Comments on: U.S. Bends To Critics, OKs Climate Roadmap

Washington Drops Opposition To European, Developing Nation Concerns At U.N. Climate Talks

[mediapreachr]

''Yes, a warming process started 12-15 thousand years ago. But humans have drastically accelerated and expanded that warming process. That is the part you don''''t seem to understand or believe....
Posted by jimfinster at 07:44 PM : Dec 16, 2007''

Let me get this straight-you''re advocating population reduction.Because you''re a scientist you are special and get to be selected to live.

[jimfinster]

Moreover, you are going after me in a manner that reflect your impression that I deny global warming, when I do not. I recognize it for what it is: a continuation of a natural process which stared 12-15 thousand years ago. You should know this.
Posted by CO2Max

But you do deny the human influence, so you are essentially in the Denier camp. And that is a camp I have low regard for, especially if said person claims a scientific background!!

Yes, a warming process started 12-15 thousand years ago. But humans have drastically accelerated and expanded that warming process. That is the part you don''t seem to understand or believe....

[co2max]

In the geologic history, the evidence at hand illustrates the case that the earth likes to be warm more than cold. That is to say, at least since the K/T Boundary event of 65Ma, the planet''s surface has been ice-free (or just about so) for many more years than ice covered, at the poles or in the alpine highlands. This condition IS a result of the planetary greenhouse, but the fluctuation in "recent" (millions of years recent) climate change are attributable to Milankovitch cycles, solar effects and cosmic ray influences. As a body in generally static cosmic conditions, the earth has warmed quickly during instadials (between glaciations) while it tends to cool relatively slowly. This is a clear case of solar heating effects which infuse energy into the earth system complex while cooling results from more slowly progressing outward re-radiance. Please consult Daansgard-Oeschgar studies in community press if you wish to gain further insight into these influences. The planetary greenhouse, in the past as now, is of little concern to short-term climatic changes.

[co2max]

jimfinster - Wikipedia is a joke that is useful for first-looks but not for research purposes. I am surprised that you rely upon in view of your claim to be a practicing geologist. I would expect better, but then your inflammatory tone should lead me not to be surprised.
My education, training and experience are fine. The manner in which you take issue with my position makes me believe you know that what I say represents the truth. I certainly am not aligned with any energy lobbying group. I am a federal employee who would be happy to be rid of reliance upon cumbustion-based transport, but it is a fact of modern life . . . heavy sigh.
Moreover, you are going after me in a manner that reflect your impression that I deny global warming, when I do not. I recognize it for what it is: a continuation of a natural process which stared 12-15 thousand years ago. You should know this.

[pepperwood2]

Posted by erasmus6 at 02:35 PM : Dec 16, 2007 - I see you must be a partaker:)

No thank you! Just wanted to point out most today''s Liberal thinking concerning Global Warming seem to originate from "THE PARATAKERS" who got their start in the 60''s whether they inhaled or not.

The Clintons & Gores. Just going by what they said. Now do you see what I mean? :-)

CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE - Tis the Season to be Jolly! :-)

[jimfinster]

Wikipedia? If you refer to that pile of publicly-generation "we-thing" as your source of information to support a scientific premise, then you are truly lost. The world is full of resources. Wiki is useful for its references list, but the info content of Wiki entries is nothing to rely on. I laugh at anyone who bases his/her position ona Wiki claim, especially a geologist.
Posted by CO2Max

It is explained very simply there, so perhaps you could understand. It is for your education, not mine. I already understand the issue.

[rheola-2009]

If you take notice of these posts here and elsewhere, it becomes rather obvious which of them are from the fossil fuel company disinformation providers, they appear to have endless and dubious web site address''s posted with their desperate attempts to promote the greedy and selfish views of their masters.

There appear to be two such posters using this board.

[jimfinster]

In the geologist past, CO2 levels have been in the 2000-5000ppm range with overall temperatures not so much different than what we experience today.
Posted by CO2Max


Yes, but how many millions of years ago? And what was the human population at that time? You don''t seem to understand the whole picture.

[erasmus6]

"Sing this every time you have moment. If you like smoke pot or take LSD to heighten your awareness while you do. and you don''''t even have to inhale.

CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE - Sorry, just couldn''''t resist." posted by pepperwood2


I see you must be a partaker:)

[rafterman1]

===How can you that the world''''s leading scientists agree about climate change, when the fact is that they DO NOT agree?===

This is not true. Only those bought by the energy industry say there is no global warming. The fact is, most serious scientists do agree that man affects the climate and that effect has increased in the last century. The only thing questioned perhaps is the degree to which man is affecting the climate. The more conservative say centuries before disaster while others are saying decades. Even Bush has admitted to global warning, but I guess you all didn''t get the latest neocon talking points and are continuing to defend the energy industries blindly (like oil, where both their profits and our cost of gas are increasing).

