A common alarmism by global warming activists like Al Gore is that glaciers around the world are melting. This represents the real threat to the planet in their view, as this will cause a rise in oceans that will eventually drown us all.
Well, leading scientists in India claim that this is bunk, and that glaciers in the Himalayas aren’t retreating at all. As reported by the Hindustan Times (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge):
Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.
Hmmm. Not on the spot research, huh? Why isn’t this surprising? The article continued:
Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.
It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.
Hmmm. So, there isn’t a consensus on this issue? But Al Gore and Ellen Goodman say there is one. How could they be wrong? The article continued:
Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.
Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.
"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.
Wrong assumptions? You mean these people that are causing all of this hysteria don’t actually have any facts to support their conclusions? How shocking. The article continued:
In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.
Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.
Contrary to the consensus nonsense being espoused by alarmists, Raina isn’t alone in his opinions:
His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.
Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory. Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.
Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.
More and more it becomes quite clear: anthropogenic global warming is a figment of the imagination without any science to support it.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
These are my favorite kinds
February 13, 2007 - 09:58 ET by DyneThese are my favorite kinds of threads and articles to read here because they debunk the GW so well by using actual research, observations, logic, and don't resort to Algore's fear tactics.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
Global Warming
February 13, 2007 - 10:13 ET by iveseenitallGlobal Warming
February 13, 2007 - 10:15 ET by iveseenitallNEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Hedging the bet..
February 13, 2007 - 10:15 ET by Gary HallMeanwhile over in Pakistan -- not too far away -- Global Warming alarmists are hedging their bets. From National Geographic:
So just in case they got it wrong on count one - they'll be right on count two.
My guess - it won't be too long and the GW crowd will find a little error in their numbers, and oops -- we'll be right back to greenhouse gases leading us right into a new ice age. The sea's going to fall, and our cities and ports will be left high and dry.
Global Warming
February 13, 2007 - 10:16 ET by iveseenitallThe more the real science comes out, the more the world will discover this hoax for what it is, perpetrated for political power and personal gain by the likes of Algore and his ilk on the left.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
That Raina guy had better
February 13, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Dave RThat Raina guy had better watch out, 'cause that Heidi Cullen woman might come after his, ahh, credentials. :-O
After all, GW is the new fascism of the 21st Century.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
What's the Matter ? Don't
February 13, 2007 - 11:14 ET by JayTeeWhat's the Matter ? Don't they get NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC out there in Northern India ? The Brain washing is Incomplete, we cannot bring ONsite real world measurments into this.....Al Gore would burn too much Airplane Fuel and create too much CO2 doing Real onsite research......we have to go to the Remote sensing route.
I have been reading all I can
February 13, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Pete WilsonI have been reading all I can about Global Warming, and the causes of it.
It seems to me that the tell-tale sign that "the science" is inaccurate is the speed at which those who "believe" want governments to take action (read increase or institute new taxes) to reduce those awful greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life. All of this before the actual report is issued.
Hindustan Times?...
February 13, 2007 - 11:47 ET by joshfmHindustan Times?...never heard of it. This kind of right-wing wacko sloppy journalism doesn't debunk anything. The reality is this, and it doesn't take even a quack Indian glaciologist and "former ADG of GSI" (what the heck is that anyway?) to figure it out: most of the Earth's major glaciers are retreating. And CO2 levels directly correlate with Earth's atmospheric temperatures. It's a no-brainer, people.
You know, when scientists and keen observers realized the world wasn't flat, it took decades for the giggling skeptics to face the truth. When some brilliant people discovered the Earth was not the center of the universe, they were thrown in prison. And today, there are still 10 or 15 percent of people who think the landing on the moon was staged in a Hollywood film studio. Ask yourself, are you one of those? You might as well be a flat-earther, too.
You all can sit comfortably on your ignorance, but the rest of us will deal with the reality that the planet is getting warmer and our behaviors are the main cause of it. I'm smart enough to see the evidence, take in the credible science, and realize I'm not being brainwashed. The real hoax is on the right-wing radical curmudgeons, so easily swayed by drug addict hypocrites like Rush Limbaugh and trash-mouth perverts like Bill O'reilly.
The peer-reviewed, sturdy science on global climate change is plain as day, all you have to do is open your eyes to find it. Be brave, do the right thing.
