Founder of Global Warming doubted it prior to his death.

[caneman]

and Al gore was his student. Read here.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 74742.html

[Dionne]

But, but....I've traveled the world over giving this lecture......this cannot be.....what if this news gets out? Here's the plan......we'll just say he was a senile old man. That will cover us. Lord knows......if that darn Gulf Stream would just shut down!!

[stormchazer]

Well I know that it is punishable by humiliation to suggest that man-made Climate Changes is anything other then the coming Armageddon that the alarmist and powerful environmental groups all say it is but I found this compilation to be interesting.

http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comment ... ming02.pdf

The more I read and hear the lack of debate, the more I see the US and other countries being led down a road of economic ruin all to stop changes in something has been evolving since the beginning of time. We all care about the environment, but we must have a balance between that which sustains our lives and economies, and the needs of conservation and environmentalism.

[HenkL]

What's the purpose of recycling an old myth about Revelle?
If you want to know why it's a myth, read here or here.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

With all the glaciers melting, global warming is happening and this proof is there all over every
continent.
The effects will be felt in the coming years...as a result of this

[Sanibel]

Societies usually attack what they don't want to hear...

[Squarethecircle]

Well I know that it is punishable by humiliation to suggest that man-made Climate Changes is anything other then the coming Armageddon that the alarmist and powerful environmental groups all say it is but I found this compilation to be interesting.

http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comment ... ming02.pdf

The more I read and hear the lack of debate, the more I see the US and other countries being led down a road of economic ruin all to stop changes in something has been evolving since the beginning of time. We all care about the environment, but we must have a balance between that which sustains our lives and economies, and the needs of conservation and environmentalism.

The problem with this assumption is that these energy changes will be bad, which is wrong. Global warming is not the only purported result of pollution, and some of them are real. Of course, the big problem is the decline in fossil fuel production - if global warming gets us past that hurdle, then I don't care if it's real or not (go Thorium and U233)!

And I do doubt that it's that big of a problem (GW).

[x-y-no]

That article is a political rant - very much on the borderline if not over it for posting n this board. I'll leave it for now in hopes that we can keep the politics out of it.

At any rate, there are numerous falsehoods in that article and numerous other misrepresentations and distortions. I'll not discuss most of them because they impinge on the political, but I'll point out that writing IN 1988 that "we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important" is not an endorsement of doing nothing now. 1988 was 21 years ago.

As for the Cosmos article - Revelle played no role in writing that. He was on his deathbed. Singer put his name on the article to gain some credibility.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Denial of a serious problem- global warming...could
prove dangerous in the coming years for those denying it...

[Sanibel]

I just read the article. Its basis is obviously political and I believe it is written for people anxious to hear global warming is un credible. He guides the information with references to global warming research being motivated by the need for funding from its inception. In other words, they cooked up this wacky theory to make high paying work for themselves. He then accuses the International Panel of being a facade for a socialist world government intending to use carbon credit taxes to fund itself. In my view the piece is Fox News rubbish and the usual denialist rhetoric. The piece is written in defense of powerful interests looking to save money by not doing anything about global warming and CO2.

[caneman]

Well, I too will stay out of the political realm, other than stating that it is interesting to note that when someone comes out with a claim against global warming it is deemed political, the person doesn't know what they are talking about, unqualified of worse undergoes character assasination and warned to be quiet. However, when the GW theorists discuss their views we are suppose to take it as golden and dare not say anthing. Sound familiar? It should-history is full of this. All I know is that I'm freezing my butt off as is most of the country, in fact, the world. So, instead of jumping on this 20 year bandwagon, I'll stick with the climate is cyclical in forms of 100's of years. Can we cut back on emissions, sure. Is there some contribution perhaps from pollutants, yep, I'm sure minimal. Should we do some more as a matter of prudence, sure. Should we fall for the sky is falling despite many contracy reports otherwise?get on board or else? Deny a cyclical weather history? Nope, not me and I hope not you.

