Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This is a little long but very interesting and even a little amusing.
Of course "experts" like rodmalm and his personal advisor Rush Limbaugh may hold different view than the info below....

Global warming getting harder to ignore
By Derrick Z. Jackson

Sunday, May 01, 2005 - FOR more' than four years, President Bush has told us he needs to see the 'sound science' on global warming before joining the rest of the world in combating it. In June 2001, he brushed off criticism of his pullout from the Kyoto Protocol, saying: 'It was not based upon science. The stated mandates in the Kyoto treaty would affect our economy in a negative way.'

A year later, Bush's own Environmental Protection Agency put out a report that the burning of fossil fuels in the human activities of industry and automobiles are huge contributors to the greenhouse effect. He publicly trashed the report, embarrassing then-EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, saying, 'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.'

Now comes a new study by a bureaucracy representing just about the whole planet. It is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, commissioned by the United Nations in 2000 at a cost of $24 million and compiled by 1,360 experts from 95 countries. It is the latest in dire reports as to how we are doing the planet in and, implicitly, how the United States puts its interests and pollution over the welfare of the rest of the planet.

The report said human beings, whose numbers have doubled to 6 billion, have changed the world's ecosystems more in the last 50 years than in any other period in our pursuit of food, fuel, water and wood products. More land was converted to agriculture since World War II than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

Those conversions, aggravated by the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, have led to 10 to 30 percent of mammal, bird, and amphibian species facing the threat of extinction. Highlights of what we have already lost in the last 50 years include: 20 percent of the world's coral reefs, with another 20 percent seriously degraded, and 35 percent of the world's mangroves.

The dilemma is that many of the changes in agricultural, fishing, and industrial technology have had incredible benefits for human beings, including the reduction of hunger and poverty. But in the process, 60 percent of the services the world's ecosystems provide, from basic food to disease management to aesthetic enjoyment, have been degraded. One example that is particularly painful in New England and Atlantic Canada is the collapse of fishing stocks.

'Any progress achieved in addressing the goals of poverty and hunger eradication, improved health, and environmental protection is unlikely to be sustained if most of the ecosystem services on which humanity relies continue to be degraded,' the study said.

The study offered several scenarios of how humans can halt the degrading of the planet. The most obvious strategies involve a global economy where the sharing of education, skills, technology, and resources leads to a reduction in poverty and pressures on local environments. The worst possible scenario is one called 'Order from Strength,' which results in 'a regionalized and fragmented world, concerned with security and protection, emphasizing primarily regional markets, paying little attention to public goods, and taking a reactive approach to ecosystem problems.'

That precisely describes the United States. We consume a quarter of the world's energy, are the world's leading contributor to the greenhouse gases of global warming, and take advantage of agriculture in all parts of the world so we can have fresh peaches, peppers, and berries 365 days a year if we wish. Not surprisingly, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has been out for two weeks and there has not been a peep out of the administration on it the same administration that needed no sound science on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The assessment was co-chaired by the World Bank's chief scientist, Robert Watson. Watson was formerly NASA's chief environmental scientist and environmental adviser in the Clinton administration. Watson said two weeks ago that the study reinforces his belief that climate change 'may become the most dominant threat to ecological systems over the next hundred years.'

The World Bank has been in the news for other reasons, being so important to Bush that he had the right-wing defense hawk Paul Wolfowitz installed as president. It will be interesting, once Wolfowitz hardly known for his caring about birds, insects, and Iraqi civilians is fully in power, how much more Watson and the World Bank will speak out about how we are doing ourselves in.

Watson speaks for 1,360 experts from 95 countries. It's only a matter of time before we hear Wolfowitz saying, 'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.'

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jacksonglobe.com .
The whole story: Pasadena Star News

Clearly this is little more than a political advertisement intended to bash Bush.

Why would anyone credible, talking about the theory of global warming, throw in WMD's into one totally unrelated sentence in the middle of a rather long article for the sole purpose of bashing Bush if this wasn't the intent of the article? Not to mention that they misrepresented the facts about WMDs?

Why would "pollution" be used to try and bash the U.S., when we are just about the cleanest industrialized nation (if you don't take into account CO2, which didn't used to be considered pollution)? Why didn't it mention that we are producing more CO2 than most nations because we produce more goods than most nations, and energy production to produce those goods is what is producing the CO2 in the first place? Why didn't it mention that the U.S. developed nuclear power plants that are used all over the world, and other countries that use them (like France) have low CO2 outputs because of our efforts? Why didn't it mention that we produce a lot of CO2 because of environmental groups preventing the building of nuclear plants in the U.S. and that FORCES us to use other forms of energy instead, all which produce CO2? (except for solar and wind, and those produce so little energy they are almost worthless) Why did it comment on our use of imported foods (again to bash us) but not mention that we provide 60% of all international humanitarian aid (which is primarily exported food) while the rest of the entire world only provides 40%? Why didn't it mention that many other countries (like those in Europe) can't defend themselves and rely on our military, which also means that we must produce more CO2 proportionally and other countries can produce less? Why did it tout sharing of technology and information? Couldn't be that the U.S. is the leader in these areas and other countries have a lot to gain from sharing with us, while we have little to gain from them could it? (I'd love to share my money with Bill Gates if he would share his with me!!!!)

Nope, that article was not biased at all!

As for it being good science, how did they come up with that? Global warming is, after all, just a theory that has yet to be proved. Here we have a theory (man is causing warming by producing green house gasses), in which there are thousands of possible other variables (natural causes/cycles and other man made causes), and one theory is explored (green house gasses) that can be exploited to hurt the U.S. economy and thus help other competing countries economies. If you don't believe this, why under the original Kyoto accord, would the U.S. face heavy fines (to be paid to the U.N.), while many other countries that produce far more pollution (and CO2) are either exempt or face very small fines, if reducing green house gasses was the goal? Seems to me, if reducing world wide green house gasses was the goal, penalties would be based on them and on efficiency, not on who can pay the U.N. the most money! Seems to me that this is almost totally political and driven by economics. We all know how corrupt the U.N. is, and how biased against the U.S. it is. Should we trust them this time to be fair about global warming, when being unfair can help their voting member nations economically while hurting us? I don't think so.

