I'm not an expert on the subject, but during German Head-start classes they said they did two things that changed the way Germans live.

They started Volksmarching for exercise and they started manicuring their forests. Because of the greater concentration of people in Germany, 80 million plus in an area the size of Oregon, they decided that they needed to take care of their forests or they soon wouldn't have any. Now they are the most beautiful forests I've seen so far.

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

I'm sorry - but how exactly do these threads keep dragging on?

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

I don't know.........maybe common interest among posters?

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

The fears of global cooling were reasonable based on the release of particulates from burning fossil fuels, which block out sunlight and result in cooling; however, those fears and other pollution concerns were responded to, we have cleaned up a lot of our fossil fuel use, and it is no longer a real concern.

The earth did not reach its warmest point in 1999. Clinton did not try to pass a carbon tax. (He was just about the worst Democratic president ever in terms of the environment.)

As for your other assertions, I can only say that those who actually know what they're talking about on the issue, i.e. climate scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, disagree. Between the two of you, I'll go with them.

I have a better question Mudwhistle. . .

How is it that the world's saint, Mr. Al Gore, who lectures non-stop when he steps of his private jet on carbon emissions and global warming, built an ecological monstrosity of a castle that gulps energy at gargantuan rates go unmentioned; while the world's villain, George Bush, who built an eco-friendly, far more modest house that uses a fourth less power than the average home get cruxified?

snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

Gore uses his 20 room house as a business as well, hosts tons of meetings there, and there are apparently two or three different offices in use on the estate as well.

Could he lessen his carbon foot print? Yes. But the info from the right-wing fringe doesn't tell us the entire story.

Olbermann covered this and gets it right; YouTube - Olbermann: Al Gore Smeared

The Gore's got most of their energy from a green program, so they actually paid more for getting their energy from mostly wind and solar power sources. It's also been left out by the hit piece first picked up by the Drudge Report that many smaller homes use more energy in terms of oil.

I would think showing off and trying tricks is also a big factor. I know a guy that had two accidents in the first month of having a bike and had some really bad cuts and a minor head injury because of them. Both times he was trying to show off and ended up getting himself hurt. Another guy I know has had a motorcycle for 15 years without a single accident.

Well plenty climatologists agree with me. As a matter of fact they are the ones I got the information from, not a bunch of Democrats trying to pull a hoax so they can raise our taxes, nationalize the oil industry, and generally screw us over on several levels and a bunch of scientists looking for Federal Grants from those same Democrats in Washington.

They have no agenda, they just say that this is a cycle we've gone through several times.Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

One of the reasons I felt from the beginning is because of the Carbon Off-set racket that is going on. Selling an off-set to Liberals who feel guilty about polluting but can't bring themselves to change their habits.Big Blue Carbon - Discount Carbon Offset Brokers

Another reason is the attacks that are coming from the left on anyone who dares question their findings. The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

This isn't really relevant when you consider that the more green energy he uses means others will use more carbon. (Unless of course, he's building new generators to get it.)

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Let's look at the petition you mention vis-a-vis the Boston Globe reference.

1) It dates to 1997-1998 and refers specifically to the 1997 Kyoto treaty. 10-11 years is a long time, and if we posit that the petition is proof of a lack of consensus in 1997, it does not imply there is not a current consensus.

2) The definition of scientist used by the petition compilers is someone who graduated from college. This means the petition garnered 30,000 signatures out of the roughly 30 million college graduates in the US. Granted getting everyone's signature would be extremely difficult, but small number statistics make it hard to argue this is evidence for or against a scientific consensus.

3) There is no break down as to how many, if any of the signees, have expertise in the subject matter - eg how many of them performed experiments or studies on the environmental effects of CO2?

4) They have a link to a "peer-reviewed" research paper. However, there is no mention of it actually being published. We are left to assume the paper was not accepted for publication because it was trashed by the peer-review.

Please note that I specified climatologists publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. One can find a few dissidents with PhDs on any scientific question from the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution; science is the domain of free thought, and not only is it unavoidable that there will be disagreement, it's a good thing. However, if you want an idea of what the prevailing opinion is, check out the peer-reviewed journals.

What do I mean by "peer-reviewed"? I mean the ones in which articles are submitted for publication and then are circulated among scientists in the field, who recommend whether the article has merit. This does not mean it has to toe an orthodox line, but it does mean that if, for example, it questions whether human-generated global warming is real, it present solid evidence and/or arguments to back that up. These days, you will find exactly zero questioning of the idea in peer-reviewed journals. I mean that literally. Not just little -- none. Zip. Nada. There is still controversy around global warming but it involves minutiae of the models used, and predictions of consequences, not of the idea itself.

So where do you find climatologists publishing contrary opinions? Outside the peer-reviewed press, and especially in publications funded by the fossil-fuel industry. These voices create the illusion of serious controversy within the scientific community, but an illusion is exactly what it is. It is not the truth.

In short, no, there are not "plenty" of climatologists who agree with you. There are a few -- a VERY few -- iconoclasts who do, and whose views are amplified out of all proportion to their significance by oil-company money, and who are, moreover, unable to publish their views in the real journals of climate science because those views are without scientific merit.

The question of anthropocentric global warming, overall, is not a question. The issue is dead within the ranks of science.

Not dead, rather open.

Fire is bad!!! and stuff......it like totally ruins and burns stuff!!! I mean! like, dah!! we should only grow things...like flowers and daisies!! and butterflies and rainbows!!!! yeah, rainbows!!! let's like grow more rainbows!!! Fuck yeAH!! they are so pretty and stuff!! Anayway, everyone knows that Carbon is like, totally, totally, bad. Don't be a dick and , like, burn stuff!!! I mean like DAH!! ....damn.... I mean it's like, totally not cool and stuff. Dah! C02 is carbon..... and stuff...it's , like totally bad, bad stuff......and stuff!!! like DAH!!.;.......and stuff...

__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

Do you have any evidence for this, Si modo?

Hello TSG,

That is a claim made by those who want to shut down debate, rather than stand up to the challenge of defending their beliefs.

I and others have presented several links on the "Climate cover-up" thread on the Breaking News forum and on "Extreme weather to increase with climate change" thread on this forum that defends the reasons for being skeptical of the question of anthropocentric global warming claim. If you are opened minded you'll hit the links and read. If you are not, well then you wont.

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?