muddysmind.com

you should read something about this issue before accusing professional scientists of making things up. the melting ice that is being referred to is that covering antarctica and greenland - thousands of square miles of ice, some of it miles thick. if the greenland ice sheet alone melted completely, it would raise sea levels by 23 feet. this is not in dispute. the only question is how fast it's going to melt. lately, parts of it have been melted unexpectedly fast, which is very disturbing.

the other issue is that even if none of the ice melted, water will still expand as the earth gets warmer. it's simple physics. so even without the massive influx of water from the polar ice caps, the seas will rise. it's not a question of if new york, LA, and every other coastal city gets flooded - it's a question of when.

It's the swinging of the pendulum. The world gets warmer for a while then it cools off. It's global climate change.

Even God tells us to be good stewards of this earth and I believe we should. And although we as human beings have had a lot of impact on this earth (good and bad) it's really quite arrogant of *anyone* to say we as mankind have had *half* the impact on this earth as some scientists have claimed. We are *human* NOT GOD. And I for one will do my part in what I can to replenish what I've taken from this world BUT I *refuse* to accept responsibility for things of this world that are *naturally* changing because of the process of nature itself.

the other issue is that even if none of the ice melted, water will still expand as the earth gets warmer.

Wrong, things like water need more than .01 or even 1 degree to see any change.
Better yet who's thermometer were we using hundreds of years ago to measure the temp??

Just curious.

...And I always thought the flat earth society membership were a just a joke...

"...And I always thought the flat earth society membership were a just a joke..."

First off: Try for better sentence structure next time.

Secondly: No one ever truly believed in a flat earth. Washington Irving started that myth back in the 19th century. It's interesting. Look it up. Then get a new joke.

Im pretty sure your husband is a card carrying member. Yea I didnt proof read and forgot the S on membership and added an extra A, but im pretty sure your hubby has a card somewehre in his wallet.

The overwhelming majority of scientist belive in global warming. The idea of "global warming" is not in dispute because the earth is getting warmer.

The "debate" scientist have, is if it a natural occurence in climate change, or if its been spurred by man made co2 emissions released since the guilded age into the enviorment. A second debate is how much effect co2 emmisions have on the rate of change, if any.

That is what the global warming "debate" is about.

As the first poster said, the reason the Water levels around the world would rise, is because the ICE in question, is tens of billions of gallons landlocked on anatartica that will melt from the increase in tempature and raise water levels.

You seem to be a pretty smart woman, maybe you should council your husband since he doesnt seem to know the talking points of what the debate is about.

Your not talking about the "Liberal For Life" card I carry are you?

"Your not talking about the "Liberal For Life" card I carry are you?"

That was Almost as funny as Toothlessberger crashing into a car while not wearing a helmet.

"The idea of "global warming" is not in dispute because the earth is getting warmer. "

Why are we seeing Antartica getting cooler?

" The overwhelming majority of scientist belive in global warming"

The overwhelming majority of both the scientific and academic community are liberals. It is too crazy to rule out the possibility that would follow party lines? Is it too crazy to think that possibily they would not want to go against their peers and speak out?

I am just trying to think outside the box. If you question why we went into Iraq or question any policy decision of our Governement, then you a good American. If you question if global warming is man made, then you must be on an oil company payroll. How does that work?

That is what I call a red flag.

Here are good articles that shows that not everyone agree's global warming is man made.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

let s repeat again

no wmd in iraq
illegal war
stupid war leading to civil war and increased terrorism

evolution is a fact
darwinism is the best theory so far to explain it

the earth warming is a fact
the increase in the see level has started
there is debate wether the warming is caused by humans
there is debate wether the USA are to be blamed for the majority of the potential human effects

Other cultures are different, not inferior, so if harvard opens up to other culture, it is not teaching wrong stuff,
however if bowes to multiculturalism soup then it is teaching wrong stuff, but there s a gap between arrogant ignorance, the thing we are used to on this website and submission to backward special groups interest like christians, muslim,
feminist or gay fundamentalists

If you have not felt global warming already then not only have you no brain but also no skin. It s pretty easy to feel the global warming in most of this earth, winter starts later, temperatures are higher etc.