There are plenty of scientist that doubt global warming is being caused by man.
www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.pushback.com

If you read this, note that the petition is much larger than the number of scientists that are quoted in your article, and that the signature are being collected in Paris, France--this is not some U.S. based group, it is internationally supported as well.

At least the article was fair in one respect. It said that global warming may be the biggest problem we face in the next 100 years. "May" is an understatement!!!!! Much like saying, "Monkeys may fly out of my ....." They may, but it isn't likely!

I suggest you get Michael Crichton's new book, "State of Fear" to get a better understanding of the subject. I haven't yet, but I understand the research is amazingly through. --like the fact that most glaciers are growing, and only the few that aren't are quoted by environmentalist groups. (something like 2% of Antarctica is thawing, while the remaining 98% is growing, and only the 2% ever gets mentioned by the U.N. and other groups with an agenda to push.

Rodney

Rodney says:
As for it being good science, how did they come up with that? Global warming is, after all, just a theory that has yet to be proved...

Tee-hee.

Is it your opinion rodmalm that the evidence indicates there is no global warmimg occuring?

A simple yes or no would do...When you blather on like you tend to, and link to radio stations (!?) you only hurt your credibility.

The short answer is NO!! I don't believe that global warming is being caused by man, if it is occurring at all.

We are far too insignificant compared to nature to have an effect as claimed by the alarmists. Plants (producing water vapor--the primary green house gas) forest fires and volcanoes producing more CO2 in a single incident than we can produce in 10 years, etc. all contribute to my doubts. Not to mention the constantly changing stories by the alarmists.--first it's an ice age, now it's CO2 emissions, and one of the newer theories--they are even claiming now that clean air is causing global warming because there isn't enough particulate matter in the air to cause cooling!! Our filtering of smoke stacks, reduction in air pollution for the last 50 years,etc.--LOL (That theory really cracks me up!) Then there is the theory that this drastic reduction in pollution is just masking the warming effect.--What about all the claims that we are producing more pollution? Where did that one suddenly go when this theory arrived?) Then there is the UN constantly having to explain how their projections keep being changed (usually reduced) because of a change in their computer models! Yep, I could write a program that modified a computer model by changing one equation to make it show global cooling. Who couldn't? And this is science?

Opinions of "evidence" do not indicate a fact or cause and effect. A theory is only a theory until it is proven. You can't take a vote to see if global warming is a fact or not!!--unless you are a liberal that doesn't understand the slightest about science! Try to find a scientist that doesn't believe in gravity. It was once a theory that has been proven. Most theories have fallen by the wayside. It's a lot easier to be wrong about something (especially a very complicated system like the earths temps.) than it is to be right.

While your statement about numbers not meaning anything significant, I agree to a certain amount. When you have a fact, numbers are meaningless, but when you have a large number of scientist that refute the theory of global warming, that theory holds a lot less water than it would without them.

Go back and look at the article you posted earlier. Does it mention that global warming is just a theory? Or does it try to legitimize it by leaving out the theory part? Does it try to legitimize it more by quoting how many scientists from how many countries support it? Yep. And now you want to de-legitimize those numbers in that article because I can produce larger numbers of scientists who disagree with this theory?

At least I got you to think a little. Try to apply your arguments to the article that you posted and you should be able to see the brainwashing process being performed on the public. False legitamacy and the constant barage of articles that try to reinforce an unproven theory don't convince me one bit. Proof will convince me. And considering how much money and time have been spent on the global warming theory, I find it hard to believe that if it is legitimate, no one has been able to prove it yet.

Hard to ingnore? Not for me. I don't believe in ghost theories either.

Rodney

I'm getting this strangely warm feeling inside.....

I am remembering your advocacy of a certain study financed by South Florida developers that claimed wetlands were bad for the enviroment and that conos and golf courses were better.....(sigh)

Were you an under achiever Rodney? (lol) The human race is quite up to profoundly influencing our enviroment. The problem here is that again you live in California where the Governor pumps testosterone! Compared to him, humanity's abilities pale (gasp).

Here where I am, the effects of excess humanity are blatently available for even the most miopic viewpoint. Our climate is turning from tropical to arid.

See the thing is Rodney, changes in enviroment tend to happen first on more delicate ecoclimes. From what I hear L.A. ain't so delicate (LOL).

Use what ever label you want Rodney, but profound changes are occuring and at the crux is this species you say is insignificant to the problem.

Insignificant?

What would Arnold say....?

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Well Frank, you have to look at the numbers in order to say that we are a significant factor. (Feelings don't cut it when it comes to science!) And remember, the theory of global warming states that man is causing the warming, not just that there is warming!

Water vapor accounts for 95% of global warming. We have almost nothing to do with this number. The remaining 5% of supposedly greenhouse gasses "could" be influenced by us, but again, we are a very small fraction of this 5%. (CO2, Methane, etc. are produced in the environment in much larger numbers than we ever could.

www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And when you consider what the alarmists are claiming, (between .5 and 1 degree F increase over the past one hundred years) we couldn't even notice that in our short life spans. YOu are talking one one-hundredth of a degree a year as being detectible in our weather? We haven't even studied the earth temps for long enough of a period to even say that there is a trend happening with a change this small. But we do know that as CO2 increases, global temps don't follow the same trend. There are decades of cooling while CO2 continues to rise. How does that make any sense in the theory?

I think it is mostly a placebo/no-cebo effect. If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, you notice every little ache and pain that you wouldn't give a second thought if he told you that you were perfectly healthy. Do you notice the weather more when someone tells you global warming is happening? you bet! Does that mean it is true when no one has come close to proving it? Nope, it means you are paying more attention. Again, that's not science. Science don't run on feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to forget those feelings of....--LOL

And where did you get that I am remembering your advocacy of a certain study financed by South Florida developers that claimed wetlands were bad for the environment and that conos and golf courses were better.....(sigh) remark? I never said anything remotely similar. I did mention how our forests (that aren't being managed by the forestry department due to pressures from environmental wackos) are now burning at an alarming rate due to a lack of thinning which produces unnaturally intense fires that eliminate all life, where less intense fires only kills some life, and allows the forest and animals to recover. Is that what you are talking about? Wet lands? What has that got to do with overgrown forests? We have some wetlands here too (I've been kayaking in them), but I never even mentioned wetlands in any post I have ever made.

