can understand what they’ve done is bogus. The Climategate releases proved it beyond a doubt.

Until we get past question 1, why even bother with questions 2-4? They are merely speculation about things that could be happening.

[glasseye]

Upon investigation the site ‘skepticalscience.com’ seems little more than bald face ecofascist malarkey.

They have simply branded themselves ‘skeptical’ while swallowing whole the big lie. Check out some of the articles...hardly skeptical.

They are on the ropes, and desperate.

[Vision]

Oh, and by the way, the United States Navy is counting on it.

Today's Navy is run by liberals. USS Cesar Chavez anyone? The recent history of the Navy promotional piece which excludes white males. It's a sad state.

[WellyP]

If you have the time look at the videos made by Lord Christopher Monckton. He has answers to just about AGW question I can think of and proves all the AGW hype is bunk.

Besides having all the facts and figures he can be very funny, as only a dry Brit can be.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lord+christopher+monckton&aq=0&oq=Lord+Ch

[Lucky Dog]

Here are some suggestions:

Use your search engine of choice to look up the “Vostok ice core.” You will note in the analysis, the proxy indicators used for climate measures in this ice core, that interglacial periods occur, roughly, about every 100,000 years with other changes on other periodic bases of about every 26,000 years, etc.

Next use your search engine to look up Milankovitch cycles. These astronomical phenomena that have roughly corresponding time cycles noted to occur in the Vostok ice core.

Next use your search engine to look up the thermometer. Your will note that accurate instruments (and that is a generous assessment) have only existed for a few hundred years. (Some could argue that accurate instruments have existed for less than a century on wide-spread basis.) Barometers, another staple of weather instruments, have a similar time of existence. Anemometers, rain gauges, etc. all follow a similar path as far length of existence is concerned.

Additionally, you will note that nothing approaching comprehensive, systematically catalogued, “global” climate/weather measures existed prior to the “age of aviation.” Furthermore, you will, also, note that, as a generality, only where there were aviation (or occasionally, nautical) requirements were these measures captured.

Next consult any basic statistics book on sampling methodology. You will find that samples that can accurately, mathematically characterize a phenomenon must be randomly distributed throughout the time frame of the phenomenon of interest. Additionally, you will note the minimum number of samples required must increase considerably as the fidelity required to construct a reasonably predictive model of the phenomenon increases.

Aviation, on a global basis, is not yet a century old. Magellan’s voyage of circumnavigation is less than 5 centuries old. Even assuming that comprehensive and accurate global climate measures were captured from that time to this (obviously they weren’t), the question becomes from a sampling methodology perspective, is that enough to be able to characterize a climate cycle of 100,000 years?

Is “real,” long-term, global warming occurring or are random fluctuations within the normal range of variation being observed?

The proof is left to the reader.

[StACase]

Your biggest error was to refer to "Global Warming" as a problem. It is not a problem. Warmer weather, less ice and snow, more rain, longer growing seasons, plus the benefits of additional CO2 in the atmosphere all fall on the plus side of the ledger.

Sea level is not rising as fast as claimed, the polar bears are not disappearing, glaciers are not a source of water, rain and snow are, and the acidification of the oceans is just plain bunk.