[Sanibel]

The total of record lows around the whole USA for the last week was 58 while the total of record high temperatures was 402.

For the last month, the total of record lows was 555 while the total of record highs was 1209.

From 2003 to the present, the total number of record low temperatures nationwide was 134,826 and the total of record high temperatures was 269,156.

[x-y-no]

Well, I too will stay out of the political realm, other than stating that it is interesting to note that when someone comes out with a claim against global warming it is deemed political, the person doesn't know what they are talking about, unqualified of worse undergoes character assasination and warned to be quiet. However, when the GW theorists discuss their views we are suppose to take it as golden and dare not say anthing. Sound familiar? It should-history is full of this. All I know is that I'm freezing my butt off as is most of the country, in fact, the world. So, instead of jumping on this 20 year bandwagon, I'll stick with the climate is cyclical in forms of 100's of years. Can we cut back on emissions, sure. Is there some contribution perhaps from pollutants, yep, I'm sure minimal. Should we do some more as a matter of prudence, sure. Should we fall for the sky is falling despite many contracy reports otherwise?get on board or else? Deny a cyclical weather history? Nope, not me and I hope not you.

I strongly disagree. I've had many, many exchanges with the various skeptics on this board about the facts without any claims about any of the stuff you list here coming into the conversation.

On the other hand, when stuff about socialism or "dreams of one-world government" etc. enter the conversation (as happens in the linked article) are you seriously going to complain when I call that a political rant?

And is it somehow illegitimate to point out where there are absolute falsehoods being put forward? Are we obligated to ignore the fact that claims are simply false for fear of being accused of shutting down discussion?

The fact is my father was a close personal friend of Roger Revelle. I know from personal conversation with my father regarding what Revelle had to say in his last years about this topic that this claim is simply false. And it angers me when people have the nerve to promulgate lies about someone I greatly respect. That's just the way it is.

All I ask from those who wish to discuss this issue is that they actually be willing to examine and honestly present and discuss the facts and that they stop recycling the same nonsense that has been shot down a thousand times already. If they think there's something wrong with the shooting down, that's fine. I'd love to discuss the merits of the argument. But that's hardly ever what happens. Instead, we get some claim, followed by a reply arguing why that claim is wrong, followed maybe by some "well nobody knows" false balance statement (with no concession about the counter-argument) and then a month or two or three later we get the exact same claim all over again and we go through the same cycle - over and over and over. Forgive me, but after you've done this for enough cycles it gets to be really annoying.

[caneman]

Well, I too will stay out of the political realm, other than stating that it is interesting to note that when someone comes out with a claim against global warming it is deemed political, the person doesn't know what they are talking about, unqualified of worse undergoes character assasination and warned to be quiet. However, when the GW theorists discuss their views we are suppose to take it as golden and dare not say anthing. Sound familiar? It should-history is full of this. All I know is that I'm freezing my butt off as is most of the country, in fact, the world. So, instead of jumping on this 20 year bandwagon, I'll stick with the climate is cyclical in forms of 100's of years. Can we cut back on emissions, sure. Is there some contribution perhaps from pollutants, yep, I'm sure minimal. Should we do some more as a matter of prudence, sure. Should we fall for the sky is falling despite many contracy reports otherwise?get on board or else? Deny a cyclical weather history? Nope, not me and I hope not you.

I strongly disagree. I've had many, many exchanges with the various skeptics on this board about the facts without any claims about any of the stuff you list here coming into the conversation.

On the other hand, when stuff about socialism or "dreams of one-world government" etc. enter the conversation (as happens in the linked article) are you seriously going to complain when I call that a political rant?

And is it somehow illegitimate to point out where there are absolute falsehoods being put forward? Are we obligated to ignore the fact that claims are simply false for fear of being accused of shutting down discussion?

The fact is my father was a close personal friend of Roger Revelle. I know from personal conversation with my father regarding what Revelle had to say in his last years about this topic that this claim is simply false. And it angers me when people have the nerve to promulgate lies about someone I greatly respect. That's just the way it is.