Rodney

Rodney my friend, you need to take a walk down memory lane. We debated that FLA study on this thread and if memory serves me, you are the one who first mentioned it-in response to even earlier comments I made about the Fla enviroment.

Got one hell of a headache this morning from the Flu so all this number stuff your throwing at me (that I didn't even post) is beyond me.

Again, you really need to read that book I keep mentioning.

I will say that your statement about not noticing the changes around me if no one had mentioned global warming is ludicris. Rodney, I have lived on the edge of the Everglades for almost 50 years, and much of that time was spent collecting snakes, plants, Fishing and collecting fish for my aquaria, fossils and Bird rescue. When not working I live in the woods. Besides that I have a home with trees and a big lawn. Changes in weather (temp-Humidity)are very noticable.

When I speak of delicate enviroments being affected first, the Florida Penninsula is one such. I won't throw the label of G.W. on it, but something funky is going on and by the way....That feeling you down play-save that for the civilised types. I am an educated swamp rat. It makes for a damn good set of senses (when the Flu isn't near (lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I will say that your statement about not noticing the changes around me if no one had mentioned global warming is ludicris. Rodney, I have lived on the edge of the Everglades for almost 50 years, and much of that time was spent collecting snakes, plants, Fishing and collecting fish for my aquaria, fossils and Bird rescue. When not working I live in the woods. Besides that I have a home with trees and a big lawn. Changes in weather (temp-Humidity)are very noticable.

The actual measured change in the global temperature averages for the last 100 years puts the change at somewhere between .5 and 1 degree increase F and 3/4 of that amount occurred prior to 1950 and about 1/4 since then. Let's assume everything in your favor--this previous statement is correct, and that the island theory that disputes these measurements as being accurate is assumed to be false. If you think that in a 50 year period (your life) you can easily see a change in climate of 1/4 of a degree F, I think you are either being influenced by your beliefs so much that you are experiencing a very strong (placebo) response to what you have read from the alarmists, or there is another part of the world experiencing the exact opposite of what you are. Just think about that. If 50 years ago it was 71 degrees, today it is 71.25, and you don't think life would be able to adapt to this small of a change? And you think that very small change would make a dramatic change to the habitat that you see? How do plants and animals even survive the huge changes in temps. that occur seasonally then? We have a seasonal change of about 50-60 degrees here in Califorina in just a few months and species don't die out from that huge change over a fairly short period, and species will disappear with a small percentage of a degree change over 50 years? I don't buy it.

A good analogy would be your car surviving a head on collision with another car (with great speed involved) with absolutely no damage, and then your car being totalled by hitting a gnat with your windshield.

As for it being more arid, that doesn't make any sense either. When the air is warmer, it holds a lot more water and rain fall amounts increase. While evaporation will increase as well due to increases in air temps, this should be a much smaller factor than the rainfall increases. (due to the fact that evaporation will only increase and occur on the surface where air contacts the ground and any water that seeps into the ground, or in lakes, ponds, rivers etc will increase faster.---basically, the volume of water in these areas increases faster percentage wise, than their surface are will due to scaling.)

Remember, the projections by the alarmists claim that global warming is increasing at an alarming rate, and they are projecting an increase in warming of about 1 degree C over the next 100 years. If this is a rapid increase like they claim, what you have experienced is significantly less.

I think plants have a lot to do with keeping the earths temps. very stable. For instance, if the earth does warm a little from CO2, what would you expect to happen? Plants grow faster and absorb heat in the photosynthesis process. The warmer it is, the faster plants grow. The more CO2 available to them the faster they grow. The more water available to them, the faster they grow. And during growth, plants absorb a lot of radiation (heat) and CO2 to "fuel" the photosynthesis process. (including all plants, both land and water forms.) If the earth cools a little, the opposite occures (plant growth slows) and this keeps things pretty even, temperature wise and CO2 wise, and helps to prevent both warming and cooling---unless an outside factor is able to overpower the plants equalizing effects. I suspect forest fires have a lot to with it also. Forest fires produce a lot of heat and a lot of CO2 (all the heat and CO2 that they absorbed during growth). When forests grow large, fire sizes increase which also helps keeps things in ballance. Cutting forests would decrease global warming, if it is occuring, due to these facts. Could it be that global warming is occuring due to "environmentalists" preventing managing/cutting of overgrown forests? Probably not enough of a factor, but it would certainly help lower temps a little, if that is desirable.

Hope you feel better!

Rodney

Impressive stats Rodney (says one who is breaking records on the dept of hacking and coughing)

But the logic is flawed. You mention a 50-60 degree winter summer change in California not killing your wildlife.

The reason is quite simple. They are adapted to it. Those that need to hide and sleep through the winter can go deep underground. The rest have millions of years of adaptation time-but still, many die anyway (too bad there are no accurate stats on that).

Compare that to South Florida where sea level is three to six feet at best along a thin coastal ridge-the rest being reclaimed sea level swamp, which means no room to hide-no real caves. Also, here many species sleep thru the hot summer and come out in the cooler Winter.

Obviously if we got a California winter here, the wildlife would take a drastic beating, not to mention our plant life. Here if the temp drops below 40*F we suffer large losses in that dept. A difference in just a few degrees or a lowering of humidity to even California levels would be an ecological disaster here.

I agree Plants stabalize the atmosphere. Which brings in the impact of man and his rabid destruction of the rainforests-you made my case there.

Forrests cycle Rodney. Granted some species of conifer need fire to weaken the shells of pine cones so they will germinate, However... In a disiduous forrest, the death of trees fertilises the next generation. Small fires can assist in the process but all that over growth serves yet another purpose. It supplies the niche for many species of plant and animal that would not survive in the open.

If you view a forrest as a machine, your logic works...but it is not a machine. Just like you condemnation of wetlands (in a post months ago) forrests are the cradle for many living things and the source of the basic levels of the food chain.

