Or C, that a 2 degree warm will make the world as a whole a worse place for human habitation.

The MSM continues the scam and damages what's left of its credibility. Now that's settled science.

I think the supporters of global warming are more concerned about their financial spigot going dry.

The supporters of the GW scam can do what ever they want as long as it does not cost anybody else any money and does not infringe on freedoms & liberties.

I suggest they do their part with their own wallets.

The country is fairly equally split between Republican and Democrat, and Republicans have waged an all out war against climate change acceptance, while Democrats have waged their war in favor of it.

Therefore it's nearly impossible to claim any specific reasons that the country's opinions have changed. There's every chance that poll numbers are changing because the people have begun to align with their own party's messaging.

What I've never been able to understand, however, is why the Republican party has assaulted to vigorously the idea of reducing pollution, emissions, and general consumption. Why have they been so opposed to finding alternative energies and oil derivatives alternatives?

Even if we suddenly had a magic wand that proved once and for all that climate change is real, it's ridiculous to think that we'd be able to find an alternative to oil overnight, considering the sheer volume of things created with it. Chewing gum uses it. Clothes use it. Fertilizers use it. Production and transportation of literally everything produced use it.

But why NOT work hard to green the planet? Why NOT work towards reduction of emissions in a serious way, rather than a laughably incremental way? Why NOT work on finding more natural (and therefore healthy) ways to produce and distribute food?

Why are having those kinds of aspirations considered an affront to the Republican morality??

It took months for the public to realize what a bad idea his health care takeover was...America's really bending that trust curve downward on big ears.

"Why NOT work on finding more natural (and therefore healthy) ways to produce and distribute food?"

Where the hell you been for the last 30 years? One of your beloved greenies was telling us that we'd all be dying of starvation in the 70's. Then it was that we'd all be dying of air pollution in the 80's. Do you think that use of petroleum began overnight? It was freaking INCREMENTAL. IT PAID IT'S OWN WAY!

Why not jump on over to Spain and see how "going green" helped their economy. Or does perpetual double digit unemployment sound great to you?

Sorry about your head injury, Jake, but NO ONE has said there should be no research into alternative fuels and/or means of reducing pollution and even non-polluting emissions of "greenhouse gases." Can you cite anyone who has said this?

Of course not. What the "global-warming-cum-climate-change" freaks are advocating is no less than a worldwide takeover of energy by governments through taxation. Republicans, conservatives, and others with common sense oppose this massive takeover because, among other reasons, there is no credible evidence of any crisis at all.

The advocates of these draconian measures rely upon bogus, doctored data, discard the original data, phony up charts, try to repress dissent, and cannot even account for the present conditions with their models. So we should drop everything and follow them? Are you an idiot?

As Dr. Reynolds remarked, "I will believe it's a crisis when those who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." Al Gore jetting about the world in a private plane while his huge mansion burns enough electricity to power 40 average American homes just doesn't cut.

Why are having those kinds of aspirations considered an affront to the Republican morality??

The real progress in cleaning up the environment of the developed world has always been by the private sector, with investors and customers directing their money -- voluntarily -- to cleaner operators and in support of cleaner alternatives.

Don't fall into the trap of equating opposition to government action with opposition to the stated objective of that action. Sensible people have learned long ago that what the government says it wants to accomplish with such programs is NEVER what actually happens.

That may very well be the case... that a warming planet could lead to problems... but the fact is that there's no scientific consensus to suggest that A) the planet is warming or B) that man has something to do with it.

Rick,

There is scientific consensus that that the planet is warming and that its primarily due to CO2. Reuters poll indicates that there is not a consensus among the general population, not among scientists.

There is a hypothesis and general conclusion that Al Gore and his ass kissing bandits, like Tina Shleshinger, are exaggerating said liberalness for a free drink.

Tina -

You're wrong. Well alright, you are half wrong, but the half you got wrong is the important half.

Scientists agree that the earth has gotten warmer up to 1998. Scientists also agree that since 1998 the earth has cooled.

Scientists do not agree that this warming is due o CO2. Many believe that warming is more likely due to solar activity and since solar activity peaked at the end of the century and we have been at a historic low in terms of solar activity it is not surprising that we have witnessed cooling.

There is a growing consensus that we are going to see as much as a decade or more of cooling and there is no clear answer as to when that trend may reverse.