All I ask from those who wish to discuss this issue is that they actually be willing to examine and honestly present and discuss the facts and that they stop recycling the same nonsense that has been shot down a thousand times already. If they think there's something wrong with the shooting down, that's fine. I'd love to discuss the merits of the argument. But that's hardly ever what happens. Instead, we get some claim, followed by a reply arguing why that claim is wrong, followed maybe by some "well nobody knows" false balance statement (with no concession about the counter-argument) and then a month or two or three later we get the exact same claim all over again and we go through the same cycle - over and over and over. Forgive me, but after you've done this for enough cycles it gets to be really annoying.

XY-No-

A good debater never brings in the YOU in a debate as you have just done and have done in the past (perfect example of my point above in that GW's attack the person and not the issue. There is no room in this forum for a legitimate debate. That has clearly been established in the past. So, yes, I'm relegated to providing links to FACTS because I choose not to confront someone in your position on this board who is so clearly entrenched in their position as to be blind to different view points. So, I'll leave it at this. You are entitled to your opinion as am I (some 67% of people by the way believe there is only mild to no man made GW affect). So, why the scare tactics from the GW'er's. I've tried unsuccessfully with you to discuss cyclical cooling and heating of the earth over many years but you don't want to hear it. Don't believe? Why are you constantly on top of any anti-GW debate? It is clear I can't change your mind but for the sanity of the masses I'll plug along and provide the other side of the coin to counter the mass hysteria. Unless it becomes against board rules to post articles with counter views, I would appreciate you staying off my posts as I will yours. Good day.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

80-90% is natural cycles I think...about 10-15% human added it seems...since that
can increase the temperature 1%....that said florida has had colder
periods recently...like 2000-2001 (that winter was brutallly cold, tampa was 32*f at
10 am)....2002/2003...and 2008/2009 with the record cold in november
of 2008 and in january of 2009 with tampa's vandenburg airport
plummetting to 24*F...not far above the all time record low, which I think
is in the upper 10s...and then in the 1800s when tampa had blizzard conditions


A blizzard in Tampa would be AWESOME! I would LOVE that...now I know it
would cause catastrophic farming damage...but as a crazy stormchaser who
is eager for extreme weather...even on the tropical side...it is fun...
when Fay was coming I had the camera ready...it turned over naples
so I didn't get my category 1 hurricane eyewall experience....not that I want
to experience a Major hurricane...I just want to see the eyewall of a category 1...
that would be the most awesome weather ever...

[Sanibel]

I think if you went back and looked at what people believed in this country in polls they wouldn't do well as to accuracy. So polls can be good but they can be meaningless as well.

This board is difficult because some things that are heavily influenced by politics can't be completely discussed because it would involve politics. I've been around long enough to know politically-motivated 'facts' and polls when I see them. If you look at what people think when money is involved I think past history has shown all sorts of facts and theories become accepted and popular in the right circumstances.

It's my personal opinion that Global Warming positions that mirror identically those promoted by political groups favoring no action or those that question global warming theory outright shouldn't really complain too loudly when people react accordingly. There seems to be a double standard where they claim to be victimized by political motivations behind gw but obviously speak from a political position themselves. If a poster says there are facts wrong in a post then it certainly isn't fair to ask the poster to stay away from your posts because of alleged personal motives.

But to get back to board standards, the Australian heat wave is undoubtedly in line with global warming. I think its appearance in the southern hemisphere at a time when the northern hemisphere took a cooling dip in temperature says something that persons who don't believe in gw don't want to hear. Even worse Melbourne snapped down to 69* as a high yesterday, 49 degrees below the 118* heat. That is also probably the sign of an energized atmosphere taking broad swings in temperature. February is the equal of August down there.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

