Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Coma Man Was Conscious
for 23 Years

'I was witness to my own suffering,' says Belgian

10 hours, 0 minutes ago
Team Discovers
Mini-Monsters
of the Deep

Thousands of bizarre creatures discovered in blackest black

10 hours, 18 minutes ago
Suicide Rate Rising

Data shows uptick in suicides during recession

8 hours, 40 minutes ago
NFL Adds Concussion Rules

Teams must now keep independent neurologists on hand

5 hours, 41 minutes ago
Pain-Relieving
Morphine May
Spread Cancer

But drug to counter harmful effect exists

5 hours, 46 minutes ago
College Threatens to Fail Students for Obesity

Twenty-five seniors must prove they've lost weight to graduate

Nov 21, 09 11:25 AM CST
TALK SHOW ROUNDUP

McConnell:
Dems Proceed
at 2010 Peril

Senators hit the Sunday talk shows after health vote

Nov 22, 09 11:15 AM CST
Eyes on 2010

Lincoln
Swings to
Center of
Health Debate

Dems come calling as GOP eyes her seat in 2010

Nov 22, 09 1:03 PM CST
Climate Skeptics:
Hacked Emails
Prove We're Right

Scientist talks about adding a 'trick' to graph

Nov 21, 09 10:37 AM CST
Fla. Man to Smoke
115,000th Joint

Feat earns him world record for cannabis consumption

Nov 20, 09 10:32 AM CST
At One Clinic,
Two Standards
of Care

Separate entrance, faster service for those who pay out of pocket

1 hour, 17 minutes ago
Hadron Collider
Restarts Briefly

After 14 months of repairs, proton beams circulate

Nov 20, 09 6:06 PM CST
Peru Gang Accused
of Killing to Harvest Fat

Cosmetics firms said to pay $60K/gallon; experts skeptical

Nov 19, 09 10:00 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

Climate Change Report: We Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Mainland US could be 7-11 degrees warmer by 2090

By Matt Cantor| Posted Jun 17, 09 1:30 PM CDT|

(Newser) – Climate change has already brought warmer winters to the Midwest and rising sea levels—and barring quick intervention, the mainland US could heat up 7 to 11.5 degrees by 2090, says a new report to Congress by federal agencies and universities. The report holds no new research, Time notes, but surveys what’s happened and what’s ahead, reminding us that “if we don't act soon, the consequences are likely to be catastrophic,” writes Bryan Walsh.

A few key points:

Precipitation is likely to come in “severe downpours” in the North, causing more flooding, while the drought-plagued South gets drier.
Alaska’s salmon and trout industry could go bust, and New England will likely lose its maple syrup production to Canada.
Southern areas of Florida and Texas could get more than 160 days of 90-degree-plus weather yearly. Heat waves could mean early deaths for the poor and the young.
Sea levels could rise 3-4 feet, potentially drowning a large part of Florida.

In this Feb. 1, 2009, file photo a lift line stretches across the base of Powderhouse Hill ski area in South Berwick, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Henry Waxman is sponsoring a carbon-capping bill that could face a vote next week. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

In this 2005 file photo, two fishermen pick red salmon from their nets in Cook Inlet off Clam Gulch, Alaska, with the Redoubt Volcano in the background. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.23.09

Books Are Bad for You

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

58 comments

VIEWING:

Doctor_Zaius
Jun 17, 09 1:32 PM CDT

Queue the deniers and wackos. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

ClingingToHope
Jun 17, 09 2:23 PM CDT

There is no proof of "global warming." But AlGore is doing just fine duping all of the dumbolibs while flying in private jets.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

shonangreg
Jun 17, 09 4:39 PM CDT

Perfect ;-)

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Jun 17, 09 5:21 PM CDT

Well the question would be is when is the research from? The article says that the report contains no new research. So is the research from the 70's which said all of this same stuff would happen by the year 2000. there is also just as much proof that we are globally cooling www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html . So you can say what you want abut the deniers and wackos their Dr. Z.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Jun 17, 09 8:58 PM CDT

And I was not let down. The deniers and wackos lined up and spilled forth a plethora of studies all proving that global Climate change is hooey and all of them funded by the oil and coal companies.

