Show this to your friends who dont believe in global warming...irrefutable

[Hell in a Handbasket]

[trotsky]

1. Wow... where is that? n/t

[Dark]

42. Here,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.stm

[Freebird12004]

103. Over the years I've watched the event depicted in the third picture occur.

I have taken so many driving trips up and down the East Coast on US1 or US1A that I've watched sand dunes and homes disappear into the Atlantic Ocean for 35 years. This picture is no surprise to me.

Although it saddens me to see it - thank you, Dark, for posting the link.

[zwielicht]

134. Upsala Glacier, Argentina (nt)

[classof56]

2. Can you tell us where this is located?

I strongly believe in global warming and that it's mainly human-caused and that we should really start taking it seriously and doing something about it. But we have a president who doesn't believe in it and wouldn't even sign the Kyoto Treaty and doesn't think it makes any difference what happens to the earth or what his legacy is because we're all just going to die. And I'm guessing that to those who support him and his ideology, this photo wouldn't make a whit of difference. Just one of many reasons why I remain...

A Tired Old Cynic

Thanks for posting the photo, BTW. It's shocking and discouraging and makes me very sad.

[Squatch]

4. Why sad?

[classof56]

11. Hmmm...now that you mention it...

I'm not too sure. It actually is quite a beautiful scene (2nd photo). Guess to me it's illustrative of the fact that the ozone layer seems to be diminishing over the polar ice caps, resulting in their melting with some pretty serious consequences that you've probably read about. (Think far north Alaskans and polar bears, ice shelves breaking free in the Antarctic, that kinda thing.) And I guess I'm saddened at what's happening to Mother Earth, and that some of us humans seem to care so little about the planet that sustains us. But perhaps it's all just cyclical, as some would claim, and these events, like melting ice fields, would happen sooner or later no matter what we do.

It's a conundrum, I suppose. I'm just glad I have no more than another 30-40 years left here. Keep thinking we could turn things around if we really tried. But then, maybe I'm wrong about everything. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Squatch]

13. Mother Earth has been a lot hotter in the past

than it is right now...I'm sure she'll be alright.

[Salviati]

21. But we're entering a period in history where there is going to be more CO2

in the atmosphere than there has ever been, unless we change our ways dramatically. Honest scientists will tell you that we really don't know what to expect. It may be fine*, it may cause manageable problems for human society, it may turn out to be a disaster the likes of which we've never seen. The question is do we want to perform this experiment on the only planet that we have...


*by fine, I mean for human society, it will still likely be an environmental catastrophe...

[Squatch]

24. Really?

"ut we're entering a period in history where there is going to be more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been..."

These guys disagree with you:

"Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[Salviati]

37. I'm trying to remember facts presented during a colloquium I attended...

So I don't have a link handy. The guy giving the talk was not really an alarmist by any stretch of the imagination, he was simply laying out the facts so that people could make informed decisions. I'll try to get more info, but one thing to note was that he didn't say that we currently have more CO2 than ever, but that if we don't change our ways dramatically, in 50 or so years we will. (this is all filtered through the lens of memory, so bear with me...)

[Salviati]

38. Cool, here's the guys webpage, with links to the presentation:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mmrc/nsl/energy.html

[fat free goodness]

46. No, this is not true.

The 3 current major components of the atmosphere (by volume, not mass, and excluding water vapor are oxygen (21%), nitrogen (78%), and argon (0.93%). Carbon dioxide is a trace gas measured in parts-per-million by volume (ppmv).

Currently it is about 280 ppmv, 26% greater than the pre - 1800 (industrial revolution) levels, but much lower than it has been in the past.

During the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm, while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

It’s not clear that rising carbon dioxide levels will lead to ever higher temperatures. There are other factors that influence global temperatures.

And, while it's clear that humans DO add to rising carbon dioxide levels, it's also clear that the levels and the temperatures were going up before man had any effect.

[hatrack]

47. You're off by about 100 PPMV

Mauna Loa's observations track as high as 378.2 ppm in their 2003 records.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

Also, I would love to see references for your claim that Ordovician CO2 levels were more than 10 times current levels.

On edit: added word "about" to headline

[fat free goodness]

54. My mistake. I edited for brevity and transposed.

280 ppmv is the pre-industrial value, while the current value is about 370 on average.
One cite for Odovician CO2: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[Viking12]

56. How about an actual scientific article?

Not Billbob's Homepage (which BTW links to Fox 'science' writer Steve Milloy as a primary source).

On edit: And while you're at it, why don't you explain the supposed relevance of 460 million YBP.

[fat free goodness]

69. Most records agree.

The one I cited was easy to find with Google, internet accessible, and had one of the clearer graphs. I did not quote any of their opinions or conclusions from the data.

Here are a couple that are more "respectable":
"Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon." Veizer J, Godderis Y, Francois LM.
Nature 408, 698-701 (7 December 2000)

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years"
Daniel H. Rothmandagger, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

The relevance of era cited is the observation that CO2 levels were ten times higher than today, but the temperatures were not markedly higher. This disproves both the claim that CO2 levels are "much higher than they have been before", and that higher C02 levels inevitably lead directly to higher temperatures. There are other eras that could be used to prove the same points.

I do NOT dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that man is contributing to it's increase.

[Viking12]

73. You're charging at windmills (pun intended)

Strawman A: the claim that CO2 levels are "much higher than they have been before" is not a claim that appears in the scientific literature.

Strawman B: and "that higher C02 levels inevitably lead directly to higher temperatures". Again no such claims are made in the mainstream sscientific literature.

The mainstream scientific consensus is that there is no other way to explain the temp increase over the last fifty years without factoring the increased GHG.

[fat free goodness]

87. No strawman - II was responding directly to a post.

Strawman A: I was responding to the claim “But we're entering a period in history where there is going to be more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been, unless we change our ways dramatically.”