No joshfm, you're not smart e
February 13, 2007 - 11:57 ET by MivvisNo joshfm, you're not smart enough. It's far from a no-brainer. Scientists and keen observers also realised the world is not in imminent peril due to human activity. Just not YOUR scientists or keen observers. This will remain a political debate for sometime to come.
It can remain a political deb
February 13, 2007 - 12:22 ET by joshfmIt can remain a political debate until all the glaciers I've climbed completely disappear, and probably it will, if we keep electing political leaders who were born on third base and thought they got a triple. The point is, the scientific debate is long over, and Hello!, keep increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the planet will continue to warm.
Please explain how the scie
February 13, 2007 - 12:36 ET by DynePlease explain how the scientific debate is 100% over. I would like to see the entire IPCC report (which isn't even done yet), accurate and unbiased models that take every factor that affects the earth into account, and a signed agreement by every climatologist in the world stating that they are in complete harmony over the issue. Only then will I partially believe that the scientific debate is over, otherwise only the media are the ones who are saying so.
Please remember that there are numerous people with great credentials who are far more knowledgable on this subject than you, me, and Al Gore.
Also please note that, if we increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the plantlife on this planet will thrive even more. The only way it'd be a threat is if there were no plants to break that CO2 back down into O2.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
You've provided nothing but a
February 13, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Uncle JohnYou've provided nothing but a regurgitation of the lockstep, Chicken Little "we're doomed" AGW hogwash that self-serving knuckleheads like Al Gore spout. It's pure junk science, no matter what you think or "feel". Consensus, my a$$. ROFLMAO. If you can use FACTS to debunk the content of the article above, go for it. But you don't have them because they don't exist.
And newbie, since you like climbing glaciers, maybe you can go take a hike.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Talk about regurgitation. I'v
February 13, 2007 - 13:36 ET by joshfmTalk about regurgitation. I've never said we are doomed, nor do I believe it. And neither do any people who accept global climate change as reality.
This forum is too limited to present all the facts and scientific research supporting climate change. Do yourself a favor and seek it out for yourself. Here's a good place to start: http://www.pewclimate.org/
Typical that you'd focus on o
February 13, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Uncle JohnTypical that you'd focus on one phrase in my post. You have no idea what I know and what I've researched, and it's presumptive of you to think I need to research anything. Since the debate is over, there is no point in further discussion, nor do I wish any with you. Best of luck to you.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Geez, joshfin, you're not doing so well, huh?
February 13, 2007 - 15:10 ET by acaiguanaGeez, joshfin, you're not doing so well, huh?
We weren't talking about Global Climate change. What the hell is Global Climate change? I'm 60 years old and the Global Climate always changes. Been doing that change stuff for a long long time. So, is that the new term today?
Global Climate Change?
Kind of a backpeddle from the old days of "Anthropological Induced Global Warming" wouldn't you have to agree?
That's a great way to not only obfuscate the debate but also to completely redefine the debate. Global Climate Change. Good one.
Did you come up with that all by yourself? Or did you, in this rare exception to all of your other assertions here, actually consult an 'outside' source for this nifty phrase?
Global Climate Change. Forum is too limited. Since you are so insistent that you are not a far-left Liberal (nice touch - Pew Climate Organization) where do you get off thinking others on this site are not researching Global Warming?
You know what, josh? I think you are so guilty of canard dropping; sloganeering; shallow argument and inane thought when confronted with facts and queries as to the basis for you ideas; that you are a Liberal.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
So, joshfin, you've climbed a lot of glaciers?
February 13, 2007 - 12:46 ET by acaiguanaSo, joshfin, you've climbed a lot of glaciers?
So, riddle me this. How many glaciers on this planet? How many have been studied? What is the pattern of distribution of glaciers? Are they all North of Artic Circle? Or Antartic Circle? Like to know that.
While we are at it. You base premise is that Global Warming is a bad thing.
Could you explain to me why you think this? I'm not too sure it is a bad thing regardless of the science. So for the sake of acquiring knowledge, since you appear to know these things, why is Global Warming bad?