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
Jun 17, 09 1:40 PM CDT

Is there any upside to global warming? I see little chance for reversing it, Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Mr.C
Jun 17, 09 2:04 PM CDT

My thinking is that this whole system is bigger than us, and we just have to cope with what happens. -The upside is that if it happens I may get to plant a palm tree on Antarctica.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jun 17, 09 2:43 PM CDT

http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/20/waxman-markey-cost-benefit-analysis

-2

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jun 17, 09 2:59 PM CDT

Sorry, I cut off my description of the above link. It basically states that the Legislation to stop global warming will be more detrimental than the "warming" itself.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Jun 17, 09 4:54 PM CDT

Current international laws forbid any nation from settling Antarctica. So no, no one will get to plant anything there.

IN RESPONSE:

Snowleopard
Jun 17, 09 5:40 PM CDT

Some places will get much needed rain (though often in the form of flooding), and some regions closer to the poles will have an increased growing season. However, the negative consequences will greatly outweigh these benefits (displacement of millions of people, wildfires, drought, desertification, heatwaves, extinction, evasive species, etc).

| 0 minutes ago

JaneMP
Jun 17, 09 1:49 PM CDT

The upside: The earth will be fine. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Snowleopard
Jun 17, 09 5:42 PM CDT

if you exclude the whole worst mass extinction since the dinosaurs thing (species loss is already that bad, but I guess a lot of that is attributable to other man-made causes too).

| 0 minutes ago

riffran
Jun 17, 09 1:51 PM CDT

Oh boy. Reversed cryogenic polar hurricanes. Forcing the evil U S to beg mexico for refuge. Oh wait that was a different work of fiction LOL. True not true. We just don't know. But it's fun to agitate the gore oids. Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 2:26 PM CDT

WE DO KNOW.... Riffran are you a oceanographer or a climatologist? I think not... as they all know that global warming is MAN MADE!!! Ask any of them And for the scientist who are not oceanographer or a climatologist and disagree... SHUT UP because you ARE NOT the scientists who study and research Global Warming. BTW here are the people who know the truth.... http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jun 17, 09 2:49 PM CDT

@ Myvoice, Funny how Columbia did a study in the "Bio Dome" where the CO2 levels were artificially inflated and during the conclusion it was noted that the vegetation in the dome alway grow exponentially greater than the CO2 was increased, thus ultimately balancing the CO2/O2 levels in the sealed environment, but it's not politically correct to mention anything about that study today is it, not with all that "Global Warming" research money that all of the scientist, that you claim are in the know, are depending on to make a living.

IN RESPONSE:

IndependentThinker
Jun 17, 09 4:55 PM CDT

@PaleRider; So they found that ONE effect of global warming was beneficial to plant life in one way. And why do you think that scientist are scheming for money? It is not like you here people talk about being rich like a scientist or getting into science for the cash and easy life. These guys take facts, analysis them, project outcomes and report it. It is not for the money.

IN RESPONSE:

newsman
Jun 18, 09 12:59 AM CDT

Your not to much of an Independent thinker by making a statement like that. What you are implying is that scientists do not have to eat or cloth their children so they can not possibly be taking funding from special interest groups that are willing to fund work in their field. Do you honestly think that Al Gore is running around with his fat self preaching about this stuff if he didn't stand to gain millions by investing in the "Carbon Credit" scheme.