Strawman B: I read the implication of the claim that we would have higher C02 levels was that we would have terrible global warming.

I never disputed the claim that the current consensus is that we are contributing to rising CO2 over the last 50 years. I was pointing out that CO2 levels have been rising for thousands of years, and are nowhere near as high as they have been in the past.

[Viking12]

89. You're sort of right

"Higher C02 levels will lead to terrible global warming" in the current context, that is the most likely outcome. Has this always been the case? No. However, you fallaciously reason that the even though CO2 levels have been higher at certain historical moments that all other climate forcing were necessarily the same at those moments. A logical equivalent of your argument goes something like this: icy roads contributed to car accidents on January 9th. On July 9th there are no icy roads, therefore there can be no car accidents.

On edit: spelling

[fat free goodness]

107. Except...

I did NOT claim there would be no accidents (or warming).

A better logical equivalent of the argument: "Icy roads contributed to car accidents on Jan 9. On Jan 10 we still had icy roads, but no accidents. On July 9 there are no icy roads, but there were car accidents. Therefor, there are many factors other than icy roads to consider when predicting car accidents."

I am not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Just that it is
a) not the only factor involved;
b) probably not even the most important factor;
c) nowhere near as high as it has been in the past.

[trotsky]

58. That page appears to have its own bias.

Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

The guy writing it may as well just come out and say, "Them damn libruls and their global warming scare - what the hell do they know?"

The question I have is, why is he only focusing on CO2? Other greenhouse gases, like methane, undergo their own cycles and contribute more of a warming effect than CO2.

[fat free goodness]

65. Agreed.

Virtually everyone has some opinion (or bias). I did not cite the opinions, comments, or conclusions, only the fact of CO2 percentage at a particular time, and this is verifiable elsewhere. Google just found that one for me first.

I agree with your observation that CO2 is only one factor. It's relative importance is debatable. In fact, that was one of my points.

[Viking12]

49. Then you should be able to measure and identify those other factors

Please??

[fat free goodness]

63. In other words, come up with a complete

list of all significant variables affecting global climate changes and their interrelationships? I'd love to. Have you a whopping big grant handy?

Seriously, water vapor alone accounts for more than half of the total greenhouse effect, while carbon dioxide is about 20%. Water vapor % is also very dynamic.

There are factors other than chemistry that affect the system. The warmer, the wetter, but wetter does not always lead to warmer. The wetter, the more cloud cover. The more cloud cover, the more reflective (white reflects more than blue.) So water vapor holds heat that is already captured, but clouds reflect some incoming heat. BUT warmer means melted ice, and this means more land or water exposed. Since ice is reflective absorption is increased.
How much and what kind of outgassing will there be from the ocean (changing the air chemistry and greenhouse effects) as the earth warms? If ocean biology changes with temperature and chemistry will there be more or less ability to capture carbon?
Will the increased temperate (growing) zones as the earth warms increase the ability of the earth to lock carbon, and thus lower (or at least slow increase of) CO2?
And lastly... (stand by for heresy) is global warming really bad? Look at picture 1 and picture 2 (before and after) that started this post. They are different. What if picture 2 was first, and we were headed toward picture 1... wouldn't THAT be scary?

[Viking12]

66. You don't need a grant. You just need to read.

There is a great deal of research on climate forcings.

[fat free goodness]

88. I understand there is

a great amount of research on the subject. However, I doubt that anyone would claim that we know all the factors that contribute to climate change, and certainly would not claim we know how they interrelate. Else, there would be little debate. We'd just plug the numbers into the model and KNOW what was going to happen.

The debate would then be about whether it was a good or bad thing.

[Viking12]

90. So if we don't know everything, we know nothing?

Is that the goofy claim you're implying? If so, you need a serious science refresher.

[fat free goodness]

106. That's not what I said.

When I said there were many relevant factors other than just CO2, you asked me to list all the relevant factors. I said (jokingly) that it would take a whopping big grant to get started on that.
A big grant would not help. Well, it would help ME personally, but realistically no one knows ALL the relevant factors, nor can we understand how they interrelate.

My point is that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. But it cannot be looked at in isolation. It has been much, much higher than it will be in the foreseeable future with the temperature not rising much. And the earth has been warming for far longer than we have been adding to the CO2, though we are indeed doing that.

[Viking12]

120. No one looks at it in isolation, so what's your point?

Your continual reference to historical CO2 levels as some sort of "refutation" of contemporary climate conditions is absurd. Either you have no idea what you're talking about or you have a political agenda to misrepresent (I suspect a little of both given the resources you've provided).

[fat free goodness]

129. refute what ?

I’m guessing you read a lot of posts between the time you read mine and the time you reply. That would explain why you repeately object to my saying things I did not say.

I did not use historical CO2 levels to refute contemporary climate conditions. I used historical CO2 levels to refute the claim that CO2 levels were “headed higher than they have ever been.” If you think citing historical records for this purpose is not reasonable, please explain why.

[Viking12]

132. Yes or no?

Do you or don't you agree with the statement, "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Your exact words in case you need a refresher:
My point is that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. But it cannot be looked at in isolation. It has been much, much higher than it will be in the foreseeable future with the temperature not rising much. And the earth has been warming for far longer than we have been adding to the CO2, though we are indeed doing that

Will you answer or can we expect another evasive "I was responding to another post" BS?

[fat free goodness]

142. I'm not being evasive.

Though temperatures have been rising gradually for thousands of years, the temperatures have shown an increased rate of change over the last 150 years or so. I agree this is almost certainly attributable to human activity. I think it’s not just burning fossil fuels or CO2 emissions that do this. For instance, deforestation and oceanic pollution also have an effect.

Chill, and pay attention carefully while I say this again.

I agree:
• That humans are raising the CO2 levels.
• That CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
• That human activity (including but not limited to CO2 emission) is contributing to warming.