Those of us old enough to remember the scare of the 1970's when the evil was air pollution (particulates etc) that the enviro-fascists were fomenting about the coming ice age because we would blot out the sun.

The truth of global warming can be seen in the AGW believer's own work where they admit that by curtailing CO2 emissions we would have an effect so small on global temperature that it could not be measured. If curtailing emissions would not result in a measurable effect then it stands to reason that the warming that the enviro-lunatics are carrying on about cannot possibly be due to CO2.

You cannot have it both ways. CO2 cannot be THE factor that causes AGW and then have CO2 reduction have no measurable effect.

There is no consensus about AGW. Never has been.

Like passing health care, it has only been 'deemed' to be a consensus.

Therefore it's nearly impossible to claim any specific reasons that the country's opinions have changed. There's every chance that poll numbers are changing because the people have begun to align with their own party's messaging.

If I had to guess the reason, it would be due to the recent snow storms and cold spells. I would imagine most of the people polled were not aware that at the same time the United States was having record cold temperatures, other parts of the globe were having record warm temperatures.

I've just been consulting the chicken entrails and my hockey stick, and I predict that for the next several months the parts of the globe that have been experiencing warm weather, will experience cold weather -- yet the parts of the globe that have been experiencing cold weather will get much warmer.

I'll need to check with the Climate Research Unit for an explanation of this intriguing and utterly UNEXPECTED phenomenon.

Where Tina S?? You are so full of shit Steve Green is starting too smell sanitary.

Global Warming will also give you acne

Scientists do not agree that this warming is due o CO2. Many believe that warming is more likely due to solar activity and since solar activity peaked at the end of the century and we have been at a historic low in terms of solar activity it is not surprising that we have witnessed cooling.

jim m,

Yes, there are some scientists that are saying that global warming is not due to CO2. Just as during the 1950's & 60's some scientist were stating that cigarettes were not harmful.

1. During the 1950's & 60's the tobacco industry paid individual scientists to dispute that tobacco was harmful.

2. Today, the oil industry pays individual scientists to dispute global warming.

3. During the 1950's & 60's virtually all scientific organizations agreed that tobacco was harmful.

4. Today virtually all scientific organization agree that global warming is real and is caused by CO2.

Yeah, let's talk tobacco. When you're starting to realize your initial statement was WRONG, switch topics. Well, at least she's learning.

"There is scientific consensus that that the planet is warming and that its primarily due to CO2."

"Today virtually all scientific organization agree that global warming is real and is caused by CO2."

So what will your position be tomorrow Tina?

"Forty-eight percent of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, up from 41 percent last year and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question."

I guaran-damn-tee you that number would be higher if the Ameircan media had done any coverage of the scams and scandals that have cropped up over the last few months.

And this: "Yes, there are some scientists that are saying that global warming is not due to CO2. Just as during the 1950's & 60's some scientist were stating that cigarettes were not harmful."

Tina, some scientists said we would all starve to death before the turn of the century because we couldn't produce enough food. So your point is......

Tina, your problem is that you lack the ability to distinguish between a scientist and a leftist theologian.

It is true that all leftist theologians call themselves "scientists" and that all believe, as you do, that global warming is caused by humans producing too much CO2. (And if the data doesn't back up their beliefs well then the data is just plain wrong and must be destroyed.)

Now as for real scientists, all of them recognize the fact that the climate changes. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe that the global climate doesn't change. However, all real scientists understand that the global climate is a complex system and that there are many, many variables--most of which we don't even understand yet, and no real, honest scientist makes the claim that human produced CO2 is a significant factor.

"There is scientific consensus that that the planet is warming and that its primarily due to CO2."

"Today virtually all scientific organization agree that global warming is real and is caused by CO2."

So what will your position be tomorrow Tina?

GarandFan,

Scientific consensus does not mean that every scientist and scietific organization throughout the world is in 100% agreement. Wikipedia does a good job of defining scietific consensus.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Yeah, let's talk tobacco. When you're starting to realize your initial statement was WRONG, switch topics. Well, at least she's learning.

I am not switching topics. I am pointing out that the oil industry is using the same tactics that the tobacco industry used, to dupe the public that tobacco is not harmful.

Tina the money argument is a crap argument. There is a lot more money invested behind the people "proving" global warming than there is behind the sceptics. As the old saying goes, "Follow the money".

All of those scientists like Hansen, Mann, Jones etc. get money from research grants and government funding. This allows the creation of a systemic bias where the scientists' global warming research depends on funding, but the funding depends on them researching global warming.

