Let's hear it for the echo chamber.

I have long believed that those who already have a philosophical hatred of the automobile or our Western way of life in general, have a strong emotional vested interest in the idea that the world is coming to an end because of man-made CO2 or whatever.

Saying that 67% of Americans believe that our way of life is contributing to or causing global warming, is no more helpful than saying that 80 or 90 percent of the residents of Salem believed witches were causing all kinds of illnesses in children back in 1692.

We need strong laws at both federal and state levels to crack down on anybody who shouts down, assaults, or intimidates speakers on college campuses who seek to present views contrary to the politically correct party line. If we can assure freedom of speech at our universities for all, maybe then we will have a better idea of whether man-made emissions are causing weather fluctuations, or whether global warming theories are the modern day equivalent of 1692-era witchcraft hysteria.

Interesting scorecard on mass media control. What is not measured is the influence of global adventurism (oil wars), national security, artificial pricing (food and fuel) and general ecological awareness. These externalities have great if somewhat hidden influence on human perception.

If the proposition of global warming turns out to have been something of a "hoax" - will Al Gore give back his Academy Award?? (let him keep the Nobel)

Eventually, GHG warming may happen. And when it does, many will look back at the "boy who cried wolf" and fail to act in time. It's quite possible that they would fail to act anyway. But having been fooled once makes it much more certain... they won't get fooled again. The boy who cried wolf indeed. Only we'll all get munched this time.

Thank you algore. Thank you very very much.

"We need strong laws at both federal and state levels to crack down on anybody who shouts down, assaults, or intimidates speakers on college campuses who seek to present views contrary to the politically correct party line."

Amen Alex. Amen. We must follow the facts if we ever expect to find the truth. The problem today is people with canned PC dogma have stopped looking, and worse, are shouting down those who are still actively searching.

We need to find the truth. Right now, where my home is it is sunny and 70F outside; flowers are blooming. During the last Major Ice Age the ice was over 2 miles thick! Something rather major has changed, let's find out what.

The best defense is ignorance. De Nile is just a river in Egypt. Who needs to know more?

The Harris Poll missed asking
~ "How many people in other countries do you think blame Americans for contributing to global problems?" ... non, some, most of them, all of them.

you guys are funny... lol.. :)

Its amazing how 1/3 of the American people, and a number of educated people active on this site deny a role for human activities in global warming, when about 99.9% of the scientists in the world are more or less convinced at a >90% confidence level. Those of you that buy fire and other forms of insurance, are unlikely to ever file a claim in your lifetime, but nevertheless pony up the sizable premiums to protect your families and financial security.

Its amazing how the same people cannot imagine spending a few percentages of their income to mitigate the risk (not certainty) of climate change, even if the probability of catastrophic cost to their children and future generations is higher than a fire engulfing the roof over their heads. Maybe these folks would not even buy fire insurance unless they were forced to by their lenders.

It is also startling how ignorant people are about the history of our planet,and the known episodes of extreme climate change driving 95% of the species to extinction, and spreading tropical conditions to the poles.

Future generations will probably laugh and curse simultaneously while reading the archives of this website.

While we're busy outlawing people that shout down those who disagree with the basic science of gw theory, lets outlaw taking money from large ghg emitters to shout FUD to anyone who'll listen.

There is no scientific doubt that GHGs moderate the climate. There are a lot of other things as well that alter the climate. The primary and by far the largest and most obvious changer of the climate is the heat and light and other effects of the Sun.

That is the basic scientific truth.

The second scientific truth is that no one has calibrated the effects very accurately. In other words "how much" warmer or colder. It isn't Science until you can measure it; and it is damn difficult to measure that accurately, or to determine a very tiny rate of change + or-. That is the crux of the problem. Whatever is happening, is happening very slowly, either way, and not very clearly.

It is not clear where or why the CO2 trace gas seems to be rising in the atmosphere. It may turn ou tot be a simple out gassing. Mankind's contribution is only a very tiny amount of the annual CO2 flux, from land, to air, to sea, to air, to land and back et cetera.

We used to be sure how long CO2 stayed in the atmosphere, 5.7 years, per Henry's law; but the AGWers even proposed that we don't know that, and some AGW scientists suggest 50 years, some suggest 100 years, others suggest 300 years. They can't even agree among themselves. But they all agree if it is only 5.7 years, than GW due to GHG and then due perhaps then to Man, is insignificant, CO2 residency of 5.7 years.

Then the CO2 effect is between .5 and closer to .05 degrees per century. Instead of worrying about what might happen in a decade, we would need to worry in millennial periods. Periods equivalent to the time between now and the building of the Great Pyramids in the past.

For lots of reasons, Mankind does things differently then it did in Pharaoh's time. Presumably we won't be relying on Oil for cars in 3000-5000 years. Will there even be cars or Oil?