I question:
• Whether continued warming would be taking place even without human contributions. (Though we have almost certainly affected the rate of warming.)
• Whether a warmer, wetter planet will (in the big picture) is going to be a bad thing.

I dispute:
• That CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been. They have been much, much higher.
• That much higher C02 levels inevitably lead to much higher temperatures. CO2 levels have been much higher before without disastrous warming.

[Viking12]

143. Perhaps you should read up on non-linear systems

Significantly changing one element of the a system results not in a simple linear reaction as you suggest, a "warmer, wetter planet."

Chaotic sytems are characterized by non-linear feedbacks, a simple "warmer wetter planet" will almost certainly not be consequence of significantly altering the earth's atmosphere.

Species will not simply migrate, they will become extinct.

Hydrological systems, preciptation that we depend upon for our life and agricultrual production are already shifting.

In extreme feedback scenarios, the ocean's conveyor systems could shut down with unimaginable consequnces.

[fat free goodness]

144. Again, you seem to be responding to someone other than me.

I never intimated this was a linear system.
My original post, the one you began objecting to, said:
“It’s not clear that rising carbon dioxide levels will lead to ever higher temperatures. There are other factors that influence global temperatures. And, while it's clear that humans DO add to rising carbon dioxide levels, it's also clear that the levels and the temperatures were going up before man had any effect.”
Later:
“I am not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Just that it is
a) not the only factor involved;
b) probably not even the most important factor;
c) nowhere near as high as it has been in the past.”

This is not a hard position to understand. If you disagree with what I say, fine. But you keep making up things I did not say and objecting to them.

Now, regarding your claims:
“Species will not simply migrate, they will become extinct.” True for some, not for others. Some will evolve. Some will suffer, others will see their ranges expand. What else is new?
“…a simple "warmer wetter planet" will almost certainly not be consequence of significantly altering the earth's atmosphere.” We are talking about warming here, right? Is it your contention that the planet will not get warmer, on average? Or that if it gets warmer, it will not get wetter? What model are you looking at that predicts something else? I know of none. Did I ever imply that be the only result? No.
“Hydrological systems, preciptation that we depend upon for our life and agricultrual production are already shifting.” In simple words, rainfall, growing seasons, etc are changing. Of course they are. Are you sure they are getting worse?
“the ocean's conveyor systems could shut down with unimaginable consequnces.” Nonsense. So long as the ocean surface is a different temperature than the depths, the poles colder than the tropics, and the earth still rotates, I can’t imagine how we could have no convection currents.

Again, I ask that look at what I actually said, not what you think I may believe.

[Viking12]

145. Your faux indignation is amusing if not frustrating.

What else is new?

Again, you need to read up a little.

Did I ever imply that be the only result?

You implied, I inferred. As I mentioned before, your non-denial denials and evasive responses certainly raise questions about your sincerity in carrying on a rational conversation.

“I am not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Just that it is
a) not the only factor involved;
b) probably not even the most important factor;
c) nowhere near as high as it has been in the past.”

Well actually, mainstream scientifc opinion is that it is indeed the "most important" of the anthropogenic influences which are the most significant factors in the ongoing climate changes. The fact that you continue to raise historic CO2 levels as if they're relevant in the contemporary context is ridiculous.

Are you sure they are getting worse?

Destabilizing a chaotic system upon which we've precariously perched our civilization isn't a good idea, so yes, I believe that significantly altering atmospheric chemistry is in and of itself a bad thing.

[trotsky]

67. Picture 2 to picture 1

Yes, it would be scary, and one of the leading schools of thought is that global warming WILL lead to a new ice age. Right now what keeps Northern Europe warm is the flow of warm water coming from the Gulf Stream. The G.S. is actually just part of an enormous conveyor belt that stretches back and forth around the tip of South Africa between the Atlantic and Pacific. Melting polar ice in the north could threaten to disrupt the salinity of the North Atlantic, which could shut down the conveyor belt and stop the mild European winters.

We just don't know enough. And based on the geologic record, the climate appears to have the ability to flip from temperate to ice age within a decade.

[caligirl]

76. WOW, Any good EASY reading for those who want more info.

I saw the movie recently, the one that made Cheney out to be, well, Cheney. I would love to get more inf on the flipping temp to ice age in a decade point.

[trotsky]

78. This is pretty good.

From a political site, so it doesn't get too far into the technical terms.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17711

[caligirl]

84. This was really interesting, Thanks for the link. Bookmarked this one..

[NickB79]

102. The Ordovician Period was pulled out of an ice age by increased CO2

The beginning of the Ordovician was marked by the most massive ice age this planet has ever seen, with glaciers stretching almost to the equator. As CO2 levels increased, the ice age retreated.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=38446

[Viking12]

104. But Nick, that article was published in a peer-reviewed journal

Come on now, Billy Bob's homepage is a much more credible source for climate info. ;)

On edit: Thanks for the link.

[classof56]

28. I'm sure you're right. She'll reclaim nicely in a few millenia...

After we've nuked her into oblivion. Sensient beings, though, might have a different future.

End of discourse.

[Squatch]

30. Hmm...what are those?

"Sensient beings, though, might have a different future."

I'll take it that you meant "sentient".

And, I'll pose the question: Hasn't this ALWAYS been the case?

But, don't take my word for it...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[Viking12]

41. She'll be fine. It's the people that I'm worried about.

[PaulaFarrell]

52. She'll be alright

I'm not so sure about us, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Right. The important thing is that no one stop us from driving our Hummers

... I mean, why not play with climate change on a global scale? What the hell. Winter sucks.

:eyes:

[Salviati]

19. Ozone depetion and global warming are two seperate ways we've screwed...

the atmosphere. Ozone depetion in the stratosphere allows more of the suns UV light to pass through the atmosphere, causing higher incedents of cancer in life. Of course ground level ozone is another story. It's a bad pollutant, and a major componant of smog. There have been recent studies that show that ozone exposure severly impairs the immune system in people and wildlife.

