Environmentialism has been hijacked

[bobomajo]

I'm an environmentalist, but not one of the crazy one that I have only just become aware of. I don't think its wrong to eat meat, and I don't care for animal rights, I support capitalism as long as its responsible. What I do care about is the impact that the some industries have on natural environments that don't have substainible practices in place (unregulated fishing and logging, irresponsible actions like insufficient quality control which may lead to contamination of a biosphere). I also think we should try to be as efficient as possible in every aspect of industry, this not only makes sense economically but also allows us to make the most out of the resources he have. Why do I care about this impact? For me its a simply scientific (and quite insensitive) standing, the more species we eliminate from this planet the less we get to learn from those species and the less knowledge is gained which could be adapted to technology or medicine or maybe just our knowledge of nature. If we were able to learn everything we could from nature and were we certain we learned everything, then I could care less if we destroyed nature (although I would miss it).

It seams that there are a lot of people that support green things because its trendy, I've always thought this as been a good thing as even if they really don't give a shit adleast their hearts are in the right place. But its come to my attention that a lot of environmentalists are retards, they know absolutely nothing about the things they are against, I think this has come to hurt the reputation of genuine environmentalists who hold fairly rational viewpoints that are usually open to debate and have a decent knowledge of the things they care about. Heres an episode of Penn & Teller which may be a bad example, but I'm quite sure that this is the stereotype of an environmentalist (and I was wondering why everyone thought I was crazy whenever I raised green issues).

In conclusion if you want to support the now trendy green cause learn a bit about it before you sound like a retard and make us all look bad.

[Hamandchees3]

I completely agree. Environmentalism is as much an anti-capitalist/corporate movement as it is one to save the earth. It's essentially a guise to lay over certain political agendas which have emerged from misconceptions of capitalism and industrialism (as any form of socialism does).

It's not that I disagree with social activism though. I just believe that it should be done honestly and openly.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 12:23 AM, bobomajo wrote: ...For me its a simply scientific (and quite insensitive) standing, ...

In conclusion if you want to support the now trendy green cause learn a bit about it before you sound like a retard and make us all look bad.

It is scientific for me as well...that is why I am skeptical of global warming and its new incarnation: global climate change. Just last week I was talking to a friend about GW and I asked her if she thought it was possible for a person to be skeptical of GW and still care about the environment. Her first reaction was "No". But then she stopped to ask me what I was getting at.

My point is simple: I can be skeptical on the claims of GW theory (ALL science is theory BTW) but still be green because I care about my environment. I grew up in the country and can't stand urban environments that have smog/haze/polluted air and water. I have a daughter so the idea of leaving an inhabitable planet for her and her children is a real concern...not an emotional abstraction.

So if I agree that conservation of energy and matter and limiting pollution is important...why does being skeptical of GW make me evil or manipulated or foolish?

All I'm asking for is respectful debate and discourse. Don't agree/respect my opinion...but don't hate/disrespect me.

[Memorize]

That's why I call myself a conservationist rather than an enviornmentalist.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 01:37 AM, Memorize wrote: That's why I call myself a conservationist rather than an enviornmentalist.

Did you notice that I didn't use the term "environmentalist" in my post? Especially in reference to me?

[G-Locked]

In any activist movement, anywhere, there will be a few pretentious airheads acting like idiots and giving everyone a bad name. On a different note, Global Warming is simply a fact of life. I don't understand how anyone can be skeptical of it as an established phenomena. However what I can understand is people skeptical of the doomsday theories regarding climate change. There simply isn't a climate model that can predict with high accuracy the impact of Global Warming on the world climate. It could go many ways.

[n64kid]

At 4/28/08 03:33 PM, G-Locked wrote: On a different note, Global Warming is simply a fact of life.

Explain. Especially when the greenhouse effect isn't a fact. Especially when it's been cooler since 1998. Especially when it's hailing right now at my school in what is almost May.

I don't understand how anyone can be skeptical of it as an established phenomena.

I don't understand how you think this is an established phenomenon when it isn't.