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 2:04 PM CDT

And global warming is a problem, why? Sorry, the evidence does not support that this is man-made....if it is even happening. Gore wants you to believe that its due to carbon fossil fuels and the release of carbon in the air, but scientific evidence suggests that whenever we had global warming in the past (and we have) that carbon went up as a result, not the reverse. So how do you stop a naturally occurring event? When the alarmists decide that the waves of the ocean are eating away at our coast, are we then to try and stop the tides? When they say rain causes rust, which damages our steel buildings, do we try and prevent precipitation? Sorry, but as more and more scientist move away from the alarmist side, as the Internation Panel on Climate Change becomes increasingly filled with politicians and lawyers and less with scientists, I less concerned with global warming and more with the rising epidemic of ill-informed people quaking about global warming and trying to change how I live my life. Climates change. Ice-Ages come and go....in between them you have rising temperatures. Back and forth, like the pendulum of a clock. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 2:27 PM CDT

WE DO KNOW....Same question Clarke... are you a oceanographer or a climatologist? I think not... as they all know that global warming is MAN MADE!!! Ask any of them And for the scientist who are not oceanographer or a climatologist and disagree... SHUT UP because you ARE NOT the scientists who study and research Global Warming. BTW here are the people who know the truth.... http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Jun 17, 09 5:24 PM CDT

myvoice...ARE YOU and oceanographer or a climatologist? If not then you should SHUT UP because YOU are not the scientists that study this stuff either. Funny how you can read one thing and it is right but someone else reads something and says its wrong and they are idiots.

| 0 minutes ago

paul123
Jun 17, 09 2:13 PM CDT

yet a recent university of illinois study relates that the arctic ice levels are back to what they were in 1979. http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 2:53 PM CDT

The earth goes thru longterm and shortterm cycles of climate change....overall, we have been warming for 10000 years, since the last ice age. Of course, in the 1800s there was a mini-ice age in Europe. We also see a smaller cycle, that seems to have us warming and cooling at different rates, changing every 30 to 40 years. I have a few old newspaper articles from NY Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc, from the 30s that are talking about global warming and the effect man and our industrial age is having on the earth's climate. They even speak of ice caps melting and the sea levels rising. Fast forward to the 1970s and we are being taught that much of these manmade contaminants/toxins/pollutants are causing us to move into the next ice age.....now, 30 to 35 years later....you got it, global warming. Same pollutants, 2 different, opposite results...not possible. But if you look at the graphs of carbon vs global temperature rise, the ones that Gore uses, you will notice something....when the Temp rises, Carbon (in the air) rises....not the other way around, as Gore suggests. There is about a 500 year lag....significant point that Gore does not tell you. So if his theory is that the rise of carbon is causing the rise of temperature, then why is it that the temperature goes up first? Not possible. But then again, what do I know? I have never studied any of this....come see my diplomas myvoice. I can even send you scanned copies in the next 2 minutes if you post your email here. No problem. They are right here on my wall in my office. Take a moment.

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jun 17, 09 2:55 PM CDT

And don't forget the Australian scientists that have been conducting surveys on the western shelf, which is getting larger, when all of the pro-global warming wackos are running around on the eastern shelf, which is shrinking in less proportion to the western shelf.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 2:46 PM CDT

myvoice, I am an environmental engineer. I attended a conference on this as recently as last month, with the keynote speaker being somebody that has studied the climate since the 1950s....so please don't tell me what I do and don't know. I probably know more than you. By the way, Environmental Engineering is just 1 of 3 technical degrees that I have. And I am working on a 4th degree now. What do you do? Reply

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 2:57 PM CDT

So MR Self righteous with all the degrees ..you study application of science and engineering principles to improve the environment for healthy water, air, and land for human habitation and for other organisms. So how can yo know more than the people who actually study and research Climate Change. BTW I work for the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Where we actually study research climate change and not just go to conferences.

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jun 17, 09 3:12 PM CDT

Ahhh, so it should be no problem for you to look up the study that your own colleagues conducted, maybe even converse with someone who may even participated in that. And for those of you that don't know the "Earth Institute" is supported in part by the "Green Family Foundation" of note, Steven J. Green was appointed Ambassador to Singapore during the Clinton / Gore administration, so I really don't think myvoice is coming from a non-partisan viewpoint.

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 3:41 PM CDT

Palerider... any information you would like to know can be found here http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/ocean-climate-physics and here http://www.nationalacademies.org/

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Jun 17, 09 4:29 PM CDT

Your credentials seem impressive, Clarke. Explain to us, if you will, why the National Academy of Scientist has concluded that global warming is a fact, and is almost certainly exacerbated by human activity? Do they have an agenda? If so, what is it? Perhaps a more pertinent question is, do you have an agenda? By whom are you employed?