See the problem there Rodney, is that you are using a rather simplistic viewpoint on a very complex system. It doesn't work because the statistics you offer, do not begin to take in all the variables that the enviroment has.

Now I'm off to find a cough drop..... (hack, cough...)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

You argue that larger production of CO2 is good for the enviroment because it makes "plants grow faster etc...."

There is a flaw to that arguement. If there were more plants cycling CO2 you would be correct. However, since massive destruction to our rainforrests has reduced the number of plants on this earth (and what matters here is square miles of trees-not trees per square mile)the plants neccessary to acheive this improvement are not in existance-and in fact there is rapidly becoming less.

You can't cram 100 trees into a small lot and expect them to perform as efficiently as they would in a rainforrest where natural competition has allowed all trees to grow (that survive the struggle) into thier optimum niche. So when Man destroys rain forrests what do you get?

Excess CO2 at an increasing rate.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

You argue that larger production of CO2 is good for the enviroment because it makes "plants grow faster etc...."

There is a flaw to that arguement. If there were more plants cycling CO2 you would be correct.

Nope, that is not true. If you have just one tree of a given size, it will grow faster (and thus use more CO2, water, light) during photosynthesis. The number of plants is irrelevant. You are modifying its metabolism, so to speak, by making available to it more nutrients for growth while also increasing its growth rate due to increased temps.

However, since massive destruction to our rainforrests has reduced the number of plants on this earth (and what matters here is square miles of trees-not trees per square mile)the plants neccessary to acheive this improvement are not in existance-and in fact there is rapidly becoming less.

Again, I don't think this is true. I agree that the tropical rainforests have been reduced substantially, primarily due to political and economic reasons in the respective countries, but other areas have had increases. (like here in Ca. where the forests are extremely overgrown). And it is total volume of plant life on Earth, not the total plant life in one particular area that is important. Did you know that here (ca., Washington, Oregon) is the second largest rainforest on the planet? And that this rainforest is overgrown substantially from what it used to be just 20 years ago.

You can't cram 100 trees into a small lot and expect them to perform as efficiently as they would in a rainforrest where natural competition has allowed all trees to grow (that survive the struggle) into thier optimum niche. So when Man destroys rain forrests what do you get?

Gees, that would be nice!! We have seen as many as 10,000 saplings on a single acre here, where the environmental wackos have had their way!--Until the fires hit! I agree that you get different performance in different situations, but I think you are off a bit in your thinking again. (that's Ok, I know you are sick ) Trees grow very slowly when they are very large, they grow very quickly when they are medium in size. And plants only consume CO2 during the making of carbohydrates/growth(photosynthesis). They actually consume a little O2 at night when photosynthesis isn't taking place, and they consume very little CO2 when they are only basically sustaining their size at adulthood, instead of actively growing.

Rodney

Ok...Now think about what you just wrote Rodney. If the wash-Oregon rainforrest is #2 in size that means that the other giant rainforrests in Africa, southern Asia and Indonesia have shrunk dramatically. It is only the massive size of the Amazon region that keeps it #1.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

No it doesn't. The pacific north west rainforest goes from southern California, all they way up the U.S. and well into Canada. It is huge. It may become #1 if the Amazon deforestation continues, but it isn't #2 due to other forests being cut. It has been #2 for many years. All the storms coming in from Alaska and Hawaii produce large amounts of rain fall, which is why it is rainforest in the first place, and why it is so huge (basically the entire area from the coast line to a couple hundred miles inland and all the way up the coast as well. Everywhere the storm track hits is rainforest for hundreds of miles inland. Once you get further south (into Mexico) the rainfall decreases substantially because the storms don't regularly go that far south. Historically, it was logged in the recent past, and burned occasionally by native Americans previous to that. Most logging has ceased, as has the forestry departments management of the area, controlled burns, clearing, etc. due to environmental law suits preventing the thinning of all excess trees, underbrush, etc. The interesting thing is, the little land that is still controlled by the logging industry is the healthiest forest around. When you drive through these areas and you see miles and miles of black charred mountains with absolutely no life, it is a national forest. When you finally get to see some nice green trees and animals again, you will often find it is the land that is controlled by logging outfits.---Lots of animals, no sterile areas where massive extreme fires have wreaked havoc, etc. In fact, I have heard firefighters say how some fires they couldn't even slow down finally got under control once they burned their way into these areas where there was new (green and damp) wood and not the excessive undergrowth or overcrowding of saplings that fueled these fires.

proconservative.net/PCVol7Is010CarubaForestryForDummies.shtml

Rodney

The land masses I refer to makes California-Washington look tiny. No dice there. India through SE Asia, Indonesia and Africa had forrests that dwarf the western forrest you refer to. A simple glance at a map illustrates that point. Again it is the excess amount of human develpoement and deforrestisation tht makes these forrests smaller than the giants they once were.

As to the rest Rodney, your posts indicate that you have little sympathy for rare species that again, need those niches you so readly consine to the fire.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

As to the rest Rodney, your posts indicate that you have little sympathy for rare species that again, need those niches you so readly consine to the fire.

Once again Frank, you are way off. I wan't these species to survive by having habitat available to them. Having all their habitat burn due to the efforts of "environmentalists" and due to unmanaged forests, does not help their chances of survival one bit.

The environmentalist arguement is like this. If you destroy the entire Earth, man will survive, but if you destroy one Island to save the rest of the Earth, then man is doomed? It makes no sense. How do species survive when all their habitat is destroyed by fire? I can see how they survive when just some of their habitat is partially burned, and some can escape, and the remaining animals in untouched habitat can repopulate once the forest recovers in a few years, but how does totally destroying the forest for decades with fire help them?

Rodney

See we are not far off on this thing. The problem with habitat destruction aka the bulldozer is-that unlike the catistrophic fire you speak of, what men build on will never regrow.

That is what ecology is about, preserving the land and resources against man's destruction-not some whacco hugging a Maleluca tree screaming we need to save our native plants (I saw a fool here in Fla do that).

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

HI Frank,

I though you would find this interesting as it pertains to global warming and arid conditions..

