Does anyone understand what Billie is trying to say here?

Actually similar to a lot of the logic introduced into the debate if you think about it.

They should've recycled those Greek columns Obama used during the campaign into this photo-op.

rationalthinker you are 100% correct - global warming has little to do with the environment and every thing to do with redistribution of wealth - they cant scare us with the fact's so they try to scare us with this silly doomsday art.

and those lies about the world being round

Yeah, at a tune of something like 68 million dollars.....

Cancun is better than Cophenhagen again, it is 28 degrees there.

Population control? Are you serious?....and how do you plan on "enforcing" this population control without a socialistic or communistic government?

Besides that, there is only 1 U.N. projection that shows the population of the planet continuing to increase after 2050. The other 2 projections show a population decline.

Projections are too skewed and flawed. It assumes current stats and states that they'll be the same in 20, 30, 40 years, when resorces/food/water/living standards dwindle.

How many scientists in the year 1950 (2.5 billion people on Earth) believed that the world's population would shoot up by 4.5 billion, 60 years later?

global warming is being caused primarily by China and the U.S. and not by countries with out of control population increases.

?....and how do you plan on "enforcing" this population control without a socialistic or communistic government?

Answer the question please.

any melting going on in the Glacier National Park?

Not now. The Going to the Sun Road is closed from St. Mary to Lake McDonald due to 10 ft. snow drifts around Logan Pass.

We should not ignore the findings of the scientific world

That is exactly the problem. The scientific world has been ignored in favor of a pseudo science cult that will go to any length and overlook any disagreeable fact to be seen as right. When you have a few select people who look at each other, nod their heads then proudly announce there is "consensus" all the while deriding, ostracizing and marginalizing anyone who disagrees, that is when you must take a step back and doubt the validity of the claims. The worlds climate hasn't been studied nearly enough to understand what is going on, much less to be able to create some world effecting economic policy on it. The recent surge of "activism" has done nothing but hurt the field because it introduced radical belief driven agendas coupled with results based money. Meaning if the scientists produce the results expected of them (blame everything possible on global warming) they get rewarded with more funding. This is very very bad for science as it introduces an incentive to lie and misrepresent just to get more cheddar.

If you doubt any of what I'm saying then go take a look at this.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

A petition signed by tens of thousands of scientists, all credentials verified, asking that their be more open and transparent study into the field before any conclusions are drawn. Their asking that climate science be held to the same set of standards that physics, biology, geology, and mathematics are held to. No free pass's because their field of study can move billions of dollars into the pockets of a select few.

you got it wrong, theotherguy1234 -- see

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

Petition Project

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Then why did the leaders of the climate scare get caught with their pants around their ankles when all those emails got out? If they were in the right why did Manning and friends conspire to "redefine what the peer review process is" and "hide the decline".

This is the problem with you eco-nuts, you guys make things into religions and treat those beliefs as holy. There very valid fiend of climate study has been hijacked by a bunch of people looking to make lots of money. Al'gore started a company who's whole purpose was to buy and sell "carbon credits" around the same time he made that movie and started lighting all those fires.

Still, it is true that the earth goes through warming and cooling trends on a regular basis. I am not 100% convinced that recent global warming is due to increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The suns activity has also been higher recently and is predicted to become even more active in the near future. I am against the use of fossil fuels and industrial chemicals for other reasons, tied more closely to immediate environmental damage (esp. in China) such as deforestation, ground water pollution, oceanic dumping and poisonous air. While there is strong evidence to support global warming, there is also evidence against it. I think both sides need room to state their cases, but the media really only reports the pro-warming caucus.

@WMG,

I'm 100% behind conservation and environmental cleanups. I think we as a species need to keep the world as clean and livable as we can because its our ho me and future. I'm rather adamant that all decisions be thoroughly debated and gone over to achieve the optimal outcome. Lately the completely political / greedy mess that has become of climate science has prevented real research from coming to light. There could be some real lessons to learn here, real facts and knowledge into the mechanics of how the worlds climate operated, but we'll never know it when eco-loons are manipulating data and trying to fix the outcome. They've created less trust in the scientific system not more.