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 2:57 PM CDT

And, Palerider, there was a study released this past week or so about the glacial ice growing in Chile as well....wow, how can that be? The truth is that the masses of ice have seen a net growth in the last 10 years. While some areas have seen a decrease, others have seen an increase. This is due to changing weather patterns, which happens all the time. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 3:37 PM CDT

Do you not know the difference between weather and climate?

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 3:17 PM CDT

Good for you myvoice...I have listened to many people in the field and the only thing that they all agree on is that we don't have all of the answers, or all of the questions even. They can't agree on if its manmade or not. They can't even agree that we are warming. By the way, what do you do over there at the Earth Institute? Sweep up? I am not impressed. Columbia is about as far left as I have seen, so I don't take anything from that institution as hard science. No, I don't "study", I work. I actually do something. My other degrees are civil engineering and marine engineering. But you are calling me Mr. Self Righteous? That's funny, considering how you have attacked people here. At least I offer facts here to talk about. You just attack without offering substance. But of course, being that you are a liberal, I understand that facts are foreign to you. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 3:26 PM CDT

Clarke just one the thing to say.... The National Academies has aid that Climate is Anthropogenic. But I guess they don't know what they are talking about either. And Im not attacking people on this site. I am just tired the non scientist and scientists who are not the field of study t opening their mouths amount things they don't know what they are taking about. Besides this not about the saving planet ....it will be fine. Its about humans not surviving the impact of our own doing! And rather sweep floors for "Liberal" Columbia than any work for some right wing agenda that you apparently are supporting.

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 3:22 PM CDT

Palerider, notice that myvoice has not answered the question I posed for him....what does he do? Does he sweep up at this institute? (Nothing wrong with sweeping up, mind you, its honest work).....But saying he works there may be like me saying that I went to Dartmouth....I did...22 years ago when I visited it because the soccer coach was recruiting me.....but seriously, what does he do there? Is he a research assistant? Have I seen his name in some important scientific paper before? Does he maintain their copy machines? What? By the way, I also went to West Point and Coast Guard Academy....oh, and I was at U of Penn just last week. : ) Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 3:32 PM CDT

I am a computer engineer at EI but my opinion just as good as yours since we both do not have degrees in the sciences of Climate change right? So with all your academic accomplishments that have nothing to do with Climate Change you apparently know more than the scientists i work with everyday? Is what you are saying?

| 0 minutes ago

Corona_Kinq
Jun 17, 09 3:40 PM CDT

I don't consider myself a conservative by any means but I think Global Warming is largely a load of crap, just as Global Cooling was years ago. Is the climate changing? Yes. But I think it's totally naive to think we as humans are attempting to understand the behaviors of a planet that is billions of years old with data that only covers a blink of an eye in Earth's history. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 3:49 PM CDT

Actually, thru ice cores, and, believe it or not, the layers of sediment in the ocean (thru the amount of crustaceans they find, which gives them data on carbon in the water) they can determine temperatures and carbon in the air/water. This tells you the correlation between carbon and global warming....of course, it tells you that global warming occurs BEFORE an increase in carbon, which sort of burns a whole in the Gore Theory that our increase in carbon releases into the atmosphere via industrialization has caused an increase in global temperature. But this supports your thoughts at least. Global Warming is a load of bunk.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Jun 17, 09 3:55 PM CDT

Yeah, I'm aware of the ice cores/carbon testing but that still doesn't prove what the temperatures were. The sun goes through cycles as well, which affects temperatures Mars is also experiencing global warming and that atmosphere hasn't changed in a long time (evidently).