Global warming, on the other hand, is linked to too much co2 in the atmosphere, causing the earth to trap much of the suns infra-red radiation which would normally be reflected back into space.

The effects of both these problems seem to be amplified at the poles, I'm not sure if it the same mechanism driving this, or if they both affect the poles more for different reasons.

[JHB]

40. Ozone depletion is a different problem; don't mix them up

The both involve the atmosphere and pollutants, but they're not the same problem.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

7. here's the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.stm

[PST]

9. we know this administration doesn't give a fuck

but it's not as if John Kerry had a lot of initiatives either. Bill Maher was right yesterday, this is an issue that the Democrats should pick up NOW!!

[Squatch]

3. Yeah, that alone should convice even the most die-hard skeptic.

Take a single example of a local climate change and use it to prove global warming.

:freak:

[freeplessinseattle]

36. how many will it take to convince you?? (nt)

[John BigBootay]

44. I look at the evidence scientifically and not politically...

and my conclusions so far are inclonclusive.

The earth IS in a warming trend currently-- that fact is not in dispute.

But the "Hockey Stick" model has been convincingly disputed and the evidence seems to indicate that the earth has experienced a number of warming and cooling trends throughout it's past not limited to the Little Ice Age of AD 1300 and the Mediaeval Warm Period of AD 800, in which the Earth's average temperature is believed to be greater than present.

The question WE MUST FACE is: Is there SUFFICIENT evidence to say that THIS TIME the temperature changes it is man's doing?

I personally cannot find that evidence conclusive at this time.

But today many nations begin embarking on their Kyoto reforms nonetheless. Their efforts may have some impact-- and then, perhaps not.

It is said that industrial efforts may now move to India and China where they are exempt from Kyoto as "emerging" nations. Is it not possible to assume that these nations will develope industrial capacity to accept outsourced manufacturing from first-world nations that can no longer pollute under Kyoto?

It will be interesting to watch the next fifty years on this planet. We may see some telling results from Kyoto: we may see a small reduction in CO2-- and maybe, just maybe a levelling off of the temperature. It would be great to get these results, but I am skeptical of this.

More likely we will see a further burden on economies that can ill-afford to be burdened, chasing a demon that may or may not exist.

[Viking12]

48. A) The "hockey stick has not been, "convincingly disputed"

and even if it was, it wouldn't matter much:
What If … the “Hockey Stick” Were Wrong?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

B) I don't know what you need for "sufficient" evidence, but you may want to check the leading scientific journals - thousands of articles supporting the anthropogenic influence on the climate. Here'a few studies I find enlightening
a) Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. A nifty experiment where they measure downward longwave IR radiation and show an increase from CO2 plus feedbacks.http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
b)Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Looking at the spectrum from the atmosphere, satellites have measured changes in the frequencies where GHG absorb EM radiation.
http://www.natureasia.com/get.pl5/japan/nature/abstracts/issue6826/abstract410355a.html

[John BigBootay]

53. I'm sure you've seen this, but just in case...

The Mann study comes under great scrutiny and doesn't appear to stand up well.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp

I'll look at your links and see how they fare.

But one thing I am concerned about - especially in light of the apparent failure of the hockey stick model, is that CRITICAL information, data and modeling are filtering into policy without solid peer-review.

When we're talking about something this enormous, I'd at least like the best evidence to be tested by several labs-- preferably ones that hate each other. I'd like to see the raw data on the web so that ANYONE can run the numbers.

Remember-- I am not saying man is not contributing to global warming or is possibly the sole contributor-- I honestly don't know at this stage. I just don't like the idea of making decisions of this magnitude based on controversial findings.

[Viking12]

55. The findings are only "controversial" to industry funded "sceptics"

The mainstream scientific consensus is quite clear. Again, there is no evidence that the "hockey stick" is a "failure". You really need to do your homework if you're going to be making claims like this.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

[John BigBootay]

60. I find them controversial-- and I'm not getting a paycheck

from industry. Where's MY check?

Is the Hockey Stick an example to you of an academic triumph?

You're not winning any converts here with your snobby absolutism.

[Viking12]

61. Delete: Dupe

[Viking12]

62. If the truth doesn't win converts, nothing will.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you're suggesting that MBH paleoclimte reconstruction is some sort of pillar supporting the mainstream consensus of peer-reviewed, published climate science that anthropogenic influences are a significant factor in warming ove rhte last 50 years. It is one very small piece.

The self-correcting scientific process is an academic triumph. However, to date nothing has been produced to "correct" MBH.

The fact that you are focused on the MBH reconstruction IS because of the industry funding that supports M&M and provides a blowhorn to get their word out. That you are unaware of this does not make me a "snobby absolutist," it makes me a well informed citizen.

[John BigBootay]

83. The Hockey Stick was massively influential

when it was revealed. Many minds were swayed by that single graph-- possibly more than all others. I find it troubling that this devastating piece of evidence emerged and flourished un-reviewed for so long-- and only now is being critiqued and re-evaluated.

Furthermore, I know not of the background of the two men who "broke" the Hockey Stick, but I have no evidence to show that they were also being paid off by industry. But if they were-- so what? Their data and methods are available FOR ALL TO SEE and scrutinize, apparently unlike the initial methods that yielded the suspicious results.

How many other studies are conducted that are not adequately peer-reviewed by rivals? My only wish is that something this massive and political is reviewed more aggressively.

Viking-- you may be right about GW. But honestly, climate is immensely complicated, full of variables, full of problems that will never be fully understood. I honestly can't even say at this point, with the knowledge we have of climate that the GW we are experiencing right now is not a benefit to the planet in perhaps some unforeseen way. Perhaps there will be more arible land as a result of some warming... perhaps something I cannot imagine...

I don't know how old you are but if you're in your thirties like me you probably remember that scientists believed in the late seventies that we were heading toward another Ice Age.