What do you think would happen to those research grants if global warming was disproven or turned out to be not as bad as projected?

Tina's right. We should be talking about scientists that were wrong before because that will make us all the more ready to believe scientists now. Obviously you stupid Neocon dummies, some scientists were wrong before so some other scientists must be right now. It just stands to reason. If that isn't logical enough for you troglodytes I don't know what else to tell you.

Peace.

tina - "2. Today, the oil industry pays individual scientists to dispute global warming."

Need I remind you who is about to become, or already has become AGW billionaire?

Your "money" excuse is just that a piss-poor excuse.

Damn "evil" oil companies, except when they're not: Chevron Corporation is the world's largest private producer of Geo-Thermal Energy.

Damn "Evil" private sector, they'd never be green, except when they are: FedEx makes extensive use of LPG-powered vehicles and they've done it without ANY gov intervention.

Steve -

That you still believe that anyone after the ancient Greeks believed that the world was flat just demonstrates how narrow and limited your education is.

The fact that you choose to demonstrate that ignorance in an attempt to put others down is just sad.

s green I hate to ask but... what the hell is an honest "conservations?"

And BTW, can you point to a single "right-wing nutjob" that thinks Reagan will arise from the dead, or one that thinks the world is flat?

Asshole.

Steve, Bryan and Tina,

I'll just pause here and note that not one of you has bothered to dispute my statement that for the last decade the earth has been cooling.

Not one of you has risen to disagree with that statement, possibly because global warmists like Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others have all confessed that this is the case. Not only that but they have all admitted that their models do not account for it. They have no theories to account for it and they have stated that it is a serious problem hat they have no answer for.

Now there is a consensus. They all have admitted that they have no idea why it is happening.

There is a consensus among climate scientists that GW is man-made and can and should be mitigated by CO2 reduction, etc.

Except, of course, for the 98 climate scientists who are listed here:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

For once, I'd like for these warmists to engage in some sort of real debate about the man-made GW hoax instead of reverting back to the "consensus of climate scientists" charade. It'll never happen, of course.

Hey didn't I see somewhere recently that Batman is a Scientist? Or was it Blackman is a Scientologist? Help me out here folks.

The time for debate is over.

The time for inaction has come.

" There is a lot more money invested behind the people "proving" global warming than there is behind the sceptics. "

Ha ha ha.

Yeah, the Climate Change Industry is thriving, with Climate Change Stations on every corner. That reminds, me, I need to fill up my Climate with a few gallons of Climate Change. Unlike the Oil Industry....which is a minor blip on the economic landscape. Who could possibly be able to fund anti-climate change projects? I mean, since the Oil Industry is scraping by...

s green I hate to ask but... what the hell is an honest "conservations?"

Steve Green, Tina S., and I have all been taught all our lives that corporations are evil: "Corporations harm the earth", "corporations start wars", "corporations treat ordinary people like you and me like dirt!" Hollywood, the MSM, the teachers unions, most unions in fact, most college professors, etc ... are all propagandizing against corporations everyday. Well, how is it the propaganda worked on Steve Green and Tina S. but not on me?

It's really, really simple. I took a look at the government. The government has the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, the FBI, the CIA, the police, sheriffs, treasury agents, and literally millions of other workers to do their bidding. I have never seen any corporation or group of corporations that had that kind of raw power coming from the barrel of their guns. On the other hand, corporations are the ones with sayings like "the customer is always right", "we guarantee it" and "prices so low you'll think we're crazy". Corporations are the ones whose CEOs go to jail when they get caught breaking the law. When was the last time you saw a corporation put anybody in jail?

So no matter how powerful corporations are or may become the government has a lot more power. If you are afraid of any corporation, you are a fool to not be more afraid of the government. A damn dumb dimwitted fool, like Steve Green.

True story.

Hey Steve, tell us what union you're in. You're not ashamed to be a union member, are you?

Well, Jake - since you're so convinced there's a lot of money behind the skeptic movement, how about a link to some of the funding?

Here - I'll help you. THIS group got $2.56 BILLION!

President Obama's FY2011 Budget has 21% funding increase for USGCRP climate science research (posting from Climate Science Watch)

Alongside major new investments in clean energy development, President Obama's FY2011 Budget proposes $2.56 billion in funding for climate and global change research conducted under the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) umbrella

American Thinker: CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists' Funding Hypocrisy

Amid the thousands of files apparently lifted from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit's funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of ｣13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.