Yep, record lows 3 days in a row. Nor do we hear about the 100+ year old record lows falling in Florida. One of the records was 169 years old.

Unfortunately you don't seem to realize that global warming results in temperature extremes - precisely what you're reporting.

Also, it matters not what the ambient temperature is in your coastal city. The fact that ocean temperature increases globally are melting the polar icecaps means that much of Florida will be underwater all too soon and the only way you'll enjoy the weather is on a boat.

The cynacy of deniers who use their homwtown temperatures as a universal definition to combat GW theory is amazing.

Using this logic, if it snows in your local town (even if there's a catastrophic heat wave in China), then GW is a myth made by Democrats, then.

excellent post, OhJoy-2623976

The fact that ocean temperature increases globally are melting the polar icecaps means that much of Florida will be underwater all too soon and the only way you'll enjoy the weather is on a boat.

Incorrect GISS satellite data shows the averaged world temperature to be lower then what the ground based sources are reporting. This is because ground based reporting sources are being "corrected" upwards by as much as 4~6 degrees. Then everyone is using these "corrected" data sets in all their reports.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Also what is not being reported is that while polar ice is melting in one are the glaciers in another are growing, especially in Antarctica. The second thing never admitted to is that sea ice melting can not raise water levels because its mass has already been displaced. The only "ice" that can raise the oceans of the world would be the land locked ice in places like the Himalayas or the central part of Antarctica (not resting on water). This is basic high school physics and the reason all the "hard" sciences call "Climate Science" a pseudo science and laugh at what their membership has become.

But please, don't let something like physics get in the way of a good alarmist scare. Nothing like fear to make people do irrational things with their money.

Saying an unusually cold year proves global warming is a myth is like saying a serial killer is innocent because he chose not to murder someone on one particular day. We are in a La Nina year after all. Theotherguy, glaciers advance and retreat for various reasons besides temperatures; flows are dependent on terrain, snowfall, and other variables. Plus I'm sure climatologists have the basic understanding of physics that for some reason you say they lack. Regardless of whether alarmists are correct or not, we should all still be at least having a conversation about this issue instead of blindly refuting our impact on the environment.

Actually, theotherguy, in choosing to make a brief comment I did not discuss what your deliberately misleading "displacement" comment left out. Such as the fact that the Arctic AND Antarctic shelf ice (yes, salty and already having displaced the ocean water) has retreated dramatically. It is also 60 percent THINNER than it used to be. Melting of the underside of the shelf is a pre-requisite to shelf collapses. So when it goes, which it will, it will go QUICKLY. And it is this shelf ice that acts as a plug retaining the above-sea-level fresh water that WILL significantly affect sea water levels when the plug is gone.

Antarctic ice growing? Forgetting the collapse of the Rhode Island-sized 12,000 year old Larsen B shelf along the Eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002? Beneath East Antarctica is a continent about the size of Australia; the fresh ice sheet sitting on top averages a little over 1 mile thick. If all of this ice melted (which no one is yet suggesting will happen, but I'm giving numbers to show the scale of what could happen when just SOME of it melts), it would raise global sea level by about 197 feet. West Antarctica is a series of islands covered in ice. The largest of these, Pine Island, is covered by the largest ice stream in West Antarctica - Pine Island Glacier. If it melted, it would raise sea levels by 16 to 23 feet. Since the 1990s both radar and satellite studies (NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment AKA GRACE) have shown the glacier ice to be retreating rapidly.