Were they wrong then? If so, what makes them unequivocably right now? Is it possible that the GW of today prevented the next Little Ice Age from occuring? You could say that I am a little gun-shy of scientific predictions regarding the climate. Hopefully, you'll acknowledge that my resistance has some basis in reality.

You've heard my opinion such as it is-- truly a non-opinion at this point-- an agnostic opinion. Perhaps in a few years with more and more evidence I will come to believe as you do. Perhaps not.

For now-- you and I are done debating.

Take care!

[Viking12]

86. Scientists in the late seventies predicted Ice Age?

I'll bet that is news to the scientists:

The Global Cooling Myth.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[John BigBootay]

124. Again-- don't know how old you are, but if you were alive and aware--

during the seventies, you were inevitably faced with quotes and thoughts from the MSM, and various scientists, et. al., such as these:

The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.
- Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramaticlly and that these changes may portrend a drasticdecline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumalate so massively that meterologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
- Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Certain signs, some of them visible to the layman as well as the scientist, indicate that we have been watching an ice age approach for some time without realizing what we are seeing... Scientists predict that it will cause great snows which the world has not seen since the last ice age thousands of years ago.
- Betty Friedan, "The coming Ice Age", Harper's Magazine, Sept, 1958


"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."
- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971

An increase by only a factor of 4 in the global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. - S.I Rasool and S.H. Schneider
Science, v173, p138, 9/7/1971.

"This trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century"
- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"This cooling has already killed hundereds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976


The looming crisis of global cooling was not as seemingly imminent a threat as today's global warming threat-- but the similarities are too much for me to ignore-- since I lived it and was impacted by it.


And THAT shall be my last words on the subject!!!

[trotsky]

125. You didn't read his link, did you?

It directly mentions a lot of your sources and how they have been taken out of context, exaggerated, etc. I think you owe it to yourself to read it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[Viking12]

131. A few isolated quotes, most of them from news sources not scientific lit

You "lived" it or the fossil fuel PR has led you to beleive you lived it?

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Maybe you just like driving a big obnoxious SUV.

Bottom line? No matter how many petroleum industry asshats and neo-con apologists drag their feet on this, a) CO2 levels are rising dramatically, b) Dependence on Petroleum is causing us to behave erratically, dangerously, violently, and making us assosciate with VERY unsavory characters (like all addicts do) and, lastly, c) Oil is going to run out eventually ANYWAY... So what, precisely, is the problem with addressing our fossil fuel dependency and the global warming that it probably (definitely, actually) is causing? Seems to me it's a fucking no-brainer.

Or is that too "snobby" a position for you?

[John BigBootay]

122. I drive a New-Beetle, smartass--

and my position is simply that I want better research before I commit to a massive program of CO2 reduction-- a program that very probably WILL DO LITTLE TO NOTHING to alleviate GW.

[Viking12]

133. Nice, did you get permission from the AEI to use that line of BS?

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Well we can do "research" until the cows come home.

I'm not sure what it is that has your shorts in such a bunch, but the fact remains that Oil is a finite resource and we have to pay large sums of money to some very bad people to continue to obtain it.

Obviously, that doesn't matter to you, because reducing CO2 emissions and/or finding better sources of power would be too "bothersome".

Frankly, I happen to think that with American Ingenuity and a Manhattan/Apollo Project Sized committment, we could do just about anything. Too bad you seem to want to sell us short.

Smartass.

[NCN007]

139. your mainstream opinion

is all from the same website

[Viking12]

140. No the website I link is hosted by actual working climate scientists

From there you can follow links to thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed scientific press. But if you want some other "mainstream" scientific websites:

Well let’s see there’s the

National Academy of Sciences

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309075742?OpenDocument

The American Geophysical Union:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

The American Institute of Physics:

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

The World Meteorological Organization:

http://www.wmo.ch/files/wcp/966_E.pdf

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch

I could continue, but you get the point…

edit: spelling, fixed link

[PaulaFarrell]

59. CHina may be exempt but they are still cutting emissions

Not sure about the link, but I read it a few days ago, I'll try to find one. They are already experiencing massive desertification.

The real burden on economies will come when sea levels rise. Tuvalu has already been briefly underwater, and teh Maldives are very vulnerable. ALl these poeple will have to move somehwere, and who wants millions of refugees? Furthermore, the countries which are poorest already have the most people living near the coast.

To me it seems that even if the most dire effects are never reached, and earth does somehow manage to reach a balance, it is just simply not worth taking the risk. There is such a thing as quality of life. I don't want to have to live in a world bereft of wildlife - here in Britain, there was a COMPLETE breeding failure of some species of seabirds in the Shetlands, the speculation being that the sand eels they feed on have left the waters as they have become too warm. This is the first time in memory that this has ever happened. Life will of course survive in some form, but there will be mass extinctions. This has happened several times in the past already, so there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

But from what I have read Kyoto is far too little to have much effect, and even if all emssions stopped now, the effects would continue for decades.

[Lindacooks]

74. Hey! Buckaroo Banzai??

One of my favorite movies - especially Perfect Tommy.

Noticed your name...

[John BigBootay]

85. "It's Boo-TAY! TAY! TAY! TAY!" Brrzzaaappp!!! Classic. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Why is adapting out of a finite, expensive and polluting power source

a "burden"?

Waah. Shit, get my violin.

[atre]

135. Actually, it's not even evidence of climate change

One of the pictures could have been taken in the dead of winter while the other was taken in warm summer sun.

[EVDebs]

5. Hey, take a look at Portage Glacier (near Alyeska) AK

In the past thirty or so years that glacier has receeded so far from the Begich-Boggs visitors center you've got to crane your neck outside to see the calved 'bergs, the face of the glacier is too far away from where it started near the said visitor's center.

