A group of scientist and engineering buddies of mine would agrue for hours, so we decided to do some research, and we did. What we found was several fold:

1. The concept of Global warming was started in the UK to support nuclear power.

2. The oceans act as a huge sink and source for CO2, and equalibrium due to temperature changes takes centuries, if not thousands of years, the time scale for the evidence supporting GW is skewed. There is a huge lag time. The data is thus inconclusive.

3. The earth goes thru natural cycles.

4. One large volcanic eruption equals many, many years of human pollution.

5. 125 years ago the amount of CO2 was about 3 parts/10,000, today it is about 4 parts/10,000. Imaging 10,000 golf balls, and compare that to 3 and 4 golf balls. Common sense would dictate going from 3 to 4 in 10,000 is not going to have a large effect.

6. CO2 concentration is approx. .04% in air.

7. Water vapour accounts for most of the “green house” effects.

8. Always question those that want what you have, it is probably a scam.

Frank Sabatino
Engineer

[JR: Hmm, Frank, given that you have most things backwards, I'm guessing you and your friends are reverse engineers! Sometimes I kill me ... and sometimes willful anti-scientific ignorance will kill millions. You have just rehashed most of the standard denier talking points that have been long debunked in the scientific literature. You want what I have -- a sustainable climate, so I guess you are a scam, too. "Common sense" is notoriously unreliable as a guide for medical or scientific reasoning. Stick to golf, and let real scientists and engineers do the real science and engineering.

Oh, and if you really believe the crap you're peddling, and if you're really part of an easily duped group of scientists and engineers, spend some time here. You'll at least stop pushing stuff that wouldn't get past an undergraduate physics major.]

This is a web site for people begging to be enslaved, these are not liberal or progressive ideas, these are ideas of childlike fools that want a mommy and daddy govenment to take care of them from cradle to death.

Of course, you will filter this e-mail, because like all collectives, there is an agenda, and if one is not part of the collective – they are an outsider, or worse the enemy.

Frank Sabatino

[JR: If you keep spreading disinformation, I will put you on moderation. Assuming that you actually have three engineering degrees, it just goes to show you that it isn't that hard to get engineering degrees in this country. In any case, engineering ain't science, and there are reasons that scientists do science stuff and engineers do engineers stuff.]

I am going to pretend you are joking.

What you say sounds like a script for Eric Cartman on South Park.

South Park already pointed out hypocricy of green self righteousness, but that should not discourage good faith attempts at green rightness.

“People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy a…”

so there is still debate out there about whats happening with the temp – which is sad.

As we move forward more and more skeptics will see the issue but it will probably be too late.

Especially because we have to find a way forward to cope with the catastrophe that lies ahead.

Nice straw man, but there has been global cooling and global warming for the entire history of the earth. So what? No one disagrees that we have been warming, at least until 11 years ago. The source of disagreement is how much is due to mankind and how much is natural.

But tell me something. So far I have seen about 100 posts on this site that really say nothing more than that anyone who opposes the idea of AGW is an idiot. Is that all that you really need – continous mutual self assurance that you are the brilliant ones and the other guys are morons. I’m sure that it feels good. But doesn’t it get incredibly boring after a while.

We’ll pretend that you are correct. The question is – so what’s the problem?

“We cloaked that in semi-religious nonsense under the heading of “manifest destiny” which helped us pretend we were not murderous jerks.”

Yeah, terrible of us to get in the way of the indiginous tribes murdering each other.

So I’m wondering what country on the face of the earth was not established by someone murdering someone. Oops – I shouldn’t ask those questions. Getting people to wallow in guilt is one of the sources of your power, after all.

“After reading that it is hard to imagine how anyone could seriously hold to American self righteousness.”

Yes, you are much more advanced now, having moved on to green self righteousness.

The obvious example is the oil depletion allowance of 1924 which set off a wave of “whoopee opportunism” which we liked to pretend was capitalism.

Other examples, going back a bit longer, include the rather popular government policies that made free land available. We cloaked that in semi-religious nonsense under the heading of “manifest destiny” which helped us pretend we were not murderous jerks. I always recommend the Bret Harte story, “Princess Bob and her Friends” when this topic comes up. After reading that it is hard to imagine how anyone could seriously hold to American self righteousness.

Based on realism, we can move ahead with practical objectives based on the idea that we are all in this together, and the economic system has to be workable for everyone.

It’s not easy to explain this properly in a few lines, but this I think is the real basis for all those anti-modern green prejudices.

They hated all the factories and cars long before global warming came along. The importance of global warming is it linked what otherwise would a have been a disparate bunch of prejudices and gave them some moral impetus.

So you can say that scientists profit from global warming (grants etc), but that’s the icing on the cake.

You can easily tell that global warming is really a political idea rather than a scientific one. In any gathering in polite society you can tell who will be ‘pro-global warming’ and who will be sceptical, in the same way as you can guess who will hate George Bush, or who will be sympathetic to Sarah Palin.

Go into a party of lefties in New York and tell them the science on global warming doesn’t stack up. They don’t say, ‘Good Lord, what a relief, I thought we were in for it.’ Instead they get very cross with you. They’re terribly attached to their apocalypse and don’t take kindly to people rocking the boat. ”

Of course limiting themselves to the support of capitalism in the very limited area of what they consider to be green energy is not at all support of capitalism. It’s simply a case of taking a little of it under their wing on the pretense of being open minded and not being total nut cases. They also know that nobody wound buy their “do without energy” stance. If environmentalists were truely concerned about CO2 they would embrace nuclear since they would meet no resistance to this from the right. The fact that they continue to find idiotic rationalizations against nuclear is prove that their agenda is political.