According to a Cornell University climatologist, drought causes local warming that is confused with global warming by many, and that warming does not cause drought!

For instance, "you tend to see higher temperatures during periods of drought," he says. After examining temperature trends over the past century from weather stations across the U.S., DeGaetano concluded areas experiencing drought recorded higher average daily temperatures, but that temperatures returned to near normal values when the rains returned.

DeGaetano found, instead, that temperature rise followed the onset of drought, rather than vice versa, and that temperatures tend to fall once droughts end.

www.fathersforlife.org/articles/gunter/cities.htm

Rodney

Ok....But what caused the drought?

Here in Florida the answer is simple-overdevelopement. Back when most of S. Florida was swamp the humid air from the everglades rose to create a fairly stable warm air mass. This would cause weather fronts to drop rain in the right places and also made the cold fronts stall so our weather was warmer in the winter.

The developement boom started with the redirection of major rivers down here to a more direct route to the ocean and also a canal system was dug to drain swamplands so they could be developed. In 1948 billions of maleluca seeds were scattered over the everglades in an effort to further dry the land for developement.

The results. Cutting off the natural drainage of Lake Okeechobee caused the aquifer to retreat against the pressure of sea water causing our ground water to become brackish. Add to this the over developement of thousands of miles of swamp land and the warm air mass was destroyed. This caused fronts to move into areas that formerly had some protection from the cold making for a cooler winter. The rain no longer fell where it had historically, which caused the drought throughout the southeastern US that we had back in the ninties. Florida is still unstable.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

First, let me say that I agree completely with your statements on forests and on fires. The problem we have here in Ca. is that environmentalists have prevented the thinning of forests so that there is now so much fuel that there is virtually no such thing as a normal "small" fire. The fires are so hot that they kill everything --to the point that the forests have to be reseeded or they will not recover, because they are completely sterile. No trees survive, where in the past large trees just got singed. No seeds survive, where in the past many actually needed fire to germinate, and others could survive less intense fires. Very little wildlife can survive because the fires are so intense and quick moving that nothing can get out of the way fast enough, and burrows are of no refuge either. Instead of a 50% survival rate, it is now very close to 0% for many animals. Firefighters have even told me about birds bursting into flames while in flight, because the air heats so rapidly! Native Americans used to take care of the forests for hundreds, probably thousands, of years prior to settlers. The started fires before the undergrowth got out of hand. They even hunted!!!! Now we have a hands off policy that is having disastrous effects for our forests, and the only ones to blame are the environmentalists. After all, who is it that is filing law suit after law suit preventing the forestry dept. from doing its job? Who is convincing judges that property rights are not important, compared to the environment, and that managing ones land should be illegal? We even had law suits filed by environmentalists preventing the clearing of dry grasses from around homes. If you cleared the brush to create a fire break around your home, you were destroying prime Kangaroo Rat habitat, and in violation of the endangered species act. Serious fines and jail time could result. What happened? The city of Oakland almost burned to the ground. (think that was good for the kangaroo rats? Instead of loosing 20 feet of dry grass around buildings, they lost all there dry grass habitat! 100%) Now you have to clear the brush around your home for fire reasons, or you will be fined! Again, a 180 degree reversal in the law that only took place after a tragedy occurred that was caused solely by environmental groups trying to make a buck! There is a law that environmental lawyers will be paid for their efforts by the taxpayers since they don't have a client! All they do is petition the court after the case is over, and the judge awards them lawyers fees and expenses whether their case is won or not. (pretty slick way to stay employed, screw the public---generate your own work regardless of facts or if you even can find a client).

Again, I don't know what you are talking about regarding wetlands. I never made any statements about them, period. Maybe you are thinking of someone else that posted?

As for you thinking my argument is flawed, I think you are missing my point completely. You say you have seen major changes in the glades. Different plants, etc. If the wildlife (plants and animals) can survive the temp. changes Florida sees due to seasons changing, why can't they survive a 1/4 of one degree change over a 50 year period? I don't live in Florida, but I do know that there are substantial temp. changes (compared to 1/4 of one degree) when the seasons change. If the wildlife can survive these changes that occur in just a couple of months, a 1/4 of a degree change over a 50 year period would be nothing to them.

Now you might be seeing changes due to development or some other reason, but clearly not from global warming. Remember you book about lying with statistics? You are doing it now. Finding a cause and effect where none exists. 1/4 of one degree change in 50 years will not make any difference to your environment, but some other cause might.

The funny thing is, environmentalists don't seem to really know much about the environment. (They remind me of animals rights activists who want to outlaw exotic pets because they can't keep a bearded dragon alive, so no one else should be able to keep them either.) While the true environmentalist may want to save the environment, their actions usually backfire and cause much more harm than good. Then there are the "false" environmentalists who only care about making a buck. The lawyers that file law suits to employ themselves at the taxpayers expense, or the ones that shake down land developers to make a buck. (contractors here say that they have to add $30K to the price of a home to pay money to environmental groups (lawyers) If they don't, they can expect a law suit to be filed that says building that home will impact an endangered species, preventing the home from being built because permits can't be obtained. Once they are paid off, suddenly there are no environmental impact concerns anymore. Once again, if they really were concerned about the environment, why would a payment suddenly make it OK to develop the land? And once again, the environmental lawyer makes a killing, while the little guy trying to afford a home gets screwed. Look at environmental groups, who they are, and what they do. Mostly lawyers filing law suits (and taking donations) to make a buck off the rest of the public, and little else.

Rodney

Rodney,

Ok...You asked about changes in plants etc...

In south Florida the three dominant trees are introduced species. The Brazilian Pepper, the Australian Pine and the Maleleuca (which occupies thousands of acres of former wetlands) All three trees like arid conditions.

Oaks used to only grow as far South as Lake Okeechobee except for what we called "scrub Oak" Now the more northern Pin Oak is found everywhere.

Since much of our wildlife has been descimated by man the birds which dominate here are of the crow family, and most of those are starlings and crows which were not native to this area.