-2

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 3:46 PM CDT

Myvoice....I believe an environmental engineer is a little closer to this whole field than a computer engineer....not sure, but pretty certain. Since I had to take ENVIRONMENTAL Classes and CLIMATE classes, and real science....just a guess though. As far as do I know more than the people who study climate change, no, never claimed that. HOWEVER, the people who study climate change don't even agree on the causes, the results, or even if it is occurring. 10 years ago, they were certain. But as data has been collected, and the whole subject has been politicized, the % of scientists who were alarmed with global warming has suddenly been on the decline. Why? Because they realize that they are dealing with incomplete or even faulty data. But no, I do not know more....but you are only citing 1 side of this argument....and there are at least 2 others. 1 being that global warming is occurring but its not man made and the other being that global warming is not occurring. Actually, there is a 4th argument....that we simply don't know. And I am okay with any of those 3....but you are telling me that ALL scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made, and I know for a fact that this is not true. Mainstream MEDIA wants you to believe that. The liberal political machine, of course, wants you to believe that. But its just not the case. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 4:04 PM CDT

http://www.nationalacademies.org/ so these are guys are a liberal machine too? The consensus is that Climate Change is Anthropogenic. If the majority of Biologist say Evolution exist and a small few say Creative design is the answer, I'm going with the majority. And yes the majority of Oceanographers and Climatologists agree that Climate Change is Anthropogenic. I may be just a dumb ass computer geek but I work with some of the brightest and smartest Oceanographers and Climatologists. And I'm not going by just what they say but what national academies says too! Believe what you want but you're misleading people by what you spewing out here on newser.

| 0 minutes ago

Mad
Jun 17, 09 4:05 PM CDT

The asses that currently deny the obvious threat of global warming are the same asses that initially denied Bush was a horrid president - Why must republicans always be brought kicking and screaming to the truth? Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 4:15 PM CDT

Gee Mad, nobody is denying the "threat of global warming"....they are arguing the effects, the causes...but not the threat. Certainly, if the alarmists are correct, then the threat is grave. But seeing how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed their forecasts about 5 times in the last 3 years, and each time reducing the "threat" (by about 100 fold), then I don't see how anything can be certain.

| 0 minutes ago

ultramagnus21
Jun 17, 09 4:09 PM CDT

Is it me or do these estimations about 2090 seem pretty minor? Think about it, that's 81 years from now. With the way we're using up natural resources and the chances of major catastrophic disasters (both man-made and natural) occurring, I'd say the study is optimistic. Then again, the capabilities of human technological innovation are endless. And if by 2090, we aren't somewhere else besides Earth, we fail. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 4:12 PM CDT

Funny myvoice, you are going with the majority....so did most people when Gallileo was arguing a heliocentric world vs. the geocentric model that Ptolemy had offered us....and didn't the vast majority claim Colombus was going to fall off the world because it was flat? Yes, I see why you are going with the "majority". Reply

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 4:24 PM CDT

HAHAHAHAHA TOUCHE... So i guess you believe creative design too? How about alchemy? How about astrology verses astronomy? We can have this debate all night. But you still have skated around http://www.nationalacademies.org/ Are these guys not to be taken seriously?

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Jun 17, 09 7:45 PM CDT

The educated people of Columbus's time realized that the world is round.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 17, 09 4:20 PM CDT

Corona_King, you are wrong about not knowing when temperature and carbon rose thru the study of the ice cores and the subsea-surface cores, but that's fine. You do, however, raise an excellent point about Mars. Currently studies show that Mars, Jupiter, a couple of Saturn's moons, Uranus and Pluto have all experienced global warming over the last decade or so....now, I have to ask you, how does our increased introduction of carbon into our atmosphere thru industrialization cause global warming on these other planets? Or are we talking about natural phenomena? Something that we cannot affect? Reply

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Jun 17, 09 4:30 PM CDT

Yeah but there no Humans on the other planets. Climate Change awareness is not about saving the earth its about saving humans!! So we should just continue with the status quo? And continue pouring carbon into the atmosphere? Oh and I know Co2 doesn't kill humans but it is creating the green house affect and how much heat can humans tolerate before extinction?