Temperatures might fall in the future, future is uncertain, but nothing, nothing indicates it will

more on Cwilli needs a br ain he does not know how to read

cwilli posts 2 links. Nobody forced him to post those. What do these 2 links say ?
The first say that there is global warming indeed since the sun has a very high activity right now, it tries to hide this forest through some trees like in california we had one cold event, in a small part of antartica it gets colder, but in essence it says indeed the earth is warming
BUT i have another explanation of the cause, it s not green house effect, it s solar activity.
global warming remains a fact which was the debate.

the second article is even more explicit, just the title says it all
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

you read it GLOBAL WARMING
so it s a fact get it in your damn stu pid heads.
GLobal warming is a fact, just like evolution, the debate is about the causes of the fact.

the article if you read it, which cwilli can t, goes like this
"

advertisement
"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

much LESS the article does not say, cosmic rays explain it ALL, it says they contribute to the explanation, so even people picked by cwilli who are not considered seriously in the scientific community (so far at least) do say that
1 global warming is real
2 CO2 emissions are responsible for it, even though their role in the global warming is smaller than generally perceived

for those who can read (not cwilli) here s the conclusion remarks of the article
"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specia list at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

so here we are debating if man is responsible for 90 or 10% of climate change and if climate change will be 4 degrees by end of century or 4 degrees in 400 years ...

But noone except st upid people denies that the earth is warming, ice is melting, the see level is rising, we re just discussing the causes of the rises, and the pace of future rises.

sea level rise for dum mies, just GOOGLE IT stu pid ...
gee

Sea level rise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 8 inches per century (2 mm/year).
Changes in sea level since the end of the last glacial episodeSea level rise is an increase in sea level. Multiple complex factors may influence such changes.

Sea level has risen around 130 metres (400 feet) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr. Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr;[1] since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2]

Sea level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm, and melting of ice over land. Global warming is predicted to cause significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century.

YOU READ IT ?
Sea level HAS risen. It s a FACT, a past fact.
Discuss the cause. Discuss the future rate of the rise. Tell us that in the future it will fall. Whatever. BUt stop saying stu pid things about things that have happened and are facts of life.

By the way christians indeed tolerated the idea that the earth was round since some greeks had proven it, but they would not tolerate that the earth would turn around the sun and not be the center of God s creation. try denying that and I ll direct you to Galileo s trial.

some hundred years later there are still people believing that god made a so called adam out of mud just because it s written in some books that some morons told them was almost written by God ... Gee. Well you can t help it if some people were brain washed in infancy, but that s why it so important to keep religion out of school.

First off, you can always find the idiot in the crowd. He will be the one calling everyone else an idiot.

Secondly I am glad that you read the articles, kudos. Next time instead of reading the words, why don’t your read the meaning? It says that the fact that the earth is getting warmer is because of a cyclic pattern. This has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Then why do you call this Global Warming? If it’s a cycle than we would be just as accurate to call it Global Cooling, or even Global right in the middle for a while. Why Global Warming?

The term Global Warming indicates that it will only get hotter and there is no cyclic pattern. To be more accurate, the term ‘Global Warming’ is a left wing catch phrase to scare the living hell out of everyone because that’s what the left does. Then they get the left wing media to stifle anyone who disagrees with them. Another part of the articles you apparently didn’t catch. I call this the Freedom of Speech cause. Cause if you disagree, then you get no Freedom of Speech.

The debate is not if it is getting hotter, the debate is if this is natural and cyclic or if it will just continue to get hotter. I.E There IS a debate on Global Warming.

So let’s do this again: Global Warming in a myth. We are in the higher cycle of a pattern that will eventually swing back the other way.