All dominant lizard species are from elsewhere, as are the dominant Percoid Fish (Perch family-which includes Bass)which includes tilapia and cental American Cichlids. There are no Native cichlids in Florida. Also Salt water species are found in the Everglades 30 miles inland.

Enough examples for you (lol)?

Our winter summer daytime changes are within 30*F, the normal was 90-92 for summer highs, 70-65 for winter (with a few days in the fifties or high 40's. Winter weather ran fom November to early March.

This year it is May and we ar having spring temps. Last year at this time we were having temps over 100*F (ground level-the kind our tourist business never admits too). The flux points to instability in our regions weather.

On a more intimate level. the humidity has dropped so that when we water, the evaporation is rapid-used to be so humid that at 80*F water would stand for hours on the grass-not now.

Lying with statistics? No Rodney...I am not using statistics...I am using personal observation over a 45 year period of personal observation. Like I said else where, I am an educated swamp rat-not some tourist in a sedan chair.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Those are good examples, but they sure don't indicate global warming! What they indicate to me is that Florida's conditions are good for non-native species to take hold because of the mild climate, not that the climate is changing due to global warming. It also indicates that Floridians have imported a lot of non-native species. It also tells me that since these species come from places more than 1/4 of one degree different than Florida, that global warming isn't harming them, nor native species, because transplanting them to an area with different temps. doesn't kill them. The only way global warming is going to cause a change like this, is to kill off native wildlife due to changes in temps., leaving the niche open to other species, and this clearly isn't happening. The niches are being taken over by more aggressive/hardier non-natives, nothing else.

Lying with statistics? No Rodney...I am not using statistics...I am using personal observation over a 45 year period of personal observation. Like I said else where, I am an educated swamp rat-not some tourist in a sedan chair.

Yes, you are lying with statistics whether you are trying to or not. You are observing something and attributing your observations to global warming when the two are unrelated. IF someone brings me a non-native plant and it lives in my yard, does that prove global warming? You are claiming a massive local change in weather is indicative of a global change, it is not. Just by the fact that global temp. measurements have only increased 1/4 of a degree in 50 years means that if your weather increases 5 degrees, someone else's drops by 5. If everyone was experiencing what you are, it wouldn't be 1/4 of one degree over the last 50 years wouldn't it? Again, common sence and logic go a long way. Unless you can personally observe weather changes everywhere in the world simultaneously, your experience is irrelevant. That is why we measure things. We had an unusually warm winter this past 2 years, and an unusually cold one the year before that. Does that prove anything? Yeah, weather is called weather because it changes! We normally stop getting significant rainfall here about mid Feb. This year it is still raining! You experience dry, we get wet. You get warm, we get cold. These trends take a long, long time and local and global are two completely different things. Observing changes over a few years or even a few decades locally is meaningless when talking about global conditions.

Rodney

Ok....Now where in this line of foolishness did I say Florida's conditions were due to Global warming? Looking back I said "Something is happening" It may well be that your much despised Global warming is the culprit. I can't say, but it is obvious changes of some kind are occuring...and man is the cause.

What I HAVE repeadedly said, is that man's manipulations are trashing my state.

My penninsulaa has exploded in population in the last 50 years. Not being imortal, I have to just work with that time (not the two years you said. Rodney you need to read everything in order to answer accurately). Again, My obsevations run for 45 years.

As for the transporting bit. That defies logic that you can make the assumption you do. Again you ignore a species ability to adapt-a variable your statistics don't cover. All successful introductions here are extremely hardy species. Even so some like the Cane Toad are thermally limited to a small area in the southern part of the state. (Cane Toads expanded northward to southern Palm Beach County where our 'mild' winter was too much for them-as did knight Anoles).

I'm Lying...? Don't even go there. if you disagree with what I say about Florida's enviroment, get on a bus and come here. If not, I think I have a more accurate perspective than someone in California.

My personal observations are based on a lot more than some Politician's statistic sheet and were intended to illustrate a local phenominom that may well be indicative of more extreme changes to come. I am well suited to comment accurately on changes in weather patterns (As QM I was my ships weatherman in the Navy-part of my duties-so I can read weather maps etc...)

I don't need simultanious statistics from Bum F--- Egypt to tell me that changes are occuring in my backyard. It hardly makes my commentary about changes in Florida irrelevent.

That is why I have not ventured into the study VS study nonsense I see played out here. In this world you can find an expert to deny or confirm anything. Relying on whatever one you chose to beleave will only give you that side of the picture and that interpretation only.

A thought my friend. When looking at a dam that has a small crack, it is prudent to consider the possibility that your yard in the town below might be getting one hell of a watering eventually, unless you make repairs.

Big things start small.....No matter what you want to call it.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Wow, someone has finally figured out the problem - it's the environmentalists! They are truly evil, just ask Rodney! But just who are the wackos you might ask? How do we recognize them? Are they uniformed? Do they have a secret handshake?

Are they a secret society working to enrich themselves by manipulating public opinion? Rodney say so! Are the evil villans trying to destoy healthy forests and economic development? Rodney says so!

Are they ignorant morons who don't know how environments might be managed for multiple use? Rodney says so!

Yes folks, the enemy is simple in the simple mind. Demonize the opposition - it'll make your anger feel justified and your rational simple.

Just don't look too deeply at your own motivations - that will get you all discombobulated

Just keep repeating to yourself, "George Bush protects the environment...the Republicans want to protect and preserve the environment...the environmentalists want to destroy the environment...The 'Healthy Forest' initiative was designed to protect the forest and not enrich the logging companies ...the 'Clear Skies' initiative will remove mercury from our environment and curtail heavy polluting coal plants'..."

People can chose to live in a fantasy world and read or listen to those sources that reinforce their narrow views of the world. It gets annoying though when those dissillusioned ones present their warped views as fact.

Tsk, tsk...

It's fine that you "suspect" all these things rodney, but frankly, who do you think you are? There are highly trained scientists who don't stop at "suspecting" but actually test their hunches. Their analysis is clear to anyone with an open mind: global warming is real.

Your hatred for environmental "wackos" (apparently anyone who disagrees with you) has so colored your view on this subject that you've blinded your self. Why? Labelling people "wackos" and "liberals" is a simple minded effort to discredit others so you don't have to actually defend your fantasies.