Even the IPCC has said we are fed up. We are going back to 5.7 years on our next reports, as all the experiments repeatedly suggest and confirm. Unless the AGW scientists can get their act together, and produce some evidence to support their own theories. For over thirty years, the GW proponents haven't been able to do that, but their theories are still used in place of the old 5.7 year Science, that still seems correct.

Nor are we sure what CO2 levels used to be 75, 100 or 150 years ago. Unbelievable but true.

There were scientists alive 100, 150, and 200 years ago. And they measured the CO2 in the atmosphere. They were so accurate that they found and document a tiny lunar CO2 oscillation that the Mauna Loa scientists of CO2, did not notice nor see, until they went back and very carefully looked at their data. The effect exists. But Global Warmers reject their other readings. Why? Because the average these old science studies report was that CO2 averaged 330 ppm only 40 ppm lower than now, in the 1800s with several episodes of CO2 above 420 ppm, some 40 ppm higher than measured today at Mauna Loa. These old scientists even attributed these multi-year episodes to massive volcanic eruptions like Tabor and Krakatoa.

Global Warmists say we have never had CO2 higher than now at 380ppm. Fire and Brimstone GAIA preachers warn of "tipping points" at 381 or 385 or 387.5 or whatever, with irreversible changes than happening to the world. And the moderns say CO2 used to be 280 ppm, not 330 ppm by their study of tree rings, and the entrapped gas measured very sloppily, in Antarctic ice cores, (and perhaps they read tea leaves, and animal entrails as well).

Agreeing with a tiny effect of a portions of a single part per million, while rejecting as inaccurate measurements of 30-100 ppm is highly suspicious for bias. But such is the case.

It is a scientific truth that the body fights infection by running a fever, that is, it elevates the body temperature, from the usually normal 98.6 Degrees F. It makes a hell of a difference if the human body,(or the world temperature) climbs by 50 or 5 or .5 or .05 or .005 degrees.

The pseudo-scientific claptrap begins there. It was feared that GW might raise the temperature by 50, or 5, degrees per century. But in the 1970s no scientist was sure. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we still aren't sure. But we have refined the answer somewhat. We know its not 5 degrees; nor 50 degrees. We have narrowed the effect down some. It might be .5 degrees or .05 degrees but its is probably not .005 nor .0005 degrees. But Humanity sees annual temeperature changes of 50-75 degrees summer to winter, and life goes on. How is it credible to worry about a 5 degree change extinguishing Man? It simply isn't. The most reasonable answer, as we get more accurate seems to be a GHG effect somewhere closer to .05 degrees than .5 degrees, per century for the doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm.

Just as in a human body, a 5 degree fever could be life threatening. (Yet a temporary 5 degree rise in a Jacuzzi is normal.) A .5 degree fever may indicate a mild cold. A .05 degree fever might even be considered normal.

The effect is similar in the world. A 50 degree rise might be life threatening. A 5 degree rise would probably stop being mostly beneficial, and start to be a problem. A change of .5 degrees to .05 or less is insignificant, and totally inconsequential. It is probably wholly beneficial to the world and its current inhabitants.

Where are we? Best guess closer to .05 than .5 degrees warming per century, if things stay the same. But it doesn't. For the last decade its been getting colder rather than warmer. For the last 40 years on balance its been getting warmer. For the last 70 years its been getting colder. Therefore... Much ado about nothing... Probably.

Meanwhile, A dramatic climactic change of 5 degrees is like moving 5 degrees in latitude closer to the equator. For hysterical Ted Turner that is like moving from his Montana ranch to Colorado. Yet he also lives and works in Southern California and Atlanta Georgia equivalent in climate to 20 or 25 degrees warmer than Montana. Does he have a screw loose to worry over AGW? Y-E-S. So do a lot of other people who have no perspective...

Couple of months ago ClimateAudit, leading web site where skeptical climate scientists exchange their opinions, ran the poll and long discussion about antropogenic role in 20 century warming.

Surprisingly, there was overwhelming consensus that yes, humankind did contribute to 20 century warming, due to land use changes, increased population, GHG effects of methane and CO2. And this effect was no more than 0.2C from total 0.6C warming in 20 century.

Of cource, such BS as “climate catastrophe” or “tipping points” were dismissed unanimously.

All those Liberal Retards who claim to be Green are telling the Truth.

They are infact as Green as they come.
And by that, I mean they are naive and gullable.

Those suckers will buy into anything as along as a Pie Chart is part of the presentation.

When General Electric wants to sell more washing machines, all they have to do is call it Energy Efficient and the Liberal Retards come running.

And it's those same Liberal Retards who vote Democrat, because they think that it's the Policically Correct thing to do. Rubbish !!!

The Democrat party relies heavily on young, inexperienced voters. AKA - Liberal Retards.

What a bunch of sheep they are.