Thanks in advance.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I've climbed glaciers in Cali
February 13, 2007 - 13:14 ET by joshfmI've climbed glaciers in California, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Colorado, Canada and Europe. They've all been studied. And I used to live in the same town as the man who has spent his life studying them. His name is Austin Post, one of the foremost glaciologists in North America.
Global warming in itself is not a bad thing. Excellerating heating of the planet is a bad thing, because societies, animals, agriculture and life as we know it in general may not have time to adapt to relatively rapid changes in climate and the impacts is creates.
If you live in Phoenix, I would guess you would not want it to get too much hotter and dryer there than it already is. If your glacial water source, the source of your life in all practical purposes, disappears, you are forced to move and rely on someone else's supply. If you live in the Arctic and the foundation of your house starts crumbling because the land underneath it, land that has been frozen for thousands of years, is melting, that is not a good thing.
The assumption that they buil
February 13, 2007 - 13:23 ET by bassndudeThe assumption that they build houses on permafrost displays an ignorance beyond belief. Permafrost is not used to support buildings, or even the pipe lines.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"Excellerating heating" - well I certainly wouldn't want to do..
February 13, 2007 - 13:33 ET by acaiguana"Excellerating heating" <sic>- well I certainly wouldn't want to do that.
I'm not trying to be totally obtuse here, but:
"Global warming in itself is not a bad thing. Excellerating heating of the planet is a bad thing,"
Um...I'm having a really hard time understanding the difference between "Global Warming" and "Excellerating <sic> heating of the planet..."
See, here's the problem I'm having. Your contention that people and animals will have to adapt to changes in their environments is a bad thing, ("If you live in Phoenix, I would guess you would not want it to get too much hotter and dryer there than it already is. If your glacial water source, the source of your life in all practical purposes, disappears, you are forced to move and rely on someone else's supply. If you live in the Arctic and the foundation of your house starts crumbling because the land underneath it, land that has been frozen for thousands of years, is melting, that is not a good thing.") seems kinda silly to me.
What I would want as a Phoenix resident is totally irrelevant to the Climate, whether it changes for the warmer or cooler or whether it is already hot and dry there (only when it isn't raining cats and dogs, by the way).
And this is where you and I part ways. You seem to think that what I want is actionable reason to tax me, change my energy use habits, modify the base foundation for our economic engine (use of oil and products therefrom) and to somehow reduce my standard of living.
In other words; You argue that what I want to happen to the weather in Phoenix is so important that I have to do an incredible amount of stuff as well as buy into an incredible amount of poorly understood changes in our system of economics and government that I don't want in order to keep Phoenix weather patterns the same?
And you can't guarantee that I can keep Phoenix weather patterns the same even if I buy into this Global Warming (manmade) theory.
Because I am leary of accepting the blame for Global Warming or to blame America for it I have been called a Holocaust Denier by Ellen Goodman.
Aside from the fact that I have never seen Ellen Goodman write a single column denouncing the President (so-called) of Iran who without doubt is a true Holocaust Denier, I sorta resent that concept.
And when you come here to this site and get asked a specific question about the number of glaciers on the planet, how many have been studied and so forth, and then answer with a personal story about living in the same town as Austin Post so you seem to have clever knowledge I don't have access to, well, I kinda have to file this one under, BS.
Get it?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
"And when you come here
February 13, 2007 - 13:51 ET by joshfm"And when you come here to this site..." You sound as if this is some kind of exclusive club or something.
I don't know how many glaciers there are on the planet, or how many have been studied, but I take the word of people I know who have spent there lives studying them.
And I don't know who Ellen Goodman is or what she has to do with anything either. I'm sorry she upset you. Oh, and I'm sorry I misspelled a word and caused you to have to use <sic> a few times. That just sux! <sic>
Get over your unsubstantiated fears of taxation and of some one-world governmental boogey man in the corner making you turn off your lights and ween you from oil.
Fear breeds ignorance.
joshfin - nice try and my fear is reality based.
February 13, 2007 - 14:07 ET by acaiguanajoshfin - nice try and my fear is reality based. And the 'Carbon Tax Center' is not the only attempt to impose government tyranny over my life and lifestyle and economic basis for productive participation in my civilization.
Don't like the way I worded that? Sorry. No more obscene than the words used by Global Warmers to scare me into ceding sovereignty of my country to the UN. Just so you know this has been a growing movement since the UN Earth Summit meeting in 1992.