I have shown your sources to be worthless - you repeatedly refer to 2 surveys, one does not even mention global warming, but you, and the odd-ball web sites you use as references - both insist it's a valid source The other was misrepresented by a well meaning, very old man. It was such a breach of professional protocol that the organization officially dissassociated itself with the old man. Your "evidence" is not evidence at all...

Again, if you want to know the latest developments in global warming you can't do better than refering to the most respected scientific journals in the world. Go to Science, and Nature. Do a search for global warming articles. Add up all the cutting edge research that supports the theory and compare it to the cutting edge research that refutes it.

The score? 90 support the theory of global warming, 0 refute it....

That leaves ol' rodney out there in the conspiracy theory wilderness, don't you think?

It's fine that you "suspect" all these things rodney, but frankly, who do you think you are? There are highly trained scientists who don't stop at "suspecting" but actually test their hunches. Their analysis is clear to anyone with an open mind: global warming is real.

Just someone with common sense. Who do you think you are? There are plenty of trained scientists that disagree with the ones you are quoting. What makes you so sure that yours are right (when they have a vested interest) and mine are wrong? Why did yours predict an iminent ice age 30 years ago?

Your hatred for environmental "wackos" (apparently anyone who disagrees with you) has so colored your view on this subject that you've blinded your self. Why? Labelling people "wackos" and "liberals" is a simple minded effort to discredit others so you don't have to actually defend your fantasies.

My hatred is for those that use environmentalism as a catch word to extract funds from the public, through law suits and donations, while doing nothing to help the environment. And I call most of their supporters wackos, because they will believe anyone who places a catch phrase in their name, regardless of their acts.

I have shown your sources to be worthless - you repeatedly refer to 2 surveys, one does not even mention global warming, but you, and the odd-ball web sites you use as references - both insist it's a valid source The other was misrepresented by a well meaning, very old man. It was such a breach of professional protocol that the organization officially dissassociated itself with the old man. Your "evidence" is not evidence at all...

What? I showed you an article that your scientists were behind that said we were entering an ice age just 30 years ago. Now they say global warming MIGHT, MAY, COULD occur, and you think I should believe them blindly this time? When all they have is an unproven theory that they aren't sure of for that matter. Wow, are you gullible! My evidence is evidence that many scientists don't agree with the theory, it is not evidence that global warming is false. Your evidence, on the other hand, is evidence that they believe in something they can't prove. Which is more reasonable?

Again, if you want to know the latest developments in global warming you can't do better than refering to the most respected scientific journals in the world. Go to Science, and Nature. Do a search for global warming articles. Add up all the cutting edge research that supports the theory and compare it to the cutting edge research that refutes it.

Once again, I have, and every article that pushes global warming says may, might, could etc, as a disclaimer to their assertions.--clearly showing how uncertain they are of their own assertions. I have also looked at NASA's statements as well as the U.N.'s. Are you aware the U.N. had to make an apology/statement because they changed their warming projections again? They did this because of all the complaints they got-- because they changed their computor model which drastically lowered their projections and many countries with something to gain from global warming legislation didn't like the number being lowered (especially by that much). That didn't make the press did it? Are you aware that the NASA scientist that originally testified about global warming has recounted his testimony as being premature and unfounded by the data, and that there were 2 other NASA scientists that said he was wrong at the time and stated they couldn't testify to what he was saying? (also didn't make the news)

The score? 90 support the theory of global warming, 0 refute it....

That leaves ol' rodney out there in the conspiracy theory wilderness, don't you think?

What 90 support it? 90 whats?

Try doing a search of global warming in general, or a search of global warming fraud, use some common sense, and see what you come away with.

Or try a search about "most scientists don't agree with global warming"

Once again, I can't say for sure if it is happening or not, or if man could be causing it or not, but the point is no one else has been able to either. Scientist don't agree that it is happening, or that we are the cause. To try and brainwash the public is wrong. Even right wing talk shows are starting to call it global warming instead of correctly referring to it as the theory of global warming.--even they are being brainwashed because of the way is it consistently being incorrectly referred to.

Rodney

Since you admit you don't know, where do you chose to go to explore the possibilities? One of the things you would have learned if you had been able to get through college is to examine your sources.

You seem to source right wing talk radio and odd-ball web sites with conspiracy views, and solitary authors with strong personal bias. And you seem to do this not in support of the truth, but in order to shore up your narrow perspective - a perspective you cling to deperately - an apparent attempt to shore up some psychological need you have. Its very curious and frankly reminds me of the fundamentalists here and in the Middle East.

The best we have to offer as a society is the Princetons, Berkeleys, Harvards and Yales of the world. You may not like it Rodney, but these people are smarter than you are Lots and lots smarter than you are.

These people don't want to ape the status quo rodney, they want desperately to upset it. They search endlessly with lots and lots of experience and money devoted day and night to disrupting the conventional wisdom. Thats what gets them noticed, published and funded.

The fact is rod, they all come up with the same experimental results - global warming is very real. So when you get on here and spit up your diatribes you simply look confused and easily manipulated by the right wing nuts. Your willingly doing their dirty work.

Get real Rod - wake up to the facts as put forth by our best minds, not our right wing loonies

Since you admit you don't know, where do you chose to go to explore the possibilities? One of the things you would have learned if you had been able to get through college is to examine your sources.

Actually, I have a college degree in computer sciences and I graduated cum laude, not that getting through college with honors has anything to do with common sense or intelligence. I have known a lot of intelligent people with common sense that never went to college, and a number college graduates with no common sense what-so-ever. In fact, I think people without college degrees usually have more common sense, because they rely on it to survive on much lower incomes, while those with degrees, and thus usually much higher incomes, can rely on others to do things for them--ie. hiring someone to do the things they can't. Common sense grows with frequent use, and atrophies when not used at all, just like muscle tissue would.

You seem to source right wing talk radio and odd-ball web sites with conspiracy views, and solitary authors with strong personal bias. And you seem to do this not in support of the truth, but in order to shore up your narrow perspective - a perspective you cling to deperately - an apparent attempt to shore up some psychological need you have. Its very curious and frankly reminds me of the fundamentalists here and in the Middle East.

