Comments on: Here’s what we know so far: CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us! The NY Times blows the story.

By: lefty

lefty — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:37:50 +0000

To kastanj—

Grow up. Everything is POLITICAL.

By: populist

populist — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:27:54 +0000

http://www.breadwithcircus.com/#120209

Found this podcast, its about how the “truth” movement is being used as the vanguard of the denial camp

By: thethinkingman

thethinkingman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:57:27 +0000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 8355837.stm

By: Mugsy

Mugsy — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:21:18 +0000

Sorry Brett, leaving the GOP Talking Points at home. I’m old enough to remember when they were talking about “the next ice age”.

The flaw in the GOP argument there is that it was VERY early in the recognition of the roll pollution was playing with our climate. Scientists at the time recognized THE SAME fact that pollution would affect our climate, but they drew the opposite conclusion. They thought that more pollution in the atmosphere would “block the sun and cause cooling”.

The reality turned out to be that the growing pollution was trapping the heat in and causing the Earth to warm.

The conclusion they drew was wrong, but the evidence they based it upon is EXACTLY THE SAME today… the growing increase of pollution in the upper atmosphere is causing climate change.

By: brett

brett — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:06:46 +0000

mugsy – your facts might be correct about the trees but the truth is that a few trees 100 ft lower didn’t show the growth and none of that matters in regards to what the sun is doing. and i am sure you agree that the sun controls the temperature of earth… remember in the 70’s when the elite scientists declared we were going into an ice age… don’t buy the snake oil.

By: 'Tis true

'Tis true — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:26:45 +0000

SayItIsnotTrue truly does have his/her head stuck in the sand up to his/her a………. Referencing an article on Wikipedia is like asking Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to speak the truth. It just ain’t gonna happen and you’ll just be fed more lies. Read the e-mails from East Anglia and accept the fact that the Al Gore crowd are trying to profit off a conspiracy theory. We can continue to monitor and prevent pollution without being taxed and putting money in the pockets of the global warming tribe.

By: SayItIsnotTrue

SayItIsnotTrue — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:07:39 +0000

Don’t know what it would take to explain to an idiot, what Global warming is.
But they certainly have their head stuck in the sand up to their a………. Not to see what is happening right in front of their eyes…

They sound like the people which believe that the landing on the moon was just a movie that someone created..

When we no longer have water to drink , air to breathe , food to eat and land to live on these same deniers will still say it is not happening.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

By: Mugsy

Mugsy — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:33:17 +0000

The subject of “the Divergence Problem” made me uncomfortable, mostly due to the lack of a clear explaination as to what it is and why it can (and should) be ignored.

I did a “tiny” bit of research, and I *think* I have a simple short answer, but someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

“The Divergence Problem” refers to a study of tree rings to calculate climate over particular years. And from what I can tell, there are two sources of historical data that fairly match going back as far as 1500BC, but begin to differ after 1960.

The explanation appears to be that the suspect study lacks sufficient data to draw the conclusions it does and therefore is unreliable and can/should be ignored.

The difference between these two studies is “the Divergence Problem”. Do I have that right?

By: J

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:37:47 +0000

Wow, global warming hysterics are funny. Anyone with a brain could’ve told you for decades that man’s influence on global temperatures is incredibly minute compared to solar activity. Even a simple understanding of entropy renders most over-the-top projections of global warming moot, but let’s not let science get in the way of religion, shall we?

By: David Joyce MD

David Joyce MD — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:56:02 +0000

It is clear that global warming theory is a religion that requires faith. If need be data must and should be perverted to promote the religion. Never let truth or a legitimate use of the scientific method stand in the way of promulgation of your faith. Just leave my money out of it.