If you absolutely must believe that this is man made, then chew on this. Who is to say that, since it is getting hotter because the co2 cannot escape our atmosphere, we did not cause this ourselves when we fixed the ozone layer problem? Remember that? Maybe the hole in the ozone layer was what was suppose to allow the co2 out? Oh that is too simple to be the case. Besides, the media would never ignore an alternative theory.

Man messes with things he does not understand and then cannot understand the consequences. I wonder what consequences changes we are about to make will have?

On a side note, I would still much rather be the worst non-religious school system in American than ANY school system in France.

cwilli get a brain.
THe article says the phenomenon is PARTLY cyclical.
It is cyclical if it is caused by solar activity, but even in the articles you yourself cherry picked the authors reckon that solar activity alone does not explain recent global warming and that there is an impact of the higher CO2 rates.

So let s get it in your stupid head, even the most appaling scientist financed by the oil industry do not dare say that cyclical solar activity explains 100% of the recent global warming. There is no debate on global warming, so cwilli you need to acquire reading skills and some logic on top of it.

By the way french students beat US students on most scores and the french school system does not teach the bogus creationist stuff.
ht tp://fdep.ch/Documents/OFS_120906.pdf
in french but you should be able to spot the USA down down close to mexico.

geee it s amazing to see how cwilli even when the evidence is in front of his eyes, evidence that HE gathered can not see it. pathetic

So let’s do this again: Global Warming in a myth. We are in the higher cycle of a pattern that will eventually swing back the other way.

DF, your a moron. Nothing in your rant about how stupid I am were you able to debate my statement. Again some scientist believe that Climate change is man made (and therefore not cyclic) and some scientist believe that its cyclic.

HOW IS THIS NOT A DEBATE?

Your own statement would indicate that not everyone agree:
"even the most appaling scientist financed by the oil industry do not dare say that cyclical solar activity explains 100% of the recent global warming"
But the left wing ones dont believe its cyclic solar activity at all.

HOW IS THIS NOT A DEBATE?

Again your stupidity blinds you and you want to sing praises about your education system?

Our schools may be bad, but I still would still rather take the worst education in America than any in France. Because it does not matter how smart you are, you still live in a toilet. At least we have jobs and are not being slowly taken over by Muslims. Hell even our illegal aliens are able to find jobs. Your society is filled with lazy people who only want to work 30 hours a week and get 4 weeks of vacation.

BTW nice article that you cherry picked.

Speak Arab yet, DF? Better go back to school, your gonna need it. Because when the Arabs rise up and take over, well we all know what the French will do. SURRENDER!!!

cwili learn to read.
some scientist believe that the recent global warming is 80% man made and bound to increase constantly another one believes that man made emissions only explain 20 % of the present global warming the rest being cyclical solar emissions.

1 this in no way discard the FACT that there HAS BEEN global warming.
2 there is NO debate on the theory that gas emmissions (CO2 SO4 methane) increase global warming.

3 there is a debate as to how much of the recent global warming is caused by gaz emissions, how much by cyclical solar emissions or other factors.
If say 80% is explained by solar activity (there s no assessment of the size in the article) then indeed global warming may recess, that is 80% of it will go away and then the warming will go on with the higher emissions.

So to make it clear. Global warming is real. A robust theory shows that it is at least partly caused by gas emissions.
A few scientists (so far) believe it is also partly caused by cycles in solar activity.
End of story.

Lol just visited NY city the other day, spent time at ground zero by the way, hard not to cry, well the WASP are a minority there, about 35% with lots of asians and latinos, and i ve seen written stuff in spanish or chinese everywhere.

So who is taken over by whom and who is surrendering ? is it US troops bound to leave the iraki country in a complete mess with a 1 million death toll ?
Nah I know you don t trust the lancet estimate. Feel happy with the conservative 60 000 ?
Gee you must be so proud of having invaded iraq and brought civil war to those iraqi civilians.

DF, You said:
There is no debate on global warming, so cwilli you need to acquire reading skills and some logic on top of it

then you said:
some scientist believe that the recent global warming is 80% man made and bound to increase constantly another one believes that man made emissions only explain 20 % of the present global warming the rest being cyclical solar emissions.