As far as your outdated reference to a study made in 2009; further studies and published analyses by its own authors show not only their new understanding of why this occurred but also that a remarkable reversal is anticipated. As shown in National Geographic.com, "in the 20th century, ocean warming boosted precipitation in the upper atmosphere over the Antarctic region, which fell as snow. More snow made the top layers of the ocean less salty and thus less dense. These layers became more stable, preventing warm, density-driven currents in the deep ocean from rising and melting sea ice...As increasing greenhouse gases continue to warm the oceans off Antarctica, more Antarctic precipitation will turn to rain, which rapidly melts snow and ice, according to the study, published this week (August 2010) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." If this is too difficult for you to understand: warmer water in the Antarctic led to precipitation in the form of snow. This temporarily led to an interruption of warm currents that melt ice and thus a brief increase of sea (not land bound) ice. But since greenhouse gases keep on heating up the water off the Antarctic, precipitation is no longer falling as snow, but will fall as rain. Which melts ice. Fast.

And don't forget that ALL ice, salty or not, reflects sunlight and heat, which in turn moderates global climate. So the melting creates a domino effect.

I won't comment re: Himalayan glacier retreat. The amazing photographs found all over the web speak for themselves.

I was amused by the following quote found on the official website of Glacier National Park http://www.nps.gov/glac/parknews/glacier-centennial-2010.htm "Despite the recession of current glaciers, the park's name will not change when the glaciers are gone."

Cmango,

Unfortunately we can't trust what any climate scientist reports now because there is too much money involved. Seriously if their findings support AGW their rewarded with millions of $$ of funding if their findings conflict with AGW their called denies and their funding is stripped. For a scientist its a rather bad position to be put in, should they destroy their career or fudge the findings (as has been proven lately) to advance their career.

And the politicians / world leaders who are backing the push for these findings ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/

Seriously they didn't even know what water was ...... something any high school chemistry kid could of answered.

@Oh Joy,

And if AGW continues it could cause more earthquakes and make CA fall into the ocean. I sh!t you now that is something that was passed off as a *fact* amongst the alarmists. The worlds oceans have not risen as much as alarmists say they should have. This is because the mechanics involved are NOT known well enough to establish any degree of certainty. They said the same thing during global cooling as they are saying now and I believe neither.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/upcoming-paper-in-nature-greenland-ice-sheet-melt-its-weather-not-climate/

It seems a poster below has beat me to this tidbit but I'll post here again anyway.

Turns out we weren't anywhere near correct about how the worlds oceans distribute water.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,732303,00.html

The above quoted Greenland ice-sheet would take centuries to melt even in the worst post-apocalyptic AGW nightmare. Half the world wouldn't even notice if it did.

The worlds oceans do not hold water uniformly and it doesn't distribute itself the way we thought it did.

Some of my thinkings to debunk your post:

1. Norway/Sweden/Finland are rich countries, yet they help out the Global Warming cause with their low emissions. They're already overtaxed.

2. Some "poor" countries who are not victims, but rather powerful 3rd world movers and shakers: Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, N. Korea, India, China, Brazil.

3. China leads the world in carbon dioxide emissions now. US has the intra-nation toughest environmental laws on Earth (EPA). And have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution that began in Europe? The one where machines needed a lot of oil, who's emissions are still up in the air to this day?

4. Global warming is fact (people are stupid to think that it's only when temps go up, when really the weather extremes get amplified).

*and I'm sorry if I didn't catch your sarcasm, if you intended for that*

. Global warming is fact

Yes it was, but not proven to be from humans and no global warming for the past 12 years......

AGW is still a theory.

Gwaarin, the 2000s were the hottest decade on record, 2005 was named the hottest year of all time (could be 2010 in a couple of weeks), and there were huge wildfires in Russia and Spain (typically cold weather there) this summer due to extreme temps breaking 200 year records.

Is your brain made of cardboard or something?

Dadr004,

Incorrect, the 2000's were the hottest decade on the corrected record meaning someone manually added 3~6 degrees to get that way.