The fact is rod, they all come up with the same experimental results - global warming is very real. So when you get on here and spit up your diatribes you simply look confused and easily manipulated by the right wing nuts. Your willingly doing their dirty work.

Once again, you are as wrong as wrong can be. You fail to realize that stories that make the press, make the press for two reasons. 1) media bias, and 2) if it bleeds, it leads(entertainment value). Global warming fits nicely into both these categories, but arguments against it fit into neither, so the media edits them out. As for sources, I have always felt it is best to listen to both sides and determine for yourself which is correct--exactly as judges do. I wouldn't tell you not to listen to left wing radio, or the general media that is so heavily biased to the left, because then you would only hear one side (the right) of the argument, and couldn't make an informed decision. Why do you want me to only listen to that side? Are you afraid that I might be better informed by listening to both sides and figuring things out for myself, and then not agree with the alarmists?

As for the references you so desperately try to refute, how about these from leading universities and other respected institutions that all confirm what I have been saying, and refute what you have been saying.
global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climatologists, told a September 9 [2004] audience at the Houston Forum that alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science.

et real Rod - wake up to the facts as put forth by our best minds, not our right wing loonies

I think you need to wake up, I have shown that many esteemed colleges, NASA, the UN don't agree about global warming. What makes you so smart that you know the alarmists are right and the data and global warming theory doubters are wrong?

Here's another interesting bit if info. Did you know that the theory of global warming is based on the U.N.'s report, and that the report is politically edited before it is given to the public!! The full report does not support global warming anymore than the UN scientists do, but that is not what the public hears from the liberal media. We only hear about the heavily edited report, but at least a few of us (like me) know this fact.

Rodney

sepp.org/misuse/envirltr.html

Are you going to agrue about all these articles and the qualifications of those who wrote them also?

As for Nature Magazine, it has been shown to be a political shill by scientists on many accounts. ignoring data so the remaining data supports their position---naughty naughty!

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/12/07/nature-lays-another-egg

Rodney

Rodmalm,

Take a minute to read what I wrote below about your beloved petition, OK?
All your hullabaloo about these petitions is just sad really. You keep pretending like they are serious surveys. They were misrepresented, signed by people as a result of a mass mailing, a small percentage who signed where in the feild of study and many didn't even have ANY advanced degree. They're bunk dude - get over it.

Instead of wasting your time listening to hateful right wing talk radio idiots why don't you read the last 5 years worth of articlers in Science, or Nature, that deal with global warming? Why keep reading the drivel you've referenced here by morons with chips on their sholders?

You have such a huge mental block about this stuff that you can't even carry on a discussion or debate. Everyone who disagres with you is a "wacko", and liberals "don't understand science", and blah, blah. It's tiresome. You write like you have all this clear thinking analytical mind thing going but its so obvious your just getting yanked around by your own emotions all the time. It's boring.

Take a minute to read what I wrote below about your beloved petition, OK?
All your hullabaloo about these petitions is just sad really. You keep pretending like they are serious surveys. They were misrepresented, signed by people as a result of a mass mailing, a small percentage who signed where in the feild of study and many didn't even have ANY advanced degree. They're bunk dude - get over it.

Again, what are you talking about? The petition says the following exactly...

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Notice that these scientist see a benefit in increased CO2 levels just as I have! Also note they say ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROPOSALS as well. It also has had the signatures verified and says the following exactly

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist

How that is being misrepresented, I don't know. While it is true that those numbers are old, and many more have signed the petition since then, it seems pretty clear to me.

Instead of wasting your time listening to hateful right wing talk radio idiots why don't you read the last 5 years worth of articlers in Science, or Nature, that deal with global warming? Why keep reading the drivel you've referenced here by morons with chips on their sholders?

Actually, I think if I can get a few people who read this to think instead of just accepting what they hear by the very biased general media, I am not wasting my time. I am self employed and I spend a lot of time driving and listening to both left and right wing radio. Frankly, left wing radio is far far more hateful than the right. I think it is because of all the election losses they took and can't accept. I check out both sides before I take a position, and clearly global warming is improperly and consistently not being referred to as just a theory. This started with left wing radio, and it has crept into right wing radio as well, even though it has yet to be proved.

You have such a huge mental block about this stuff that you can't even carry on a discussion or debate. Everyone who disagres with you is a "wacko", and liberals "don't understand science", and blah, blah. It's tiresome. You write like you have all this clear thinking analytical mind thing going but its so obvious your just getting yanked around by your own emotions all the time. It's boring.

Again, I ask that you use common sense and notice how every article say may, might, etc. and I am the one with a mental block? The wackos are just the ones with no common sense. It's quite possible to disagree with me and have some common sense. You are confusing the two. However, it is impossible to justify referring to a theory in the way the media has, and think that is OK, and not also be a wacko. Unless you don't know the definition of a theory, and then you are less than a wacko in my opinion.

Rodney

Well again Rod, you seem confused. There are 2 surveys you keep spouting off about - did you decide to abandon the one that actually didn't say anything about global warming? Good plan...

I hate to repeat myself and won't continue to do so. The survey this very old man put together was misrepresented to the signatories. Look it up. As is the case with most all of your "evidence" there is clear bias in this here.

Again, if your looking for evidence please look at the best research done by the best minds working in this area. Stop pretending your right wing talk radio nuts are presenting these issues objectively. Your being manipulated by them, Get over it, grow up.

Once again, I have. Many many scientists agree that CO2 is good for the environment and has minimal (if any) warming effect. Unfortunatly the bias in the media will not report this.

Try to do an internet search on any major university you like, and the fraud of global warming and you will be overwhelmed with "hits" of scientists that agree with me.

Rodney

... I must say that the statistics in this book were very convincing.

Before I have read this book I was utterly convinced about global warming. Now I don't know what I shall believe...

In Germany we were facing a very cold spring right now, one of the coldest I can remember. Also the winter time had very much snow and cold temperatures.

Two years ago we hat the hottest summer in the century. I think it's just the way it is...
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web