[pepperwood2]

Inconvenient Truth?? There they go again!

http://www.youtube.com/v/DRaeEIN5Sh8

[co2max]

The only truthful thing found in Algore''s movie was that Algor did indeed lose the presidential election. Aside from that, everything (EVERYTHING) presented was faciful gibberish. An inacuracy in science is not just an inaccuracy, it is misinformation, falsification and not to be trusted or used as a foundation for deciding action.
That''s all there is to say about that.

[co2max]

sesanders1 - Ostriches, huh? How can you that the world''s leading scientists agree about climate change, when the fact is that they DO NOT agree? Because there is a band of scientists and political appointees who claim to be scientists have formed a solidarity of self-proclaimed concensus, it does not mean that they have the facts on their side, nor that they are the ultimate authority in scientific truth. There is a wide range of earth scientists who are proclaiming their position counter to the wild speculations and propaganda put forth by the United Nations factions and their friends. These parties are not correct in their position and they are not convincing in their campaign to sway the issue in their favor.
Just what excactly are these alarming and obvious changes before our eyes? I mean specifically the ones that are supposedly of human inducement.

[rafterman1]

Nice try terrorislam7 in pushing your "say anything to protect the energy companies" strategy. But what that British judge really said about Gore''s movie:

"Al Gore''s Oscar-winning environmental documentary contains nine scientific errors or omissions, a British judge said, ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want the film shown to students.

High Court Judge Michael Burton said he had no doubt that the points raised in "An Inconvenient Truth" about the causes and likely effects of climate change were broadly accurate, but in a ruling published Wednesday he wrote that they were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration.""

Nine errors and over 100+ accruate statements Not quite the ringing condemnation you wanted, huh? Nice try neocon. Also nice try with all your right wing rag links you posted trying to say how they are protecting left wing media bias by shoving right wing media bias down our throat instead. It''s a well-known fact that most anti-global warming scientists have some link to the energy industry.

co2max, you and other ostriches: We''ve got a problem...it is obvious...the world''s leading scientists agree, and yet you continue your denials in the face of alarming and observable changes right before your very eyes. People can help this problem and they should be encouraged!

jimfinster: I posted on another news site yesterday about a documentary on the "denial machine." Interestingly enough, I was then banned from the site. I''m appalled that the American people are being so deliberately misled.

[co2max]

Despite what the USGS official position on climate change may be, it does not mean that the collective brain trust of the organization is in lock-step agreement with it. The equating of "global warming, or human-induced climate change" as the position statement reads, automatically suggests a preconception that GW and HCCC are the same thing. You should know, jimfinster, that they are not. HCCC would be a local phenomenon, such as the huge increase of average humidity in the Pheonix, AZ, region (the Salt River valley) due to decades of significant agricultural activity. The global aspect of global warming, while fundamentally factual, is overblow to a large extent due to inaccurate data gathering and a horrendously incomplete data set.
And do not forget the solar influences on our climate are enormous, even with just the slightest flinch by the sun.

[co2max]

CORRECTION: That''s "We-think" instead of "We-thing" (keyboard error, or course).

[co2max]

Wikipedia? If you refer to that pile of publicly-generation "we-thing" as your source of information to support a scientific premise, then you are truly lost. The world is full of resources. Wiki is useful for its references list, but the info content of Wiki entries is nothing to rely on. I laugh at anyone who bases his/her position ona Wiki claim, especially a geologist (jimfintst). Surely you can do better than that.
Sure CO2 is higher now than it was before. Sure the increase is due to humans. But the carbon dioxide component of the greenhouse is not significant, not until the concentration reaches at least a couple percent or more. In the geologist past, CO2 levels have been in the 2000-5000ppm range with overall temperatures not so much different than what we experience today.

[pepperwood2]

Came accross this Older Creedence Clearwater Revival Song Circa 1969. "Bad Moon Rising"

Sing along with me now and see if we can figure out which CROWD it might best fit in with Today??

I see the bad moon arising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightin.
I SEE BAD TIMES TODAY.

I hear hurricanes ablowing.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers overflowing.
I HEAR THE VOICE OF RAGE & RUIN.

Don''t go out tonight.
Well, its bound to take your life.
There''s a BAD MOON ON THE RISE.

Sing this every time you have moment. If you like smoke pot or take LSD to heighten your awareness while you do. and you don''t even have to inhale.

CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE - Sorry, just couldn''t resist.