But it's actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of "energy agencies" they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust -- are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting "new energy" technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU "potential funding sources" have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world's premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

And yet, no such latitude has ever been extended to scientists in the skeptical camp.

For instance, when MIT's Richard Lindzen delivers one of his trademark brilliant presentations leading to the conclusion that climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.5°C, not the 1.5°-5°C predicted by IPCC models, all we hear from alarmists and complicit media types is that the professor once charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services and is therefore an unreliable big-oil hack.

Or when S. Fred Singer challenges the IPCC to explain whether water vapor and clouds represent positive or negative feedback, or stands before a graph depicting temperatures decreasing over the past ten years while CO2 climbed and declares that "the relationship is meaningless," his words are similarly dismissed based solely on the fact that he has received funding from ExxonMobil.

Let's set aside the fact that Lindzen had actually accepted a total of $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from such interests on the day he ceased such activities two decades ago. And that Singer has received only $20,000 from ExxonMobil. And that alarmists outfund climate by several orders of magnitude, which leads to the artificial expansion of the number of scientists who appear to support alarmist views. And even that monies paid to either side of the debate have zero impact on the science of whether or not 20th-century warming was caused or is exacerbated by man-made CO2 emissions. And don't get me started on carbon-millionaire Al Gore.

It looks like the whole scam is collapsing - with NASA's admission they've been depending on the decidedly iffy CRU database for THEIR work, the NCDC admitting they've been massaging and adjusting temperatures all over the place... I just hope you got paid good for your support of the scam, Jake - and if you didn't, check with Steve Green and see if you can start a class action suit against Hansen and Gore!

"Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review."

Well that explains the CRU's not communicating with anyone asking for information. Making sure that only "their people" get published and peer reviewed. And as for 'replication', "Sorry, the dog ate our data".

Yeah, Tina, you've got some real "scientists" working on the problem don't you?

Not to mention Phil Jones this past week claiming that real scientists never share their data and refusal to share data is how the scientific method works.

I guess the rest of the world missed that memo.

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice extent is 2-3 times greater than what the IPCC has previously reported.

Meanwhile studies are showing that 85% of US weather stations are poorly maintained and/or located and that that these violations of protocol result in temperature records being off by an average of greater than 1 degree.

Meanwhile a new study is out indicating that temperature recording instrumentation has an error range of 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C which is more than what global warmists say that we can reduce global temperature by if we stop putting CO2 in the air (don't forget to hold your breath everybody).

This has nothong to do with global warming but has to do with keeping the carbon industries alive ,so there ivesters will make money.Why they kill every living thing on this planet .Why do you think the carbon industries are spending million to protect there billion industry ,and they will do anthing to make sure they win .Do you remember the tabacco companies off the 1980's and 1990's .the carbon industries are doing the same thing Don't be fooled,by there twisting off facts by there omissions off statements and by there lies.It's all about greed.

It is well acknowledged that ONLY 15-18% of the American people (or people living in the U.S.A.)are Intelligent. This still leaves an immense number of Intelligent people 45-50 MILLION. But they are still only 15-18% of the entire population. Therefor any poll of random Americans is worthless. What does it possibly matter what unintelligent people think?
The Great American Problem that was never intended by the founding fathers was this THE equality of intelligent and unintelligent people.
For Example I spent 5 years of my life imprisoned in a Florida Maximum Security Prison having been convicted of a fabricated crime by 6 Florida Ignoramuses ( In Florida a Jury consists of only 6 persons ) How can the American Jury System possibly work if the jurors are ignorant ( Remember the O.J.Simpson trial in California ) It can't work. How can a poll of the American people possibly be worth anything if an ignoramuses opinion counts the same as an intelligent persons. Notice please, I don't say "Educated" In the U.S. "Educated certainly is NOT synonymous with"Intelligent"
One other thing I very often think about. In WW2 The U.S. had a Military of 6 Million. Intelligent Officers for this Military were needed vitally. It was determined that any American with 2 years of College education was deemed intelligent enough to be commissioned as an officer. Imagine today barely 70 years later. Two years of college doesn't even guarantee a person can read, let alone think. The last President had an MBA from Harvard and he oversaw the Entire Collapse of the U.S. Economy
Edmond Dantes