Some Earth based regional warming + Some Other Planets’ Regional warming = Solar system planets regional warming.

Reduxing the reason for the regional warming to the Sun fails to take into consideration the circuit that the Sun is on and its ‘environmental’ effects on Sun and planets. If wide spread planetary warming is exhibited, you can not ridicule the observed and recorded data in order to promote an agenda.

Given the scientific evidence for many ice ages of some duration that yielded cooling off periods of increased temperatures (or we would be popscicles), and given the lack of reliable temperature information over the last hundred or so recorded years of temperature data, why hasn’t this culminated in producing more models to show us where we are in the ‘naturally occuring’ current ice age/global warming state.

Also, if these periodicities are natural and reoccuring, why are they not considered expected? If the oceans and seas have been distributed all over the planet due to climate changes (ergo trilobites in the Sahara), why are we questioning the ‘ongoingness’ of such.

Of course there is no excuse to pollute air to ‘China’ or ‘California’ smog levels nor is there any reason to promote water pollution. However, I question the ‘I blink, ergo I dam’ professorial mentality of many GW promoters who may just be in the current ‘publish and don’t perrish’ GW craze.

Also, I don’t like the politics associated with the ‘all or nothing’ perspective of GW promoters. Sociologically, I view this as an emerging class in society that is filling the vacuum created by a declining clergy. They are significantly more preachy and ten times more boring.

And lastly, computer modeling is responsible for the current economic melt down as derrivitives were applied to non market based asset models which were ’scientifically/mathmatically’ programmed to value all real estate markets as being equal. Huge model data distortions………..big mistake !

Deb-o-rah !

To me the greatest proof that the AGW crowd is on the wrong side is that they use terms like Deniers and Flat-Earthers. Using terms like this is COMPLETELY unscientific and unreasonable. We are talking about computer modeling here and sorry, its not a hard science. RIght?

I enjoyed the first post by Lou Grinzo, and I agree completely. There’s no shortage to the bumper crop of idiots ready to expose their stupidity for the entire world to see. “If it means we have to save these people from their own warped beliefs, so be it.”

To that point, may I politely ask why your educated, informed opinion better actual research published by real live physicists and climatologists?

Oh yeah. Because you know we can just dismiss all that scientific study nonsense. Why? Because we’re enlightened enough to know the truth without having to rely upon any actual science. Everybody knows any real scientist worth his salt is absolutely convinced of anthropogenic global warming. You’d have to be a wingnut “denier” to be skeptical of mankind’s actual contribution, or to even consider other theories. No politics there.

The only answer you have is “vast right-wing conspiracy disinformation campaign,” and some talking points from the clowns the totally discredited RealClimate.org. Do you realize how silly that makes you you look?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery070707.htm
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
http://www.livescience.com/ environment/ 050930_sun_effect.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=/ news/ 2004/ 07/ 18/ wsun18.xml

To begin with, whether there is or isn’t global warming and whether man is causing it or not, has not been proved one way or the other. The simple fact that glaciers are melting is not proof – glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. While co2 is a greenhouse gas, concentrations have been as high as 2000 parts per million in the past with no help from man. Still we should begin to reduce our emissions for a much more important reason – too much c02 in the ocean can change its acidity and adversely affect marine life.

The truth is we understand very little about climate and before we start making massive changes, we better be sure that what we do to correct the problem doesn’t cause more damage than what we’ve got already. History is littered with examples of envirmentalists making drastic changes that caused worse problems.

And please stop with the “denier” comments. I learned a long time ago that when people start calling names, that means they’re losing the argument.

Ah yes, because of their smashing success with challenger.

Go with throttle up dude

On the contrary, other locations will have almost no water available, causing draughts and devastation. Global Warming can, in fact, cause cooler periods in some areas. As glaciers and ice-bergs melt, massive amounts of cool freshwater are released into the main Gulf Stream, which usually acts as a conveyor belt, providing temperate areas with warm water. Cold water, in this stream, could cause many regions to cool down, and even freeze. This cooling will not cancel each other with global warming because of its uneven distribution. The details, facts, and examples, which would be too numerous to mention here, can be found here http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ special_report/ 1998/ 10/ 98/ global_warming/ 202408.stm
and from numerous other official sources.

Even the weather had grown milder, and the wolves that hand once come ravening out of the North in bitter white winters were now only a grandfather’s tale.

(Prologue to The Fellowship Of The Ring)
Hear that? Global warming in Middle-Earth.
Now, you don’t see Gandalf tooting about in an old Ford, or Frodo humming along in a shiny new SUV, do you?