From what I've seen in chemical reactions, and granted many people
have seen more than I have with me being just 21 years old, but
seeing how chemical reactions set up by people in labs can cause
such potent results, it would seem that some extreme climate
events may be impacted by chemicals humans have put into
the atmosphere...Certainly when there is arson involved...as suspected
with Australia's wild fires according to some officers...that is an example
of human exacerbated disaster...obviously certain weather conditions
had to be in place...but the point made about extreme amplitude
and extreme weather seems to make sense to me based on what
I've seen in the chemistry lab...then again- I will admit that
some of my storm chaser fascinations with extreme weather may
lead to a sub conscious and unintended bias for extreme weather
interpretations...so keep debating no matter what position you have

[caneman]

I think if you went back and looked at what people believed in this country in polls they wouldn't do well as to accuracy. So polls can be good but they can be meaningless as well.

This board is difficult because some things that are heavily influenced by politics can't be completely discussed because it would involve politics. I've been around long enough to know politically-motivated 'facts' and polls when I see them. If you look at what people think when money is involved I think past history has shown all sorts of facts and theories become accepted and popular in the right circumstances.

It's my personal opinion that Global Warming positions that mirror identically those promoted by political groups favoring no action or those that question global warming theory outright shouldn't really complain too loudly when people react accordingly. There seems to be a double standard where they claim to be victimized by political motivations behind gw but obviously speak from a political position themselves. If a poster says there are facts wrong in a post then it certainly isn't fair to ask the poster to stay away from your posts because of alleged personal motives.

But to get back to board standards, the Australian heat wave is undoubtedly in line with global warming. I think its appearance in the southern hemisphere at a time when the northern hemisphere took a cooling dip in temperature says something that persons who don't believe in gw don't want to hear. Even worse Melbourne snapped down to 69* as a high yesterday, 49 degrees below the 118* heat. That is also probably the sign of an energized atmosphere taking broad swings in temperature. February is the equal of August down there.

If a poster says there are facts wrong in a post then it certainly isn't fair to ask the poster to stay away from your posts because of alleged personal motives.

I've been around long enough to know that any one can allege personal motives, depending on your passion for a subject determines how blinded you are. I'm sure you understand this.

But to get back to board standards, the Australian heat wave is undoubtedly in line with global warming. I think its appearance in the southern hemisphere at a time when the northern hemisphere took a cooling dip in temperature says something that persons who don't believe in gw don't want to hear.

Interesting that you take this tact. Then why note argue that North America is entering in a little Ice Age with the extremely cold weather we've had? Intersting how you use only one piece of the puzzle to fit an agenda. As an aside, first GW'ers say more intense and frequent Hurricanes and when that doesn't bear out they make an argument that there will actually be fewer Hurricanes. Finding evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion. This isn't science my friend.

[x-y-no]

XY-No-

A good debater never brings in the YOU in a debate as you have just done and have done in the past (perfect example of my point above in that GW's attack the person and not the issue.

I beg to differ. If a participant in a debate makes an assertion, there's no sense in pretending the assertion exists in some disconnected ether. We're having a conversation here. There's no harm in directly addressing one another as long as we remain civil and obey the rules of the site.

There is no room in this forum for a legitimate debate. That has clearly been established in the past.

Established how? We've had discussions on this topic for as long as I've been around on the board and the only thing that's ever shut down is political stuff. Even there, we bend over backwards. The link above quite reasonably could have been deleted by the site rules, but it has been left there in hopes that we can carry on this discussion whilst editing out the political stuff.

So, yes, I'm relegated to providing links to FACTS because I choose not to confront someone in your position on this board who is so clearly entrenched in their position as to be blind to different view points. So, I'll leave it at this. You are entitled to your opinion as am I (some 67% of people by the way believe there is only mild to no man made GW affect). So, why the scare tactics from the GW'er's. I've tried unsuccessfully with you to discuss cyclical cooling and heating of the earth over many years but you don't want to hear it. Don't believe? Why are you constantly on top of any anti-GW debate? It is clear I can't change your mind but for the sanity of the masses I'll plug along and provide the other side of the coin to counter the mass hysteria. Unless it becomes against board rules to post articles with counter views, I would appreciate you staying off my posts as I will yours. Good day.