[hippl5]

At 4/28/08 12:23 AM, bobomajo wrote: It seams that there are a lot of people that support green things because its trendy,

I hate those people. A lot.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 03:33 PM, G-Locked wrote: ...On a different note, Global Warming is simply a fact of life. I don't understand how anyone can be skeptical of it as an established phenomena. However what I can understand is people skeptical of the doomsday theories regarding climate change. There simply isn't a climate model that can predict with high accuracy the impact of Global Warming on the world climate. It could go many ways.

G-Locked, do you know what single word (more than any other) seperates science and religion? Skepticism. The idea that no idea or theory is ever 100% correct and therefore should not be accepted as true until it can be 100% verified. As of yet nothing in science has been able to reach this benchmark. Therefore, anyone who has incorporates the scientific process into their profession understands that when skepticism is viewed as a vice rather than a virtue in terms of a scientific theory...there is something wrong.

Furthermore, consensus is not the same as science and there is indication that there are serious flaws with the theory. Our climate is incredibly dynamic which makes it impossible with our current technology to definitely say that any correlation is indicative of causation. Especially when ice core samples indicate CO2 levels were at the same today as they were 125,000 years ago, 235,000 years ago and 320,000 years ago.

[G-Locked]

It is a scientific fact that when I pass my hand through the air, oxygen, nitrogen, and other gaseous molecules move out of the space occupied by my hand. This is proven by the fact that air is composed of atoms and molecules. My hand is too. Matter cannot occupy the same space as other matter. This is fact. Only one of many proven scientific facts that exist. But of course, silly me, gravity is only a theory. I guess I'll go jump off a bridge.

[G-Locked]

At 4/28/08 04:46 PM, TheMason wrote:
Especially when ice core samples indicate CO2 levels were at the same today as they were 125,000 years ago, 235,000 years ago and 320,000 years ago.

This is because these periods were during Ice Ages. During times of particularly cold climate such as Ice Ages, much of the water in the air freezes into snow and ice and traps CO2 and other greenhouse gases in this snow and ice. Thus, ice cores from these periods have similar levels of CO2 as ice cores now, because a higher percentage of the greenhouse gases were trapped, because of the higher levels of ice and snow.

[G-Locked]

At 4/28/08 03:42 PM, n64kid wrote:
Explain. Especially when the greenhouse effect isn't a fact. Especially when it's been cooler since 1998. Especially when it's hailing right now at my school in what is almost May.

I don't understand how anyone can be skeptical of it as an established phenomena.

I don't understand how you think this is an established phenomenon when it isn't.

Because of the increased output of greenhouse gases by humans, since the beginning of the 20th Century, the radiant energy/heat emanated by the sun has been increasingly trapped by the growing levels of said greenhouse gases. By logic, this means that the overall average temperature of Earth is rising. It is not yet completely noticeable, but the early manifestations of human induced climate change will not be rapid heating. It will be other oscillating climatological phenomena such as altered ocean currents and stronger hurricanes.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 04:46 PM, TheMason wrote: Hit post instead of pic browse...

Anyway G-Locked...

Look at this graph that shows two things: 1) yes there appears to be a correlation between CO2 levels and warmer temperatures. 2) It also shows that CO2 has spiked at various points (at roughly constant intervals) for the past 400-500 thousand years. The last spike pre-dates human civilization (much less the industrial revolution) by roughly 115,000 years. What this shows is that if global warming is an established phenomenon...then it is a naturally occuring phenomenon. Link for graph.

Furthermore, the theory of Global Warming has a history of being just plain wrong. When I was 15-18 I was told that the world would be unlivable by the time I was 30. Well I'm 33 now and Missouri does not have an oceanic coastline. My parents were 18-20 when the first Earth Day happened...predictions made then have not come to pass either but have been shown to have been off by upwards of 300%. Environmentalism is not a well established scientific theory with a proven track record. Instead, it is an activist movement with a highly problematic track record. If it were a business it would be bankrupt.

Lets look at hurricanes. After Katrina it particularly en vogue for people to make the claim that GW increased the incidence and severity of hurricanes. But last year a British Science Journal reported that such a link did not exist in typhoons. Earlier this month one of the first scientists to posit this link in the 1980s has had to reassess this idea. Here's the consensus of NOAA on trends in hurricanes, their social impacts and human causes:

1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has been largely caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.