[Twillig]

32. I was there 30 years ago.

As an 8 y/o I could throw a rock onto the bergs.

Pretty soon the wreckage of Begich's plane will be found on the side of a snowless mountain.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Portage Glacier is shocking

and it's just happened in the last few years. I live here but hadn't been down that way for a few years. When I did finally take an out-of-state friend down there a couple of years back, I couldn't believe it. It looks like a completely different place.

ed. -- WOW, we just had an earthquake.

[TheFarseer]

6. They'll just say it's summer and winter

and you won't be able to convince them otherwise

[trotsky]

8. Exactly.

They'll be standing in their yard in Montana, mowing the lawn on a 90 degree day in January, and STILL won't be convinced.

[Squatch]

10. That's almost happened before...86 years ago

Montana Temp Extremes

Jan. 79 1919 Choteau –70 1954 Rogers Pass
Feb. 79 1932 Columbus –61 1899 Fort Logan
March 88 1910 Miles City –45 1906 Fort Logan
April 97 1980 Poplar –30 1940 Summit
May 105 1937 Rock Springs –5 1954 Polebridge
June 112 1988 Wolf Point 11 1943 Kings Hill
July 117 1937 Medicine Lake 15 1919 Bowen
Aug. 112 1961 Iliad 5 1910 Bowen*
Sept. 107 1983 Poplar –7 1926 Pleasant Valley
Oct. 99 1910 Springbrook –30 1935 Summit
Nov. 85 1975 Grassrange –53 1959 Lincoln
Dec. 78 1939 Crow Agency* –55 1924 Wheaton

[Hell in a Handbasket]

12. wow. okay, show them the pic, and those stats. nt

[Squatch]

14. And show them that a lot of the temp extremes in MT

happened in the first half of the 20th century, when CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels were much, much lower than they are now?

[trotsky]

17. You're the one using the extremes incorrectly.

Record highs and lows are "normal." Sometimes weather events happen to coincide in such a way as to produce them.

Sustained temperature changes over time, now that's something to be aware of and learn why it's happening.

[trotsky]

15. Warm temps are not impossible - I never said they were.

But note, I said *mowing the lawn*. As in a new seasonal average, warm enough in January to grow grass. That isn't going to happen when a Pacific air mass happens to move over Montana for a few balmy January days.

I guess you are of the "global warming isn't happening" mindset, eh?

[Squatch]

18. Just itching to pigeonhole me, aren't you?

"I guess you are of the "global warming isn't happening" mindset, eh?"

Whatever gave you that impression?

"I said *mowing the lawn*."

So, you are proposing an increase in (January, Montana) temperatures of about 70 degrees? Gotcha. There's not a hint of alarmism, there.

:freak:

[trotsky]

20. And you're trying to strawman me.

I was just making a humorous point about the extent to which some people will go to deny environmental changes.

[Squatch]

22. THAT was humor?

Well, there you go. I hereby dismiss everything you've said in this thread as "humor".

[trotsky]

23. Likewise, albeit for different reasons.

n/t

[Squatch]

25. Ha, ha, ha, ha...more humor?

Or do you have something serious to offer this thread?

[trotsky]

26. You mean, other than calling you out?

Nah, I'm done now.

[Squatch]

27. Please, go right ahead..."call me out", as you put it.

This will be very interesting.

[trotsky]

31. You misuse statistics.

You mis-state people's positions.
You ignore the context of research you like, and disparage any research you don't like.

Whatever's got your dander up over me, I'm not sure. But don't let your anger consume you - go out and enjoy the weather. :hi:

[Squatch]

34. Let's take these one at a time, shall we?

"You mis-state people's positions."

No, I called you on your alarmist "humorous" position, and you didn't like it.

"You ignore the context of research you like, and disparage any research you don't like."

Hmmm...if you call the two pictures offered in the opening salvo "research", well I think you might do yourself a favor and "broaden your horizons" and expose yourself to real research. May I suggest a library as a good place to start?

And, the only "research" I "disparaged" (lol), is the presentation of 2 pictures offered as "irrefutable" evidence as to the apparent process of global warming.

"Whatever's got your dander up over me"

No dander at all. Actually, I'm finding this entire discussion with you humorous, which was, as you stated, your original intent.

"go out and enjoy the weather."

I would if I weren't at work. Gotta pay the bills, yano?

[trotsky]

35. I did my homework.

I searched your old posts to find the pattern of you dismissing research you don't agree with. And interesting you didn't address your misuse of temperature statistics. Hrm.

You go ahead and don't worry about environmental changes - or just claim they're natural and we couldn't possibly make them any worse. Enjoy your opinion. I sincerely hope you're right.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. Glacial retreat is a serious problem

It definitely means a rise in Ocean levels. Meanwhile, this picture of Alaskan spruces from the same link parallels a similar problem with eastern Hemlocks, which are being decimated by the wooly adgelid.http://www.hikewnc.info/articles/hwa.html
The devestation of the hemlock forests will be especially catstrophic to the eastern states since it provides a unique habitat of damp, cooling shade all year round due to its flat needles, and has no real substitue.

[mattclearing]

29. Drudge has this up.

And Drudge is, of course, a huge Global Warming skeptic.

Hard to refute that, though.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[maxsolomon]

39. 2 possibilities

1. Global Warming is real. Ozone-depleting & Carbon emmissions are bad.

2. These are normal average temperature increases/decreases on a geologic time scale.

THE POINT IS:

its ONE of these 2, and neither one absolves us from our responsibility to cease destroying the atmosphere. We should be striving to keep our climate stable. the Bushies' "It will hurt our economy" excuse is basically a betrayal of the entire human race.

[PST]

45. interesting news from Europe today

politicians from 8 European countries are calling for economic sanctions against the US for not signing up to the Kyoto agreeement. The politicians - almost all of them social democrats - claim US companies benefit from not enforcing the Kyoto protocol.