I said:
The debate is not if it is getting hotter, the debate is if this is natural and cyclic or if it will just continue to get hotter. I.E There IS a debate on Global Warming.

WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. The only difference is that your too hard headed to understand that the question 'is it man made or not' IS the debate. Nobody is debating that is getting warmer.

So if we are saying the exact same thing, but you cant grasp that one fact, and you say that I cant read, I cant learn and I am stupid, what does that make you?

I guess that would make your more stupid.

not so easy cwili.
Now you admit that it s getting warmer ?

May I remind you muddy's post that lead the thread ?
"get a real kick from all the alarmists out there including this new group of pseudo-scientists that want to blame the pretend impending devastation called 'global warming' on the United States.
I'm assuming they are not real scientists since they are claiming that ocean levels will rise. Now any child in school science class can tell you that is total B.S.
Ice in the oceans melting will do nothing, just as ice melting in your glass does not create anything new."
It describes global warming as something impending, when it is something that has been happening for long already. It says see level will not rise when they have already started to rise, and by the way gives a lousy explanation as to why they will not rise.

You yourself wrote in response to mooseboy
""The idea of "global warming" is not in dispute because the earth is getting warmer. "

Why are we seeing Antartica getting cooler?"

Now you admit that the world has turned warmer fine.
But you keep on saying that there is a debate on wether "'is it man made or not". Well reread the articles again. THere is no debate that global warming is partly man made.
THe solar cycle theory proponents have made no claim so far as to what percentage of the global warming is explained by those solar cycles.
One thing is certain however no single one of them and at least not those in the article you posted has said that global warming is not man made.
THey have only said there is another explaining factor.

Can you understand the difference between something we thought big may be smaller and something we thought big in fact does not exist ?

If you understand that then you can start to admit that there is global warming, there is clear proof that part of it is man made, so far the scientific community believes that it is mostly man made and will continue therefore in a quasi linear manner in the century coming, a few of them however believe in another explation. If they are true, then we might face a global cooling short period even though human caused global warming will continue to affect us in the longer term, so we would just buy some time.
see that s an objective way to put it.

No one debates that global warming is parly man made and there found bound to continue, there is just a debate launched so far by a few theorists as to wether it could be caused by cyclical solar patterns.

ANyway we should be fixed pretty soon as the cyclical theory implies that the cycle will reverse soon.

I have always said that it is getting warmer. I am arguing if what you call 'Global Warming' is real or not.

To repeat my explaination earlier:
The term Global Warming indicates that it will only get hotter and there is no cyclic pattern. To be more accurate, the term ‘Global Warming’ is a left wing catch phrase to scare the living hell out of everyone because that’s what the left does. Then they get the left wing media to stifle anyone who disagrees with them. Another part of the articles you apparently didn’t catch. I call this the Freedom of Speech cause. Cause if you disagree, then you get no Freedom of Speech.

So it is getting warmer? Yes. It is because of humans? I doubt it. Therefore there is a debate on Global Warming and the fact that you cant seperate the two idea's of Global Warming (the scare tactic term) and Climate Change (the fact that things are getting hotter here) shows what side of the argument you are on.

Just like the dooming ice age that was suppost to kill us all in the 70's. You will laugh at this in another 30 years. Or maybe instead you will be afraid of whatever bullshit they will be feeding you then.

I have always said that it is getting warmer. I am arguing if what you call 'Global Warming' is real or not.

To repeat my explaination earlier:
The term Global Warming indicates that it will only get hotter and there is no cyclic pattern. To be more accurate, the term ‘Global Warming’ is a left wing catch phrase to scare the living hell out of everyone because that’s what the left does. Then they get the left wing media to stifle anyone who disagrees with them. Another part of the articles you apparently didn’t catch. I call this the Freedom of Speech cause. Cause if you disagree, then you get no Freedom of Speech.