4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.

5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.

6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.

7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies. (NOTE: is it just me, or does point 7 undermine what point 6 is trying to say?)

8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.

9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.

10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.

I will stop here for now. My point is if you look at the theory critically you will see flaws in the idea that mankind is driving GW.

Now what I say next is of fundemental importance. This does not give us license to abuse the environment. In order to survive society must take from the environment, but we must learn to create a situation where we can sustain the environment so that resources such as food, air, water, etc are always available. It is folly and immoral to litter or be recklessly wasteful. Therefore I encourage conservation.

Likewise, it is folly to think that we are more powerful and significant than nature. In the end it wins everytime.

An article in the British newspaper The Telegraph.

A New York Times article on factual problems with Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

[CogSpin]

I don't even need to see the facts.

All I need to do is watch Fox News everyday and see the hosts using human psychology to shove global warming in our faces. Anyone who doesn't buy into it is a "denier", "conspiracy theorist", "flat-earther" and other names of the like.

This is all the proof I need.

All you really have to do is follow that simple rule. Whenever the media shoves something in your face without providing credible facts, you know the exact opposite of what they are saying is true.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 05:12 PM, G-Locked wrote: It is a scientific fact that when I pass my hand through the air, oxygen, nitrogen, and other gaseous molecules move out of the space occupied by my hand. This is proven by the fact that air is composed of atoms and molecules. My hand is too. Matter cannot occupy the same space as other matter. This is fact. Only one of many proven scientific facts that exist. But of course, silly me, gravity is only a theory. I guess I'll go jump off a bridge.

I know you think you got me, but you're just being dramatic without really disproving anything I'm saying. Newtonian "laws" of gravity were supplanted by Einsteinian theory. You see our understanding of phenomenon changes with technology and our ability to measure these things. As these paradigms change what we understand to "fact" also changes. Do those molecules pass move away from the space occupied by my hand? Perhaps Heisenberg would claim they are occuping the same space at the sametime...just different dimensions. After all, currently the laws of physics appear to be different at the level we function on than the level molecules function.

These are questions of fluid dynamics and gravity that we think are simple and that we have a firm grasp on. Why do you think man's perceptions and theories on an infinitely more complex system such as the weather would be as good, much less more "factual"?

At 4/28/08 05:18 PM, G-Locked wrote: This is because these periods were during Ice Ages. During times of particularly cold climate such as Ice Ages, much of the water in the air freezes into snow and ice and traps CO2 and other greenhouse gases in this snow and ice. Thus, ice cores from these periods have similar levels of CO2 as ice cores now, because a higher percentage of the greenhouse gases were trapped, because of the higher levels of ice and snow.

As you'll see from my later post I clicked the wrong button and posted early. I start out by showing that what you say here is wrong. These higher levels of CO2 correspond with the warming periods that follow ice ages. These spikes in CO2 levels correspond with times of warmer temperatures...not the ice ages you claim above.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/28/08 05:39 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

All you really have to do is follow that simple rule. Whenever the media shoves something in your face without providing credible facts, you know the exact opposite of what they are saying is true.

While your method is somewhat sound, it is sounder to seek out if any background information exists on the topic.

The fact that global warming is perpetuated through fear and not general concern is what bothers me most about the idea.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 05:49 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The fact that global warming is perpetuated through fear and not general concern is what bothers me most about the idea.

The other thing that bugs me is Gore's links to Occidental Oil. Source 1 and Source 2. It is not so much that he has them...but rather how the environmentalists responded. If they truly wanted to make the world a better place...what better way than co-opting them into the movement? Instead Gore was pressured into cutting his financial ties (and thus any power/say) with the company.

This is the behavior of a group with a destructive political agenda...not a unifying/cooperative one. Lessens their credibility.

[G-Locked]

I recommend looking beyond the biased statistics for once and using logic. Fact: the worlds greenhouse gas emissions have increased exponentially since the beginning of the 20th Century. Greenhouse gases are called such because they precipitate heating. Once more and more greenhouse gases are released the rate of global heating will increase. THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING.