Some of us do know who Ellen Goodman is and I'm glad you don't. There is hope.
As far as the site being some sort of elitist club. Just taking a moment to address your assertion that I am putting you on some sort of notice or standard here. We're not a club at all. In fact your posting here proves that.
But in general on this site, when specific questions are asked by a poster to deal with inane drivel we sort of expect some specific data to back up the drivel.
Now it is true that some folks come here and think they can get away with unbased allogorical BS or further even to insult the readers of the site with the assertion that "The point is, the scientific debate is long over, and Hello!, keep increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the planet will continue to warm.", is pretty lame to now claim my fears are unsubstantiated.
Aside from that, when you come to a site whose stated purpose is 'combatting Liberl Media Bias' then admit you don't know what MSM is (Mainstream Media, FYI) I am of the opinion you are behaving as a lazy man might behave and expect the rest of us to behave as lazy men and believe the tripe you are promoting here.
Nothing personal.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Josh, don't you find it kind
February 13, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Chicago RepublicanJosh, don't you find it kind of ironic that you are talking about fear breeding ignorance when the AGW crowd that you seem to agree with are trying to scare the bejesus out of people? Doing the very thing that you are condemning?
Do gooders or Libs always do
February 13, 2007 - 14:25 ET by florida_chadDo gooders or Libs always do the things they condemn (think Al Gore with his private jet flights). The most dangerous person is someone that is determined to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to help solve a perceived problem. Even if what they do turns out to make it worse (like the war on drugs, poverty, hunger.....)
"You sound as if this is some kind of exclusive club"
February 13, 2007 - 14:36 ET by misterbillJoshfm--"You sound as if this is some kind of exclusive club". In a way it is. It is mostly a group of well-informed, well-trained conservative individuals sprinkled with a handful of people who are liberal and wear tinfoil hats. The tinfoilers try to win all arguments through fear. They are not current, that is to say , they are singing Algores years old songs which in very recent times are imploding under the weight of their own foolishness. In the past three months, leading climatologists and glaciologists have decided to join the fray to stop the spread of the false doctrine of a non-scientist. Numerous intelligent professional articles have been published. The President of the Czech Republic has branded Algore a silly alarmist. You appear to make no effort to research anything that does not fit your overly zealous position.
Simply said, I turn your expression back on you:
Ignorance breeds fear!
What the fluck Josh- "G
February 13, 2007 - 16:03 ET by slaphappyWhat the fluck Josh-
"Get over your unsubstantiated fears of taxation and of some one-world governmental boogey man in the corner making you turn off your lights and ween you from oil.
Fear breeds ignorance."
The hypocrisy of what you just said has to be the most flagrant Ive read on NB to date. You might want to re-read the article in which you have been posting your drivel on, and explain to me what GW will do to me. And make sure your fear of GW doesn't breed ignorance. Tool.
"I've climbed glaciers in Cal
February 15, 2007 - 15:50 ET by MikeB"I've climbed glaciers in California, etc. They've all been studied."
Josh, you don't know what you are talking about. They've not all been studied. I hate to tell you this, Josh, but there are over one hundred sixty thousand glaciers in the world. Less than half of these glaciers have been inventoried, and only a small percentage of those have been studied with any closeness at all. Reference Braithwaite and Zhang, "relationships between inter-annual variability of glacier mass balance and climate," Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000); pp 456-462
Keep on climbing, dude, but, please, know what you are talking about before posting.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
You are incredibly
February 13, 2007 - 15:04 ET by misterbillYou are incredibly hard-headed about this. For every argument/statement you have posted here today, there is a refutation by professionals, some in the field, who are unquestionably the most knowledgable about these issues.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
The death of science
February 13, 2007 - 21:34 ET by Unsane"the scientific debate is long over"
So you are saying that science is dead? For the day it becomes dogma, as you wish it to be, it IS dead.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
The scientific debate is far
February 15, 2007 - 23:57 ET by NL207The scientific debate is far from over. The theory of anthropogenic global warming has never ben vindicated by experimental test. In fact, as data comes in, it is being impeached by test. This is the third element of the scientific method. observe a phenomena -- construct a hypothesis -- confirm or reject by test. AGW has never advanced beyond the second step.