(no link b/c the article is in Dutch)

[trotsky]

50. Well put.

If it's natural, the very least we can do is make sure our actions don't tinker with the natural cycles to make them even worse.

[Emboldened Chimp]

51. The biggest change will be with Kilimanjaro...

...there will be no snow atop that great mountain in 10-15 years. Two generations hence will think Hemingway was drinking too much absinthe when he wrote his famed short story...

[truebrit71]

128. There was a great programme on PBS about that very thing recently...

Fascinating and worrying at the same time....

[GoSolar]

57. Thanks for this post and the pictures.

Looks like there are a lot of folks who don't "believe" in global warming and our role in making the problem worse (if not creating it), despite any evidence you can provide.

[ComerPerro]

64. Be sure to check out Image Number 3

Its pretty alarming, as well.

[Fescue4u]

68. my backyard does the same thing twice a year

I call it " seasons ".

This is hardly irrefutable without some background and context.

[PST]

70. your backyard is on Argentina's Upsala Glacier?

amazing..

[Fescue4u]

71. I said my back yard DOES THIS

Not my back yard IS this.

[PST]

72. what are you trying to say?

this topic is about a glacier, you talk about your backyard..

[Fescue4u]

80. Im saying

That I can show you a winter scene. And I can show you a Summer scene.

I don't know about where you live, but winter is radically different from summer here.

Thats all.

The photos, without context, without even a description of the location are as useful as me showing my house in 3 ft of snow, next to a summer photo of me in my shorts.

[PST]

82. that's why they mentioned the glacier..

..although I think it was some posts below the original.

[Fescue4u]

110. fair enough.

Some of the folks attacking me below still havent figured this out, lol.

[Viking12]

75. You have glaciers receding in your backyard twice a year?

Dude, where do you live?

[Fescue4u]

81. See above

I have winter and summer.

crazy stuff I tell ya!

[trotsky]

91. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

We're talking GLACIERS. Monstrous ice "rivers" comprised of millions of tons of ice. These don't just form in the winter and melt in the summer.

[Fescue4u]

94. NO.

I know what you are talking about.

Im talking about a winter photo and a summer photo...with absolutely no context.

Using the same technique, I can demonstrate Detroit has left the ice age and is entering a period of heatwaves.


If you want to prove global warming, you need to do better than a photo snapped in Dec next to one snapped in July.

[Lorien]

96. Jeezus

do you even know what a glacier is? They don't disappear and reappear with the seasons!

[Fescue4u]

108. of course I know what I glacier is

Could you point out the word glacier in the the photo?

I see a frozen lake with varying levels.


(I don't doubt its a glacier, buts that photo is hardly irrefutable proof of...anything)

[Lorien]

123. It is clearly a glacier

and yes, there is irrefutable proof of global climate change that is directly a result of fossil fuel use. I know several high profile scientist who have studied climate change in Antarctica for over 40 years, and what they've told me fits right in with what scientists have concluded world wide; if we don't make some drastic changes soon, our days are numbered and few.

You can chose to believe the facts or ignore them. Either way, unless you elderly or killed within the next decade, you'll see proof for yourself well within your lifetime. I guarantee it.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

109. Yes please attack me.

For failing to see the paragraph describing the scientific description in the photo.

Please point to the word "glacier" in the photos.

A frozen lake a different levels is hardly unusual, or even something to worry about.

Here's a hint.

No "irrefutable proof" has ever been irrefutable based on 2 photos lacking any background, context, or ANYTHING.

Now here's some homework for you: Look up the word "SCIENCE". Hell...look up the words "irrefutable" and "proof".

Or if you want..just keep throwing out insults and keep wondering why no one takes global warning seriously. Its your loss, hardly mine.

(if the lights havent gone on in your head yet, I get global warning...im talking about the method of communicating it here). If the lights are still out, then you'll never get it and please don't bother me.

[trotsky]

111. Allow me to enlighten you.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.stm

(Yes, you had to read down a few posts to get the context for this picture. So sorry to make you have to click something.)

Some scientists say an increase in the rate of melting of the world's glaciers is evidence of global warming.

Argentina's Upsala Glacier was once the biggest in South America, but it is now disappearing at a rate of 200 metres per year.

But apart from that, even looking at the photos, it is obvious this is not some regular "lake" that simply ices over. Look at the mountains to get a feel for the scale. Look at how high the ice level is, versus how low the water is.

I'm still saying that YOU don't get it. If you think that's an "attack," so be it. Yes, the original poster was exaggerating by saying that one photo would be "irrefutable proof" of global warming. But none of what others have been trying to tell you has anything to do with that - only your ignorance of what a glacial field looks like and how much it takes to transform one from solid ice to a body of water.

[Fescue4u]

113. Thank you

for admitting that im right in your final paragraph.

Yes it was an exagerration. I think there might be hope for you yet.

maybe.

[trotsky]

115. If that's what it takes for you to save face.

You claimed the original picture (sans description) was no different than showing a winter scene and then a summer scene.

There is no lake in the world that freezes what, 500 feet (? - based on the scale of the mountains in the background) higher than its "summer" level.

You were ignorant of what a glacial valley looks like. That's OK, it doesn't mean you are stupid. Just uninformed.

[Fescue4u]

116. and you called my obtuse

lol.

[trotsky]

117. I asked if you were being *deliberately* obtuse.

Somehow that got deleted as being a personal attack, even though I didn't directly call you that at all. But as it turns out, you *were*. What you claim you were doing is pretending to "not get it," so as to prove a point to the original poster that the picture needed context.

How interesting.

[Fescue4u]

118. whatever

Now you are just boring me.

[Toots]

121. "and keep wondering why no one takes global warning seriously."

Ummm. I guess some in America think they are the only real people on earth but I think if you ever went to another country you may find that some people do take global warming seriously. In fact most countries have signed a treaty stating they will work together towards halting global warming. Hell even the Bush* Cabal doesn't deny Global Warming. They just deny that humans have anything to do with it or can do anything about it. Even my untrained eyes could tell the photos were taken of a glacier but then like you said two photos alone should not be the total evidence.

