If anyone really wants to see the number one global warming denier out of the Senate, there's something you can do. Andrew Rice is James Inhofe's Democratic opponent. He's a genuine progressive, a very intelligent, imaginative and honest young guy, with a compelling biography. He's been an effective and progressive State Senator. He can beat Inhofe. Inhofe's disapproval ratings among Oklahoma voters are sky-high. But his oil company enriched war chest is huge. Andrew Rice desperately needs money to buy TV time. He's running a grassroots/netroots campaign a la Obama. Put your money where your principles are. (btw I have nothing to do with the Rice campaign- I don't even live in Oklahoma). see:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "This bill will attack citizens at the pump" and "increase job losses."

Well, duh! It's the high price of gasoline that's the cause of the "attack (on the) citizens at the pump" and cause of "increase(d) job losses."

These people will say and do anything for their good buddies in the oil industry, including possibly screwing up the life support system of our only planet. Don't they care about their children and grandchildren? Do they even consider that they could be wrong and the terrible consequences if they are?

It goes on and on and on...

whenever someone sounds the alarm bell of global warming being on the verge of melting our planet away from existence, they always follow that scary proposition by proposing a series of measures that put our country on the path toward Socialism. Forcing change through centralized government regulation and power is just the price we will have to pay to save the planet. That's what this is all about isn't it. This has a lot less to do with global warming than with the structure of American society.

It isn't so much the spector of global warming that you are afraid of, but rather the capitalistic system that has made our country survive. That's why anyone that resists the religion known as global warming is anti scientist and they are playing the survival of the planet. Dare anyone not believe in global warming and furthermore believe that we should use market forces to combat environmental issues, then they also wouldn't change our society into a Socialistic one.

So, this is what is really going on with global warming. It isn't about our planet but about American society. You don't like free markets and capitalism and so to change that you sound the alarm bells of global warming, and then turn around and propose new regulations, controls, and mandates. How convenient. I wrote about folks like you here...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/04/moving-beyond-global-warming-debate.html

Oops, I fogot to paste the web address for the Andrew Rice campaign in my previous post. Here it is: http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com/

Well, lets put it this way:

America is a highly Christian country right? Well, what is the first commandment? The one that came before the Noahide laws?

"Go forth and multiply."

Before we can deal with population growth, we need to deal with the big elephant in the room - people who take their religion more seriously than they do the evidence.

Because until we deal with that problem, there isn't going to be any forward momentum on anything else.

wrote:The last few years have been startling. The North Pole was not supposed to be ice free in the summer until sometime in the 22nd century. It now appears it could be ice free by about 2023.

Global warming is happening, no doubt about it. But how much is caused by man (anthropogenic) and how much is from other causes? Temperature records alone do not answer the question; the fluctuation is generally significant without man. Climate modeling is necessary in order to determine the causes, and it is clear that anthropogenic causes are significant. If you are going to die in a flood should you care about the cause? Yes, if it is anthropogenic, we have a better chance of fixing it by modifying our behavior.

traumatic: "Scientists do not have much of a consensus at all on the many possible outcomes of global warming."

Climate scientists have the following consensus:

There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate... Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

traumatic: "Do you think it is going to be "catastrophic" in the next 100 years?"

If the global warming threat is not addressed I think massive damage - economic, health, and property - can would likely would be incurred. And beyond 100 years that damage becomes both more likely and more devastating.

traumatic: "Predicting anything of this sort is called "conjecture." Look it up."

You say that as if it were a bad thing - all scientific predictions are based on "conjecture." Look it up.

traumatic: ""Never before in recorded history has the rate of climate change been as fast as it has been in recent decades, and the increase in the rate of climate change is both predicted and explained by fossil fuel burning." You base this on what recorded history?"

The scientific data, of which there is a lot of. Since you pass yourself off as literate in climate science here then you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

traumatic: "Are we talking about the thermometer hanging out on the barn we ordered from Montgomery Ward? Or the thermometer a weatherman in Boston ordered from Montgomery Ward? Are we talking about tree rings or tea leaves?"

We are talking about many different things, including for example direct measurements from thermometers and indirect measurements from CO2 concentrations in ice. But you knew that, right?

traumatic: "What would you say the relation is in the present time to when every individual in the civilized world heated everything they had to heat with a fire? Which, for hundreds of years, consisted of burning a LOT of coal? Would you say the Earth is cleaner now than it was then? Seriously, do you?"

That depends on where you are talking about as well as what pollutants you are talking about, of course.

traumatic: "Do you think the air we breathe and the water we swim in is dirtier than it was in the 1960's?"

Again that depends on where you are talking about, as well as what pollutants you are talking about.

If we are talking about what's relevant to global warming - greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - then of course there are more pollutants today than then.

traumatic: "Do you honestly think we're facing a global warming catastrophe that will make the world of our grandchildren unlivable?"

"Unlivable" for our grandchildren? No, but that's a straw man: no reputable climate scientist is even suggesting as much, and I'm not either.

traumatic: "Do you honestly think that a planet that has been bombarded by untold numbers of huge asteroids, been subjected to countless warming and cooling events that were strong enough to change the very geology of the planet is going to be destroyed (Save the Planet!) by a tenth of a percent increase in CO2?"

Another "of course not" straw man.

traumatic: "Do you honestly think that a species that rose out of the Ice Age (Hey, that was a major thing when all you had to keep you warm was bear skins and rubbing two sticks together.) BETTER than it was when it went into it is going to die out because of any of this?"

Another "of course not" straw man.

traumatic: "Mankind has written about evolution which not even men in biblical times ever saw, and yet some of us believe in it."

Those of us who beleive in the scientific method and have faith in the scientific consensus with respect to the theory of evolution, yes. And your point here is what... exactly?

traumatic: "We make a big deal about sedimentary strata and the fossils they contain. We date these fossils from the strata they're found in. For instance, Cambrian. Did you know that we also date the strata from the fossils they contain? We date a strata to Cambrian times because it contains Cambrian fossils and we date the fossils as Cambrian because they were found in a Cambrian strata. Amazing, isn't it? I'm not making it up. :) My specialty is paleogeology. You brought up "Straw man" and now I've brought up "Circular reasoning." It would seem we really don't know how old the damned things are but we pretend we do and people, of course, believe it."

Are you really trying to suggest here that science is ultimately nothing but circular reasoning, and does not have consensus opinions that one can or should beleive in traumatic?

And if not: then what, exactly, is your point here?