There is no such thing as scientific consensus. There is only fact and fallacy, and today, AGW is only theory.
Where did you get the idea that CO2 is the dominant term in the planetary climate formula? It is clearly not. Solar output is the 500 pound gorilla. If the sun brightens, which it has been doing for the last 50 years of he 20th century, according to heliologists at the Max Planck Institute, the earth warms.
...but the rest of us will de
February 13, 2007 - 12:10 ET by FishFace222...but the rest of us will deal with the reality that the planet is getting warmer and our behaviors are the main cause of it.
Oh?? Have you parked or sold your car? How come Hollywood Hypocrites that believe in this crap still drive SUV's, fly private jets, own and heat several homes, etc.
The sloppy journalism is on the left's part, equivalent to them reporting from the Green Zone in Iraq or getting it from Al Jazeera.
What caused the ice age to go away??
Maybe you should think about
February 13, 2007 - 12:30 ET by joshfmMaybe you should think about changing your news sources? I've heard several excellent reports from outside the Green Zone. Al Jazeera? Come on. You're paranoid, Fish Face (never thought I'd get to say that in life).
Anyway, yes, I ride my bike to work. And I drive a car that gets 40mpg. And I live in an energy efficient home. Each of us as individuals can take small steps to address the problem. No one is saying we have to go back to living in caves, or tax ourselves to ruin. Again, you might want to branch out and start getting your "news" from more places than Rupert Murdock.
You hold down a job? I find
February 13, 2007 - 12:39 ET by Jack BauerYou hold down a job? I find that hard to believe.
When the hollywood elite sell
February 13, 2007 - 12:56 ET by Mica the MagnificentWhen the hollywood elite sell their mansions and move into one-bedroom condo's, I'll believe they actually believe in this global warming crap.
So, josh, you don't know what MSM is but you've heard???
February 13, 2007 - 14:47 ET by acaiguanaSo, josh, you don't know what MSM is but you've heard???
What is this? A joke? By the way, I'm asking again for you to back up your 'stuff' with a few links here. Why not let me in on the 'secret' stories from 'outside' the Green Zone?
How can you simply call fishface paranoid? Paranoia is an irrational fear of something. When Al Gore says we have to act now or we're all doomed, does that strike you as a bit 'paranoid'? If I were to get into psychology and diagnose fishface on this site, I'd probably end up being the fool.
So, since I know absolutely nothing about you other than what you have posted here, what about my contention that you are blathering crap that you don't defend in any rational way other than personal stories.
I didn't really lose all respect for you until you made this post. Do you read? If so read my tag line. There's a tax and spender for ya, and she's talking about Big Oil.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Goody for you on your efforts
February 13, 2007 - 16:05 ET by FishFace222Goody for you on your efforts to save the earth. Now tell my why Hollywood Hypocrites don't do the same. If they really believed in this crap, shouldn't they follow suit? Why do you come here and preach to us when your own "congregation" isn't doing it, Algore included.
Paranoid about Al Jazeera? No, just try comparing what they report to what the MSM reports to what the lefties in this country spew. It all sounds the same to me. They are almost always opposite GWB on major issues, even things they believed in before he took office.
What is causing the permafros
February 13, 2007 - 13:01 ET by joshfmWhat is causing the permafrost in the Arctic Circle to melt at rates never seen before?
What is causing the ice to gr
February 13, 2007 - 13:05 ET by florida_chadWhat is causing the ice to grow in Antartica? You do realize that the earth has had past periods of warming and cooling, don't you? BTW - how do you know a increase of a few degree will be the END? B/c Al Gore says so? hahahahhahaha
joshfm: How far back do the r
February 13, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Mica the Magnificentjoshfm: How far back do the records go in measuring the perma-frost in the arctic circle? I don't believe the satellite photos of the 1880's were as sharp as they are today.