So it is getting warmer? Yes. It is because of humans? I doubt it. Therefore there is a debate on Global Warming and the fact that you cant seperate the two idea's of Global Warming (the scare tactic term) and Climate Change (the fact that things are getting hotter here) shows what side of the argument you are on.

Just like the dooming ice age that was suppost to kill us all in the 70's. You will laugh at this in another 30 years.

again the articles you post do not dismiss man made global warming. THe researchers only say that they have an explanation that minors the impact of man made activity on global warming. They do not deny that this activity has an impact. They only say this impact is lower. How much lower ? Well this is not said in the articles. I think it says "much" lower.

You can choose to trust those researchers if you like but do not say that they are saying something else than what they are. That s called distortion following an agenda.

You can not doubt that the earth is getting warming because of humans. No scientific resarcher doubts this at least. So if you doubt it is because of some religious belief. You can believe that the main cause of the present global warming is solar cycles. Fine. You can advocate more diversity in resarch funding. Ok. But you know the oil industry and right seem more likely to bias the debate as the left. Who owns an oil and car industry and wants to avoid any regulation ?

'again the articles you post do not dismiss man made global warming'

They DO challenge current believe that it is man made and allow readers to make a more EDUCATED opinion of global warming that you WILL NEVER get from the current media's blend of biased truth.

'You can not doubt that the earth is getting warming because of humans"

Yes I can. In fact that is exaclty what the articles I gave you do, they shed light on the fact that the left may have it all wrong, again. The title of the first article say's it all;
"An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged"

And you said I cant read? Its say that orthodoxy on climate change must be challenged.

DF, you have sold yourself on a notion that global warming is 100% man made. Any argument to the contrary, educated or otherwise, is wasted on you because you have made up your mind. This is mostly because you believe in the media and the scientific community, both who happen share your political viewpoint and agenda. I however do not share this viewpoint and I am always very sceptical of anything that both the media AND the scientifical academic commnunity tries to sell me. They have reasons for wanting to keep me scared just the same as the oil companies have reasons for wanting me to keep buying oil.

Do you only look in one direction when you cross the street? I bet that direction would be left.

So lets drop the bulls*it and get to the point; there is a very real debate if climate change is made made or not. The articles I showed you do not prove one way or the other, they indicate that we may not be seeing the whole picture and should challenge the currently held beliefs.

Wow, challenge the currently held beliefs. I figured that you would be all for challenging the establishment. Isnt that what the left is known for?

you have no objectivity at all man,
THe thing is they say solar cycle only explain PART of global warming with the other part being MAN MADE.

THe articles do not cast doubt on the fact that global warming is man made, they question how much of present gobal warming is man made. THe title of the article is not representing the content of the article because as usual the journalist wants to attract the eye and dumb reader.

ENd of story.
If you want evaluation of the size of each you can look on wikipedia, and you ll see the SUn explains no more than 25% whatever the model.
you ll also see that the sun activity is down since 1980.

It s ok that there is a challenge of the dominant view on global warming. I heard of it in France too. Nothing hidden there. It s just so far the minority view. If it provides proof it ll become the dominant one and will run the media. No conspiration here.

you have no objectivity at all man,
THe thing is they say solar cycle only explain PART of global warming with the other part being MAN MADE.

THe articles do not cast doubt on the fact that global warming is man made, they question how much of present gobal warming is man made. THe title of the article is not representing the content of the article because as usual the journalist wants to attract the eye and dumb reader.

ENd of story.
If you want evaluation of the size of each you can look on wikipedia, and you ll see the SUn explains no more than 25% whatever the model.
you ll also see that the sun activity is down since 1980.

It s ok that there is a challenge of the dominant view on global warming. I heard of it in France too. Nothing hidden there. It s just so far the minority view. If it provides proof it ll become the dominant one and will run the media. No conspiration here.

End of story is correct. You said that there is no debate on global warming and now you are agreeing that the article indicates there is and there are people in France who challenge the dominant view on it.

As I said before, In 30 years we will all remember global warming the same as we did when they called for an ice age in the 70's.