Here is some information: Some Facts Mathematical Analysis

The weight of the Earth's atmosphere is approximately 441 Quadrillion tons. Each year 7 Billion tons of fossil fuels are burned. This produces 26.7 billion tons of CO2. 441 Quadrillion divided by 26.7 Billion equals 6 millionths of the atmosphere by weight. 6 parts per million of the atmosphere in carbon is added to the atmosphere every year. This negatively effects global climate.

[G-Locked]

At 4/28/08 05:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

:After all, currently the laws of physics appear to be different at the level we function on than the level molecules function.

This is incorrect, the quantum mechanical structure of the universe only becomes apparent at dimensions approaching and passing the Planck Length.

[G-Locked]

At 4/28/08 05:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

:The last spike pre-dates human civilization (much less the industrial revolution) by roughly 115,000 years. What this shows is that if global warming is an established phenomenon...then it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Furthermore, the theory of Global Warming has a history of being just plain wrong. When I was 15-18 I was told that the world would be unlivable by the time I was 30. Well I'm 33 now and Missouri does not have an oceanic coastline.

As you have previously mentioned, technology changes, when you were young, technology was less advanced, and predictions and theories could not be as accurately tested and formulated as now. In addition, if you would look at your graph the last spike begins around 14,000 years ago, around the last minor ice age. This is proof that the ice and snow absorbed the greenhouse gases. But why would the rise continue unabated? Can you give a natural reason for that?

[Nylo]

The irony of it all is that conservatives are the ideal environmentalists. But they'll never gain an edge and take the lead in global issues with NeoConservatives calling the shots. I swear to God, NeoConservatism is the AIDS of conservatism.

But I digress. The fact of the matter is that there's no net-loss in integrity in supporting environmental issues. I give props to Al Gore any chance I get. So the guy got like, what, 99% of his information wrong in An Inconvenient Truth? Well I'm glad SOMEONE got the fire burning under Americas ass; the advances is environmental science since that movie came out are amazing. Even if they do fundamentally contradict half of the movie. There is no bad knowledge.

Go Al Gore. You're boring as hell, but thank you.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 08:13 PM, G-Locked wrote: I recommend looking beyond the biased statistics for once and using logic.

Dude! Are you serious? You say this and then link me to a nonscientific journalistic blog that has an obvious political bias? I mean really...are you trying to prove me right by handing me debating ammo? Furthermore, what I said was overwhelmingly non-statistical and non-biased. What I linked to was the NOAA and journal articles about pro-GW scientists who are reassessing their previous theories.

Fact: the worlds greenhouse gas emissions have increased exponentially since the beginning of the 20th Century. Greenhouse gases are called such because they precipitate heating. Once more and more greenhouse gases are released the rate of global heating will increase. THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING.

I've been learning about GW since before you were born, I comprehend the theoretical assumptions.

Here is some information: Some Facts Mathematical Analysis

While I have addressed this previously...I still find this incredibly funny. I'm still laughing! I link to Kerry Emanual where he talks about the disconnect between computer models and observed reality...you link to the World Socialist Web Site. Too easy my friend...

As for your first "fact"...the truth is the Amazon rainforest doesn't matter in terms of CO2 sinks. The vast majority of CO2/O2 conversion is done by our oceans.

As for your "Mathematical Analysis"...what is reported on the IPCC's report is just its summary not its actual scientific findings or methodology. Much of the IPCC report is critical of itself, however the summary is written by politicians not scientists. Also the resignation of Chris Landsea casts doubt upon the IPCC summary's scientific credibility. So where again is the World Socialist Web Site's mathematical analysis?

The weight of the Earth's atmosphere is approximately 441 Quadrillion tons. Each year 7 Billion tons of fossil fuels are burned. This produces 26.7 billion tons of CO2. 441 Quadrillion divided by 26.7 Billion equals 6 millionths of the atmosphere by weight. 6 parts per million of the atmosphere in carbon is added to the atmosphere every year. This negatively effects global climate.