[NickB79]

101. Do you have any idea how DEEP that glacier was?

If that was happening twice a year in your backyard, your house would be under several HUNDRED feet of ice right now.

[Fescue4u]

112. Not from the photo

Could you point out the scale to me?

Could you point out the words describing the ice/water levels?

I cant find them.

Without context, it looks like a lake at different levels of water. I've seen similiar scenes at Pikes Peak where the water level is high/low and frozen/liquid.

I fully understand the issues at hand. Im just trying to drop a clue into the lap of people that try to communicate these issues.

2 photos is not irrefutable, nor proof.

[NickB79]

126. Based on the size of the central mountain in both pictures

It appears that we are talking about several HUNDRED feet of difference in ice, if not more. You also have a small chuck of rock in the lower left-hand corner present in both shots to compare the pictures with. There is no lake in the world that alters that much per year based on seasonal fluctuations. You can also tell by the slope of the ice sheet and it's ridged appearance that that is definitely NOT a frozen lake, unless lakes freeze quite differently in other parts of the world than they do here in MN, land of 10,000 lakes.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

119. yes, but how often does a glacier turn into a lake, and then back into a

glacier? i think this is a little different.

[Jacobin]

77. The issue is NOT whether the globe is warming

No one can legitimately dispute that because it is simply a matter of fact.

The issue is: how much of the warming is due to burning fossil fuels and how much is due to ordinary fluctuations in the cooling and warming of the earth which has been going on for billions of years.

THAT issue is subject to legitimate debate. My position is that the ramifications of the warming trend are too catatastrophic to debate about it and that we should endeavor to limit the use of fossil fuels rather than 'see who is right' when it may be too late.

[PST]

79. Bill Moyers scared the hell out of me

"So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer - 'the road to environmental apocalypse. Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse."

snip

link: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/moyers-bill_on-religious-right-and-environment.html

[airfoil]

92. Moyers and Grist later withdrew their comments...

Note that grist has since backtracked on this, as has Moyers. From http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/index.html

See the bottom of the page:


---------

[dpibel]

93. Devastating

They acknowledge that they can't verify quotes from James Watt, and you consider that withdrawing their comments. You see that as backtracking.

What about the rest of the article. It's a long article. They didn't backtrack on the balance. They didn't withdraw the analysis.

Good try, as long as you assume people won't follow your links.

[airfoil]

97. But...

They acknowledge that they can't verify quotes from James Watt, and you consider that withdrawing their comments. You see that as backtracking.

What about the rest of the article. It's a long article. They didn't backtrack on the balance. They didn't withdraw the analysis.

Good try, as long as you assume people won't follow your links.

Yeah, sorry, I was referring to the Moyer comment on the Watt character.

That said, the article does a poor job of stitching it all together.

It starts with a premise that bible-belters believe in the apocolypse and that many leaders understand this and often believe the same. Fair enough. People believe weird things all over this planet. If they don't bother me, I don't bother them.

But then in the "don't worry" section the writer makes a fantastic leap in logic that basically says "if you believe the apocolypse is coming, then why worry about the environment when you'll be rescued in the rapture?" The author then expects the reader to take the 50M bible believing folks he talked about above and tries to convince us that they are the same ones checking websites for the end of the world. Of course, the author also doesn't explain why these folks go to work every day. I mean, if you think the end is coming then fuck the environment and tell your boss to shove it and go home and wait. Yet these folks don't do that. They keep going to work.

Then the author notes that Inhofe and Delay are both strong Christians, and that both dont' care for environmental causes and have received money from oil companies. Very dubious and the author failed to establish any real link between hoping for the end of the world and your grand children and taking money from oil companies.

The REAL BIT OF DATA that tied all this together was the made up quote from James Watt. Wihtout this, this article is nothing more than "X likes to do weird things, and Y likes to do weird things, and you know what that means: Z is trying to kill us all!"

[Viking12]

137. Unfortunately, the Watt quotes haven't yet been attributable

to a primary source. Big mistake by Moyers, a very poor example of journalism. There are however numerous other primary documents in Watts own words that basically confirm the picture of Watt painted by Moyers.

[Lorien]

95. We SHOULD be scared

a good friend of mine has been studying Global climate change in the Antarctic for over forty years. He and his colleagues made predictions about specific icebergs collapsing and glaciers melting-those predictions are coming true FAR AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. Ice core samples have proved that fossil fuels are to blame, but big corporations control our governments, so their solid evidence won't get a decent review by those setting policy.

If their other predictions follow the accelerated timeline, we will all see the fall of the human race-and the rest of life on earth- within a few decades (20-50 years).

[twenty2strings]

114. From what I've heard...

The earth is periodically smacked up side of the head by comets,asteroids,gamma ray bursts,supervolcanoes,earthquakes,magnetic pole reversals and of course misc.(which includes us and our astounding power to grow fast)If we are the beads of sweat on mother earth's brow I would hope for a gentle dabbing rather than a deep swiping with natures filthy dripping bar rag. The silly monkeys spilled their drinks.B-)

[rowire]

127. Whoops!

I showed this to one of my conservative co-workers and he said "yeah, there is something called the seasons of the year --- one is summer and another is winter."

Do you have any other information I can show him that would shed light on where this is and what time of year both photos were taken? Thanks.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

130. the whole website doesnt hurt, either.

and lakes dont turn into glaciers.

[libodem]

136. send it to :

rush limbaugh, glen beck, tony snow, o'rielly, hannity, drudge,savage,mike reagan, all those worthless liars. The give a daily spin that global warming is not real.

[donheld]

141. The Bushies think Jebus will rapture them away from this

and we heathen will be left to suffer with the global warming etc.