I'm melting, melting! - Wicked Witch of the Arctic Circle
joshfm...just because it hase
February 13, 2007 - 13:17 ET by bassndudejoshfm...just because it hasent been seen before, dosent mean it has never happned before. There are no records from the midieval warming period. Nobody went and measured the permafrost at the time. The earth has been warming for about 18000 years, with a brief time out during the mini iceage. The seas have risen at a rate of about .8mm a year during that time. (You do the math). I suppose that the wolly mamoths flatulance was the cause. I think I can get a consensus here on that. I dont think any glaciers we have climbed in the past, if climbed today, would seem any smaller. And with 140 inches of snow in NY. And the weather here where I am is colder than usual. Most of us are waiting for a little global warming. Sure beats another 200 feet of ice over the North American continent. As for me, give me warming anytime.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"Wooly Mamoth flatulance
February 13, 2007 - 14:23 ET by Chicago Republican"Wooly Mamoth flatulance" THAT IS HILARIOUS
I can't resist it!
February 13, 2007 - 14:39 ET by misterbillI can't resist it! Excessive use of sunlamps by Inuits????
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Geocentric Flat Earth Consensus
February 13, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Celumnazjoshfm said:
"You know, when scientists and keen observers realized the world wasn't flat, it took decades for the giggling skeptics to face the truth. When some brilliant people discovered the Earth was not the center of the universe, they were thrown in prison."
This was the "consensus science" of the day. Today, the "consensus science" is positive there is anthropogenic global warming and those brilliant minds who are speaking against it are receiving the same sort of flack they have historically received when speaking out against the dogma of "consensus science".
There's nothing brave about agreeing with the "consensus". In analogy these false prophets are predicting the solar eclipse (science) and telling the people it's because the gods are angry with them (politics). The whole solar system seems to be heating up.
No, actually, believing the E
February 13, 2007 - 12:46 ET by joshfmNo, actually, believing the Earth was flat wasn't science at all. It wasn't backed up by any tangible experimental credibility. It was more a "consensus of the ignorant." Kinda like what we have going with today's anti-climate change cry babies.
Politics has no place in science, and the national atmospheric scientists and biologists under the heavy hand of the Bush administration have already attested to that.
Nice to know that you have so
February 13, 2007 - 12:51 ET by florida_chadNice to know that you have solved the problem and the debate is OVER. Maybe you should look to some other news source for your information than the liberal MSM.
What is next for you? AIDS? Poverty?
"born on third and thought they got a triple..." Like AL Gore???
I don't even know what MSM is
February 13, 2007 - 12:57 ET by joshfmI don't even know what MSM is. I get my information from NPR, various magazines, and Ed Schultz, among other places. You ever listen to NPR or Ed Schultz? Some great, in-depth, responsible journalism. Check it out.
Oh, and just in case weren't aware, Al Gore is not an elected official. Just a concerned citizen, with an interest in doing the right thing.
Al Gore was an elected offici
February 13, 2007 - 13:03 ET by florida_chadAl Gore was an elected official. His is interested in raising his profile. Doing the right thing............hahahahah thats pretty funny.
MSM = main stream medai, like PBS. This debate is far from over. Whay are you and other believers so ready to END DEBATE? If its over, just show REAL sceintific proof. Al Gore is not a scientist.
So, joshfin, were my questions stupid or too hard?
February 13, 2007 - 13:03 ET by acaiguanaSo, joshfin, were my questions stupid or too hard?
As I am typing this if you did answer me, I apologise.
I'm still ignorant as to why exactly Global Warming (manmade or not) is a bad thing?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
ACA - the debate is OVER. Sto
February 13, 2007 - 13:10 ET by florida_chadACA - the debate is OVER. Stop asking questions. Josh won and you lost. All scientist agree.
Aw shucks, chad, shucks.
February 13, 2007 - 13:11 ET by acaiguanaAw shucks, chad, shucks.
Well, that was easy. I'll go back to my normal life of being terrified of nearly everything then.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Today in sunny FL it is in th
February 13, 2007 - 13:15 ET by florida_chadToday in sunny FL it is in the low 50's. Too cold for me. I am going to have to fire up both my SUV and big pick up and try to generate some GW in my area. I guess my cows haven't been farting enough. Do horse farts help or hurt GW?