But we cannot be sure how negative the effect is and how nature processes this added CO2. Quite simply, there are so many intervening variables and the computer models have proven so unreliable...GW is not as concrete as you claim it to be.

Again, I'm not saying this should give us license to pollute...nor am I saying that we should not curb CO2 output. We should do everything to keep the Earth clean as possible. But we shouldn't use fear as the motivator. It only produces a short-term gain...in the long-term it just pisses people off and makes them tune-out science.

At 4/28/08 08:40 PM, G-Locked wrote: As you have previously mentioned, technology changes, when you were young, technology was less advanced, and predictions and theories could not be as accurately tested and formulated as now. In addition, if you would look at your graph the last spike begins around 14,000 years ago, around the last minor ice age. This is proof that the ice and snow absorbed the greenhouse gases. But why would the rise continue unabated? Can you give a natural reason for that?

1) Technology: The problems are still there. The NOAA "consensus" I quoted and linked to is recent and admits to the limitations of technology. Did you not notice that technology change itself is problematic? Since there is no such thing as a time machine you cannot compare measurements made by today's more sensitive instruments to measurements made with instruments a decade ago with certainty. Furthermore, both the NOAA and Dr Emanuel (an MIT climatologist) discuss today's computer models are continuing the trend of unreliability.

2) Look at the spikes, they coincide with increasing temperatures and these spikes are a repeated phenomenon at roughly regular intervals. Furthermore, these spikes correlate with the ending of ice ages. From the ice core record, these spikes continue for a period of time and abate over thousands of years. Look at the ice age that ended 350,000 years ago. There was an upward trend in both CO2 & temp that lasted until about 320,000 years ago. This spike lasted about 20,000 years. Following this peak, CO2 & temperature decreased slowly until reaching another ice age at approximately 260,000 years ago. Furthermore, it also appears that temp falls faster than CO2. (Kinda pokes a hole in the greenhouse gas theory.)

So if you look at the last 500,000 years it appears that CO2/Temp spikes have occurred several times. Were the last four spikes caused by man's pollution as well? Furthermore, if CO2 has been spiking for the past 14,000 years how is that proof of man causing it? I mean it started about 13,600 years before the industrial revolution...when man started pumping CO2 into the air.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 09:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/28/08 08:13 PM, G-Locked wrote: I recommend looking beyond the biased statistics for once and using logic.

Dude! Are you serious? You say this and then link me to a nonscientific journalistic blog that has an obvious political bias? I mean really...are you trying to prove me right by handing me debating ammo? Furthermore, what I said was overwhelmingly non-statistical and non-biased. What I linked to was the NOAA and journal articles about pro-GW scientists who are reassessing their previous theories.

Mea Culpa here NG...I misspoke. I meant to post that I had linked to mainstream journalistic articles. But what I actually said makes it appear I was linking to scientific journals directly rather than respected publications referring to said journals.

[n64kid]

At 4/28/08 05:27 PM, G-Locked wrote:

Because of the increased output of greenhouse gases by humans, since the beginning of the 20th Century, the radiant energy/heat emanated by the sun has been increasingly trapped by the growing levels of said greenhouse gases.

But humans only make up a smart percentage of producing said greenhouse gases.
Also, said greenhouse gases only make up about .04% of the Earth's atmosphere.
Additionally, there have been circumstances where temperature has negative correlation to said greenhouse gases since the 20th century.

By logic, this means that the overall average temperature of Earth is rising.

By your logic. But then again, why has the overall temperature of the Earth been cooler since 1998?

It is not yet completely noticeable, but the early manifestations of human induced climate change will not be rapid heating. It will be other oscillating climatological phenomena such as altered ocean currents and stronger hurricanes.

So you have no proof, trends have proven otherwise, but you come here and talk about how it exists.
Do you have any credible source besides the ever famous and respectable World Socialist Web Site to back you up?

[Korriken]

What many of these environmentalists don't realize is this.

1. Weight. while it seems the weight of the CO2 is heavier than the weight of the fuel being burned you have to remember that the oxygen in the CO2 came from the air, and the carbon came from the fossil fuel, meaning no new weight has been added to the earth. However, adding more gases to the air can increase atmospheric pressure.