All we know is that the worlds temperature tends to fluctuate in a set of periods, and these periods span thousands if not tens of thousands of years, not decades. In the 70's the EXACT arguments being made now were being made about the evil "global cooling". That evil corporations and governments causing pollution would bring about an ice age within the next (100, then 70, then 50, then 20, then 10) years. The time till immediate death got shorter and shorter as pressure was built up to create economical laws then suddenly when the world started warming again the global cooling scam was called off. Now its been replaced by the global warming scam which is nothing but a slightly rehashed version of the global cooling scam. In a few more years when the world doesn't turn into a fireball they'll call of the AGW scam and start on a new one.

The funny thing is ... a warmer world would be a good thing. The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere the faster / bigger plants grow, this is a demonstrated fact. Long ago the world had a atmospheric CO2 content more then 10x what is currently there and it was the best time in all known records for life on the planet. Places that are barren, mostly the middle east, would turn back into fertile land. Food would become plentiful across the entire planet, many uninhabitable deserts would turn into lush fields / forests. Since that time the world has cooled through an ice age, including both the MWP and LIA. During the MWP the world was much warmer then it is now but man kind hasn't started the industrial age and there was no CO2 being produced from human sources. Again during this time life flourished across the planet into the LIA hit when the world got colder.

All this demonstrates that the world goes in cycles of hot -> cold -> hot -> cold -> very hot -> very cold -> hot -> cold, and so forth. Just wait, in a little while they'll be screaming at some new "must give us your money now" scare.

and money is the answer! B/S it's greed at the highest level and now we have carbon credits for sale. Soon someone will introduce a way to pay the animals for all the harm our global warming has caused them, and science will make sure it is the truth....

When did you begin the boycott on the oil industry?

To the AGW believers. If you really believe in this theory, please lead the world by example and give up all the luxuries you so desire, to show us how your sacrifice is going to stop the glaciers from melting, save countless lives killed due to "global warming", and in doing so, save the planet. Put your money where your mouth is.

HEY TADD BARTLEY.... I see you bought the story. In that case...

.

"I"VE GOT SOME PRIME REAL ESTATE I'D LIKE TO SELL YOU. IT'S 10 MILES EAST OF MIAMI BEACH"

Unfortunately It is a political conspiracy, one with billions of not trillions of $$ at stake. There is entirely too much money involved in climate science for it to be anything but political. When a scientist must choose either to publish non-conformist findings and risk career death or fudge numbers and win big funding, that person can not be expected to make the morally correct choice. Remove the economical incentives involved and put it back to just science and then we can get some real information, until that happens all you get is what has been "approved" and paid for by those footing the bill.

I started my boycott 2 years ago when I converted my diesel to a grease car. My car runs on vegetable oil. It is carbon-neutral and free. And it smells good.

Now, I'll grant you that there are many other things in life that I enjoy that rely on the burning of fossil fuels. I'm not perfect. but, I have been very active in trying to promote cleaner forms of energy such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal. We could convert to these cleaner, renewable forms of energy over time, but as far as I can tell we lack the political will.

Nobody ever talks about all the financial breaks we give to fossil fuel industries. Billions. They have a lot to lose if we convert to solar, etc. Nobody talks about that.

Yes of course climate has changed naturally over the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year history. How did you know that? You read some science. Now, keep reading more science. Read the science behind AGW.

My truck runs on gasoline.....it also smells good!

Even though I wouldn't go th Cancun again, I agree that these climate gooks are the same deep down. It costs a lot of money, and they spend more time sunbathing than working in the conference room. That's a given.

Nah in their revisit idea climate before the industrial age didn't exist. Mann just used a trick to "hide the decline" and reversed the sign on the data to make it look like the MWP / LIA never happened. And the AGW faithful blindly nodded their heads and accepted it. For the same reason they blindly signed a petition to ban the production, distribution and use of Di-hydrogen Monoxide with little to no thought about the ramifications of said ban. And for this same reason the posters on this forum will attack and ostracize anyone who doesn't subscribe to their version of world history.