Fc, you need to cultivate ano
February 15, 2007 - 16:03 ET by MikeBFc, you need to cultivate another termite mound. By weight, termites outnumber humans by a factor of ten. Termites also fart methane, which some believe to be an even more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, if you want to encourage global warming, get you a termite mound, and feed them some beans. That'll do the trick in no time (geologically speaking). Oh, and the UN believes that second hand smoke is also a huge contributor to global warming, so sit beside your termite mound and smoke a big ol' stogie. Just be sure to sit up wind...you wouldn't want to ignite all that methane and blow yourself up, now would you? Ah, and don't forget to drink some beer and belch some carbon dioxide.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Thanks Mike, but with a woode
February 15, 2007 - 16:11 ET by florida_chadA wooden house, eh? Well, y
February 15, 2007 - 19:55 ET by MikeBA wooden house, eh? Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. If the termites work quickly enough, it'll soon get so warm you won't need the house. :-p
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
So right. As we know, scien
February 13, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Jack BauerSo right. As we know, science is all about "debate." Ha.
At least the "sturdy&quo
February 13, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Roger the ShrubberAt least the "sturdy" ones do...
josham
February 13, 2007 - 15:16 ET by misterbill"Ed Schultz writes that he was once "a shade right of Attila the Hun." Today he is host of one of the nation's most successful liberal-radio talk programs in America, "The Ed Schultz Show." How did that happen?"
Like I'm going to believe Ed is neutral and only delivers the news. Thank God for Ed that his wife is a Psychiatric nurse. That in itself speaks volumes.
Most importantly, the fact that you cite him as a reliable source tells me all I need to know about you.
Sayonara!
Get your news from Ed Schultz
February 13, 2007 - 17:11 ET by FishFace222Get your news from Ed Schultz? Hillarious. Ed is an opportunist, not a responsible journalist. He has been changing his colors at least since he attended college in this area.
--Went to MSU-Moorhead, virtually ignored them during his years as a sports reporter. Then became the voice of the Bison, another local university. After that, went to the #1 rival of the Bison (UND Sioux) because the money was better.
--When he first had his "epiphany", he claimed it was because his mother couldn't pay for her meds and the big bad govt wasn't helping. Ed had become fairly wealthy by that time but apparently didn't think his own money could help her. This was listed on his web page shortly after changing his political views (over one weekend I might add). People started asking him why he couldn't help her out and soon after, that was taken off his web page.
--Has had some personal issues with a former wife that I will not divulge here.
--Kept a large ad for a local Hummer dealer on his gas guzzling motorhome long after changing to a progressive point of view. (Also did a radio ad)
--Destroyed a wooded area near a lake to build a large home (just recently)
There's plenty more. All you need to know is Ed was squeezed out of a large field of conservative radio voices and new he could make more money by holding his nose and arguing the dem side.
"It wasn't backed up b
February 13, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Dyne"It wasn't backed up by any tangible experimental credibility."
I'd like to be the first to point out to you that neither is anthropogenic global warming, otherwise there'd be mountains of data to back it up already. I've been seeing far more data that supports the opposite view.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
I've got some dissappointing
February 13, 2007 - 22:37 ET by NL207I've got some dissappointing news for you. The theory of anthropogenic global warming isn't backed up by any real experimental credibility either. How could that be so? you ask. Think about the problem. How do you construct an experiment that proves the theory of human caused global warming? The ability to do that implies the power to control the weather. That we humans do not have. And without test, the AGW hypothesis is only that.
As far as Bush doing anything to muzzle science, I see no evidence of that. And I'd bet you haven't either.
I've got some dissappointing
February 13, 2007 - 22:37 ET by NL207There is a ninety percent con
February 13, 2007 - 12:29 ET by moabgoesboomThere is a ninety percent concensus here on NB that all left wing whackos need to step up and do their part to curb CO2 emissions. Our concensus further finds that the most efficient manner you can participate in cleaning up this "pollution" is to stop breathing and you are to begin right now.
The concensus has spoken... the debate is over. Now go and do your part.
You can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
Well, firstly, you can't supp
February 13, 2007 - 12:38 ET by joshfmWell, firstly, you can't support the troops by simply tagging your emails with slick slogans or slapping a cheap sticker on your car. You ever heard of Soldiers Angels? Or Operation Helmet? I suggest you donate to those organizations, or at least change your tag to advertise for them, instead of representing the cause in a negative way.
Next, I'm not a left winger, so I suppose your "stop breathing" trash comment doesn't apply to me. Sounds like you might have some anger issues to attend to .