2. CO2 may not stay in the atmosphere for long. water Diffuses with CO2. when CO2 hits a cloud, the water in the cloud catches the CO2 and when it rains the CO2 falls. (this is called Acid Rain, which is a negative effect of industrialization) Also the oceans absorb CO2 as well, and the aquatic plants and some microbes absorb the CO2. and we all know about plants absorbing CO2 as well.

3. Ultraviolet light breaks up CO2 into CO (carbon monoxide) and Oxygen. However, It is thought that Elemental Oxygen breaks up Ozone (O3) into CO2 and O2.

[TheMason]

At 4/28/08 08:13 PM, G-Locked wrote: I recommend looking beyond the biased statistics for once and using logic. :

This negatively effects global climate.

I wonder what NASA has to say about this:

"Since late 1978, polar-orbiting satellites have monitored the microwave emissions from oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere."

You know I've always wondered about this and Ozone depletion. We've only had the technology in place to detect holes in the Ozone. Therefore the data set is only 30 years old. These hole occur over the magnetic poles of the planet. So: since we do not have a dataset that goes back 100 years (much less before the Industrial Revolution), how can we be sure that holes in the Ozone Layer are NOT a natural phenomenon?

"The resulting time series shows the temperature trend in the lower troposphere is zero for 1979-97. At the same time, the temperature of the lower stratosphere has declined at a rate of -- 0.6 degrees C per decade. The warm El-Niño/Southern Oscillation of 1998 caused the warmest monthly temperature anomalies of any observed to date, with April and May 1998 near +0.7 C above the base period mean of 1982-91."

Pay attention to el Nino...it is a recurrent theme.

""Every year, of course, we add another 12 months to the temperature trend," said Christy. "But 1998 was particularly interesting. While two previous strong El-Niños occurred in the past 20 years, this is the first one that occurs without a simultaneous volcanic eruption." El-Niño warming events and the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1983 have been the most influential events on the temperature trend to date.'

Wow...that was fast.

""Obviously, El Niños are part of the natural weather cycle, and shouldn't be discounted," said Christy. "When we look at long-term trends, however, we shouldn't assign excess importance to individual unusual or extreme short-term events, such as this El Niño or the cooling that followed the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in 1991."

Wait...what? We find a strong correlation between nature and GW (stronger than man-made GW)...but we need to be careful about assigning "excess importance"? Shouldn't the same standard be applied to theories it is all man-made as well?

"The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any significant warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991."

Two things in this paragraph:
1) It says something is "...often cited as evidence against global warming...". Now if something is cited as evidence (not to mention often), this means that there is a debate going on. Not all scientists are convinced that the man-made theory is correct. So G-Locked...your original assumption that this is a phenomenon that is accepted as fact is false.

2) It also shows that the two warming trends noted in this 20 period snapshot of the upper atmosphere is related to volcanic (natural) activity...not man-made.

How does the World Socialist Web Site answer NASA?

[ChainChompC]

One thing that bothers me is when corporations try to push their own agenda or increase their sales by doing one or two things "green." While I love the Toyota Prius for example, I think it is greedy and money grubbing for them to use the Prius as their flagship for green while at the same time beef up the Tundra, making it even more polluting. I think that all corporations need to be given more motivation to improve their emitions, waste efficiency, etc. If we can all be better environmental stewards, I believe that the environment will reward us with better health, which could help solve the healthcare crisis as well, since less people will need doctors!

[roachcore]

"green" is a scam, folks.

[drunkkillers]

well im not realy 1 but i recical thats it the way i see it is if u nuked the world with all the nukelar wepons we wouldnt be here but the earth would and after about 200 years life will retern and i think that its turning into a religan srry about any typos i was never good at spelling

[TheMason]

One of the things that bugs me is that in January 2007 it was unseasonably warm. So NBC had a NOAA meteorologist on air to say what was going on. The scientist says that it is not GW...but "...el nino, el nino, el nino". This was on Friday.

Over the weekend NBC was flooded with protest by GW scientists and activists and caused them to air this story. So I'm sorry...this smacks of dogma instead of debate.