IN RESPONSE:

IndependentThinker
Jun 17, 09 5:09 PM CDT

Is the rate of change constant in all cases? Has it been studied over long periods of time (say from the industrial revolution) and is that the same as the change on earth?

| 0 minutes ago

2-bits
Jun 17, 09 6:43 PM CDT

Palerider, you have demonstrated in your past comments in this site that you do not understand even the basic concepts of environmental science such as the water cycle (i.e. You claim that it impossible for river levels to sink while ocean levels rise, which make me question whether you have even seen either). I think you would be better off not trashing this debate with cherry picked (paraphrased) studies taken off of the websites you read. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

newsman
Jun 18, 09 1:13 AM CDT

"You claim that it impossible for river levels to sink while ocean levels rise, which make me question whether you have even seen either" Where in any post in this thread did he say that? Do you believe that you have actually read this on the page somewhere? If so, seek help.

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jun 18, 09 1:39 AM CDT

@ 2-bits, I'm no environmental scientist, but I do understand a great deal more than the basic concepts of the subject including the "water cycle". What you don't understand apparently is that you look very foolish trying to insult someone in the manner you have chosen above. There are a great deal of threads in which I may comment and I guess you cannot comprehend the nature of the comment, I cannot help that, that's your problem.

| 0 minutes ago

Snarfeh
Jun 17, 09 8:29 PM CDT

Wake up, people! The earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. We could easily fall off the edge AND into the sun before global warming gets its coffee in the morning.... Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

EliminatetheBS
Jun 17, 09 10:15 PM CDT

This is the same type of alarmist hype that went on during the "Hole in the Ozone" fiasco. Relax and look at all the evidence. Do not be alarmist, that causes knee jerk reactions and could institute more harmful policies. You want to help? Clean up your neighborhood. Plant some trees. Not saying that to be sarcastic. I am serious. If everyone takes care of or own little slice, the world will become a better place. But no, people don't want to see small scale answers like that. They want large scale crisis aversion baloney. Here lets kill those nasty global warming animals! http://www.newser.com/story/61076/dairy-teams-seek-greener-cow-burps.html Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 18, 09 8:13 AM CDT

Myvoice, you missed the point….the point is that if it is happening on other planets, planets which humans could not possibly be the cause, perhaps it is a naturally occurring phenomena. What do we have in common with those other planets? The sun perhaps? And if it is a naturally occurring phenomena, how do we stop it? Should we stop it? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 18, 09 9:08 AM CDT

Myvoice....do you always debate by trying to belittle and insult your opponent? I mean, was this crap: "HAHAHAHAHA TOUCHE... So i guess you believe creative design too? How about alchemy? How about astrology verses astronomy? We can have this debate all night. But you still have skated around http://www.nationalacademies.org/ Are these guys not to be taken seriously? " really necessary? I mean, where did I discuss these....I was simply pointing out that going with the majority simply because its the easy thing to do is not always correct. And I never skate around anything....I have taken each and every point of yours and given you opinions supported by facts. You have yet to say anything other than "well the majority does not agree with you" or you have tried to insult and belittle. You have offered no scientific evidence. Until you can prove how carbon causes warmer climates when the warmer climates begin approximately 500 years prior to increases in carbon, every model that shows manmade causes to global warming are false. You refuse to acknowledge this, either because you don't understand this or because there is no answer. I am right. See, you are arguing a political agenda, I am arguing scientific facts. That's why the IPCC growing membership is the lawyers and the political people, and they are losing membership in the scientific field. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 18, 09 9:15 AM CDT

And freethmall (in response to your comments below....sorry, I did not see it before I left for the day yesterday) I can find organizations that say it does not exist, I can find others that say while it does, we do not have conclusive evidence that it is nothing more than a natural event. If you look at the graphs that show climate fluctuations over the course of known history (thru the previously mentioned cores of ice and ocean subsurface, etc) you will see an almost perfect wave, going up, then going down, then up, then down....we are nearing the top of the wave now. But since this known data predates man, then my assumption is that it is not manmade. As far as my agenda, I have none. I work for an independent engineering consulting firm that deals with primarily private industry (in my region). I deal with geotechnical engineering design, environmental studies, and construction with regards to a specific building or land development site. I don't work for a lobbyist. But I have a brain and get my scientific news out of journals, not rags like the NY Times, or from CNN. ------------------------------------------- freethemall Jun 17, 09 4:29 PM CDT Your credentials seem impressive, Clarke. Explain to us, if you will, why the National Academy of Scientist has concluded that global warming is a fact, and is almost certainly exacerbated by human activity? Do they have an agenda? If so, what is it? Perhaps a more pertinent question is, do you have an agenda? By whom are you employed? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 18, 09 10:02 AM CDT