Hmmm... hit a raw nerve did I
February 13, 2007 - 12:43 ET by moabgoesboomHmmm... hit a raw nerve did I? Awww jeeezzzeee! I just hate it when I do that!
Now go away and do as the concensus dictates! The debate is over!
You can't possibly support the troops if you don't support the mission.
No raw nerves here, partner.
February 13, 2007 - 12:52 ET by joshfmNo raw nerves here, partner. And I fully support the troops, with my money and my time, which is more than I can say for most Americans.
Sorry, I'm not going away. The debate lives on...
Riding a bike, doing more tha
February 13, 2007 - 12:56 ET by florida_chadRiding a bike, doing more than MOST americans, solving GW....
YOUR ARE THE MAN - maybe you should run for office? Which base were you born on?
Valentine flowers are bad for
February 13, 2007 - 12:59 ET by florida_chadValentine flowers are bad for GW - don't get your partner any this week.
I'm not sure what you mean by
February 13, 2007 - 13:55 ET by joshfmI'm not sure what you mean by this, but yes, my wife will be getting some flowers tomorrow. Wow, Chad, it seems you've got a lot of steam to blow off.
Oh, wait, be careful, you might cause a global melt-down if you release it all at once. Oh, no, the seas are rising, Florida is drowning! Chad, what have you done?!
You don't know who Ellen Good
February 13, 2007 - 14:03 ET by florida_chadYou don't know who Ellen Goodman is and you don't know that Valentine flowers help to cause GW (PS - its in the news, check around) but you are certain we are to blame for GW. Too funny.
Seas are rising? Maybe I will have beachfrontage soon at my estate. I am ready. BTW - what do you think will happen in 10 years? Al Gore says the end it near. Did you miss that part of his commercial, movie.
Keep fighting the windmills Josh. I'l be the one in the air conditioned SUV laughing at you, again.
Didn't Ted Danson have a comm
February 13, 2007 - 17:15 ET by FishFace222Didn't Ted Danson have a commercial a little over 10 years ago that said our oceans would be destroyed in ten years if we didn't change our ways?
FF..Yes he did! Strolling in
February 13, 2007 - 17:30 ET by bigtimerFF..
Yes he did!
Strolling in front of his ocean front home most likely...and the Ice Age was coming before that!
They never quit!
Btw...did Woody Harrelson (sp) ever climb down out of that tree?
These Hollywood genius's ought to just shut up and act.
Sea level has risen 400 fee
February 13, 2007 - 14:09 ET by Jack BauerSea level has risen 400 feet in the past 18,000 years.
Oddly enough, coinciding with the ending of the last Ice Age.
joshingFM
February 13, 2007 - 14:44 ET by misterbilljoshingFM-- I guess you didn't read the tinfoil article about the gifts of flowers raising the co2 level. It's a baaaad thing. If you pick a side , you had better know what your side is saying.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
My poem to the tinfoils yesterday
February 13, 2007 - 14:55 ET by misterbillWe don't need.....no stinkin' roses
To come and fill our stinkin noses
Some people may find it charmin'
But it really contributes to global warmin'
So leave those flowers where they lay
Keep the earth fresh for another day,
So let's make do without the scent
Those stinkin' flowers would have lent.
Happy Valentine's Day sweeties!
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
And I fully support the troop
February 13, 2007 - 14:28 ET by Chicago RepublicanAnd I fully support the troops, with my money and my time, which is more than I can say for most Americans.
Josh, elaborate on this statement some more. I'm mostly interested in how "most other Americans" aren't supporting the troops with money and time.
CR - Josh is better than the
February 13, 2007 - 14:37 ET by florida_chadCR - Josh is better than the rest of us. We just aren't smart enough to undertstand it. He used to cut the lawn of a GW expert ;=) and he climbed a glacier.
What's more, if "the deb
February 13, 2007 - 14:32 ET by Chicago RepublicanWhat's more, if "the debate lives on" then why these bullying tactics by the AGW crowd (read here Ellen Goodman and especially Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel)? I don't think they want debate, Josh, or they wouldn't be using these bully tactics.
Actually you're a ignorant
February 13, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Jack BauerActually you're a ignorant twit who hasn't the first clue about "science," a hypothesis I base on the inane tripe in your post.
As you say, you're a "no-brainer."
A Logic Denier who's an integral part of Global Dumbing.