I'm "on top of" the issue because I've studied it with great interest for over 35 years. This forum is here for us to discuss weather and climate related issues that interest us. If I'm not to be allowed to do that simply because I have become an administrator of the site, then I'm not interested in being an administrator, moderator or anything else. It's extremely unfair to attempt to hamper my participation in the discussion by implying that I would abuse power.

I have no idea what you mean by saying I "don't want to hear it" (by the way ... notice how you used the word "you" there? Anything wrong with that? I don't think so) with regard cyclical cooling and heating of the Earth. On the contrary - that history is central to the evidence that the forcing we're introducing now will have a substantial warming effect. If we did not see such a history of wide variation in response to natural forcings we'd have far less to be worried about.

[caneman]

XY-No-

A good debater never brings in the YOU in a debate as you have just done and have done in the past (perfect example of my point above in that GW's attack the person and not the issue.

I beg to differ. If a participant in a debate makes an assertion, there's no sense in pretending the assertion exists in some disconnected ether. We're having a conversation here. There's no harm in directly addressing one another as long as we remain civil and obey the rules of the site.

There is no room in this forum for a legitimate debate. That has clearly been established in the past.

Established how? We've had discussions on this topic for as long as I've been around on the board and the only thing that's ever shut down is political stuff. Even there, we bend over backwards. The link above quite reasonably could have been deleted by the site rules, but it has been left there in hopes that we can carry on this discussion whilst editing out the political stuff.

So, yes, I'm relegated to providing links to FACTS because I choose not to confront someone in your position on this board who is so clearly entrenched in their position as to be blind to different view points. So, I'll leave it at this. You are entitled to your opinion as am I (some 67% of people by the way believe there is only mild to no man made GW affect). So, why the scare tactics from the GW'er's. I've tried unsuccessfully with you to discuss cyclical cooling and heating of the earth over many years but you don't want to hear it. Don't believe? Why are you constantly on top of any anti-GW debate? It is clear I can't change your mind but for the sanity of the masses I'll plug along and provide the other side of the coin to counter the mass hysteria. Unless it becomes against board rules to post articles with counter views, I would appreciate you staying off my posts as I will yours. Good day.

I'm "on top of" the issue because I've studied it with great interest for over 35 years. This forum is here for us to discuss weather and climate related issues that interest us. If I'm not to be allowed to do that simply because I have become an administrator of the site, then I'm not interested in being an administrator, moderator or anything else. It's extremely unfair to attempt to hamper my participation in the discussion by implying that I would abuse power.

I have no idea what you mean by saying I "don't want to hear it" (by the way ... notice how you used the word "you" there? Anything wrong with that? I don't think so) with regard cyclical cooling and heating of the Earth. On the contrary - that history is central to the evidence that the forcing we're introducing now will have a substantial warming effect. If we did not see such a history of wide variation in response to natural forcings we'd have far less to be worried about.

I'm "on top of" the issue because I've studied it with great interest for over 35 years

It's extremely unfair to attempt to hamper my participation in the discussion by implying that I would abuse power.

It isn't so much that you abuse power. Obviously, you wield power on the site and that combined with your firmly entrenched belief of GW makes debating you impossilbe.
I get this; however, that doesn't make your position on GW correct.

Lastly there is substantial evidence against man made global warming or at leat minimal and more and more scientists are coming out to say so, yet many are not due to fear. Why should they be afraid to speak their opinion? Why are their careers being threatened, why are they attacked? Ask yourself, who stands to loose significantly should lack of man made GW be exposed? Getting this right is hugely important to the worlds economies. Too much political and financial gain, I believe is skewing things.

Lastly, I respect you X-Y-No and your opinion. It would be nice if GW'ers gave equal respect and tolerance for differing view points with out the hype, fear, intimidation and absolutist thinking to get to get to the actual science. people don't respond well to 5 alarm fire, sky is falling mentallity. History is chalked full of mistakes when people respond to this mentality.