myvoice...here is an article depicting 650 scientists in the field who argue against global warming....thats only 598 more scientists who are in the IPCC. http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case/ Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 58 comments »

climate change • Congress • environment • global warming • report

from our news partners

Mysteries of 'Jennifer Lopez Falls' & 'Adam Lambert AMA' Solved
(2 hours, 28 minutes ago)
Joel McHale Secretly Wants To Be Thor
(3 hours, 29 minutes ago)
Jessica Simpson Calls Perez Hilton 'Sad'
(3 hours, 59 minutes ago)
Today's Best Celebrity Twitters for 11/23
(4 hours, 0 minutes ago)

Today's most incoherent actual headline: "Trooper fired after hat fib...
(9 minutes ago)
Photoshop this held horse [Photoshop]
(26 minutes ago)
How the Resale Subculture drives Black Friday, why Cyber Monday...
(29 minutes ago)
Under the new administration, sex slavery for the mentally handicapped...
(33 minutes ago)

Kat Dennings Joins The Thor Cast
(1 hour, 30 minutes ago)
Trailer: JCVD In Universal Soldier: Regeneration
(2 hours, 6 minutes ago)
Video: James Cameron And His Ego Visit 60 Minutes
(2 hours, 43 minutes ago)
Zemeckis Auditioning John Lennons For His Yellow Submarine Movie
(3 hours, 12 minutes ago)

Associated Press

Key scientist says leak of stolen climate change e-mails could be aimed at...
(4 hours, 51 minutes ago)
Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling
(Nov 22, 09 7:27 PM CST)
Turmoil from climate change poses security risks
(Oct 29, 09 12:10 AM CDT)
Turmoil from climate change poses security risks
(Oct 28, 09 8:09 PM CDT)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Climate Change Report: We Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Mainland US could be 7-11 degrees warmer by 2090

Climate Skeptics:
Hacked Emails
Prove We're Right

Scientist talks about adding a 'trick' to graph

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • global warming • email • scientists • skeptics • hacking

Carbon-Tax Foes Must Think the End Is Nigh

How else to explain them being OK with the exploding population?

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • environment • cap and trade • Thomas Friedman • petrodollar • overpopulation • climate change legislation • carbon taxes • population growth

Globe on Course for 'Worst-Case' Temp Hike

6 degree rise predicted if Copenhagen deal fails

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • global warming • carbon emissions • Copenhagen climate change conference

climate change • Congress • environment • global warming • report

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Climate Change Report: We Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Mainland US could be 7-11 degrees warmer by 2090

Related Newser Stories

Climate Skeptics: Hacked Emails Prove We're Right

Scientist talks about adding a 'trick' to graph

MORE ABOUT: climate change • global warming • email • scientists • skeptics • hacking

Thomas Friedman

Carbon-Tax Foes Must Think the End Is Nigh

How else to explain them being OK with the exploding population?

MORE ABOUT: climate change • environment • cap and trade • Thomas Friedman • petrodollar • overpopulation • climate change legislation • carbon taxes • population growth

Globe on Course for 'Worst-Case' Temp Hike

6 degree rise predicted if Copenhagen deal fails

MORE ABOUT: climate change • global warming • carbon emissions • Copenhagen climate change conference

climate change • Congress • environment • global warming • report

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Climate Skeptics:
Hacked Emails
Prove We're Right

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • global warming • email • scientists • skeptics • hacking

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • environment • cap and trade • Thomas Friedman • petrodollar • overpopulation • climate change legislation • carbon taxes • population growth

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • global warming • carbon emissions • Copenhagen climate change conference