With the difference that climate models are based on natural laws, chaotic as they may be in that context, whereas the stock market is based on mass psychology.

In all truth and honesty, the capitalist nations have taken better care of the environment than all of the communist ones ever did.

That is very true. Marxism-Leninism had a very Ann Coulter-like attitude to the environment.

So, if you think that the industrialized nations are guilty of polluting the environment, point those fingers back at all of those communist countries, because they were some of the worst violators of pollution and contamination.

That is also very true, especially today with China, the USA being an accomplice by consuming their products so frantically.

But, hey, you can’t tell Al Gore that. He’s “always right”.

I didn’t quite catch Al Gore’s communist apologetics. If anything, he seems to be against the American consuming frenzy that maintains the communist dictatorship in China.

Now that I’ve ranted, here’s my observation in a nutshell: “Global warming” is nothing more than a political shakedown tool developed by socialists who want to stifle economic progress in order to satisfy their own agenda of a classless society that collectively “shares the wealth” against the people’s wishes.

Ok, enter the black helicopters. It’s a communist conspiracy! If anything, economic recessions help in redistributing wealth…to those who already have it. We experienced this first-hand in the early 90s when e.g. real estate was being auctioned for pocket change to wealthy investors.

As for overall cost, I heard something recently on a National Geographic minute on my XM Radio that undertaking every single initiative to prevent “global warming” would cost TRILLIONS of dollars to do this. However, the GWH geniuses believe that it is worth it. But then again, they have the ear of the politicos, not the ear of the people. These elitist GWH geniuses might as well tell all of humanity to go take a long walk off a short pier.

BTW, I am not against taking care that which has been bestowed to us by Almighty God. In all truth and honesty, the capitalist nations have taken better care of the environment than all of the communist ones ever did. Case in point: I had to read some material about East Germany when I was taking German in college. There was a section of the East German constitution that stated that it was the duty of the country to take care of and be responsible toward the environment. One of the former East German citizens pointed this out and said that it was an outright farce. The same thing could be said about the Soviet Union. US News and World Report did a similar write-up several years after the official collapse of communism. So, if you think that the industrialized nations are guilty of polluting the environment, point those fingers back at all of those communist countries, because they were some of the worst violators of pollution and contamination.
But, hey, you can’t tell Al Gore that. He’s “always right”.

Having said all that, I find it ironic that people will always assume that “global warming” is the culprit for every weather pattern. In fact, it’s insulting for someone like me who has lived through three major blizzards in the Buffalo area. Also, try telling the people of Oswego, NY that we have a “global warming” crisis. (They have a crisis of their own right now from 120 inches of snow in 9 days.)

Have we become so spoiled and comfortable to think that the Earth should be airconditioned? There have been times where the Earth has been extremely hot, and yet humanity survived through it, like, say, 1922. (The record set for 135.9F set in Al’Aziziyah, Libya as the hottest temperature has yet to be broken.) Then there are times when the Earth has been extremely cold, like during the Winters of 1976-77 and 2003-04. Yeah, I’d say “global warming” was responsible for this…NOT!

Now that I’ve ranted, here’s my observation in a nutshell: “Global warming” is nothing more than a political shakedown tool developed by socialists who want to stifle economic progress in order to satisfy their own agenda of a classless society that collectively “shares the wealth” against the people’s wishes. If you disagree with this, just ask the state of Oregon’s chief climatologist, who came under fire from the governor of that state for not preaching the “global warming” mantra with good reason.

To put it in simple terms: exactly why does the global economy crash when an American soccer mom opts for a Smart in place of a Mercedes-Benz SUV? What if the same soccer mom – horrors – installs proper insulation and a heat pump to her house? Why are the heat pump manufacturing jobs worse than the SUV plant manufacturing jobs? Please explain. Pray for guidance if you will.

It’s fascinating, really. Jesus is coming back any day now, so we don’t need to care about the environment. Building equity, however, is as important as ever.

I guess you can take it with you, after all?

As for Aboy trying to prove that there was interference with global warming reporting, notice that the headline says “Alleged”. It doesn’t say “Proven”.

BTW, for all of you who believe in the global warming hypothesis(GWH), things could be a whole lot worse. Try Hell, The Lake of Fire, Hades (and whatever synonymous term you can come up with). Human intervention to stop this “problem” will prove to be fruitless — no matter how much money you throw at it. If the GWH geniuses have their way, it will bankrupt the global economy.

no, the scientific community never were unanimous about Global Cooling. It was a popular culture hype created by a bunch of trigger-happy journalists misinterpreting scientific studies and jumping the gun:

“Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible – because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[8]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.”

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Alleged U.S. governmental interference in reporting

According to an Associated Press release of 30 January 2007 [16]:

“Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

“The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to “global warming” or “climate change” from a report.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Alleged_U.S._governmental_interference_in_reporting

“In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords “global climate change”. Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. It was also pointed out, “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.””

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Some more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

All??? so 100% say its happining? They all agree the world has warmed by what one degree?

Same for 1962 and Global Cooling. Didn’t they ALL agree?

If Global Warming could pass the scientific test, then we would not be having this discussion.

Its not a fact, its a computer projection. With some very interesting assumptions in that computer projection.

Well put, Jason. As I’ve often argued myself, global warming naysayers are on the same intellectual level as creationists, and indeed often the same people. They even use the same arguments. It’s good to hear this from the horse’s mouth.

While I’m at it, Adolf Hitler would be so proud of this controversy.

I’m puzzled what good old Adi has to do with this. From what we know of him, he would probably regard the phenomenon of increased agricultural output in temperate zones as positive and wouldn’t be too bothered about scores of untermenschen being washed into the sea.

After all, it was he who said, “The bigger the lie, the more the people will believe.”

Incidentally, it was Joseph Goebbels.

http://www.ipccfacts.org/

There’s selfishness and then there’s selfishness. Short-term profit outweights our survival, it seems. At least according to some stubborn Americans.

Having said all that, I equate global warming with Darwinism/evolution. It runs tantamount with “walking by sight, and not by faith”. While I’m at it, Adolf Hitler would be so proud of this controversy. After all, it was he who said, “The bigger the lie, the more the people will believe.”

Oh, btw. Lest anyone complain about how cold it is, I’m up for it. +25F outside and I’m walking around with a short-sleeved polo shirt in Columbus, Ohio. No one bothered to ask me what my hometown is (Buffalo). Having said that, most of them were wearing Carhartts. Now, are there any natives of Minnesota, Manitoba, Maine, Alberta, and any other points north of the Mason-Dixon Line who post here?

instead of your ignorant sneering why don’t you try and educate yourself. There’s no big controversy about the global warming in the scientific circles. All the credible research and professional scientist agree it’s happening. Bush administration has just tried to muddle the waters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1502486,00.html
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0107/013007m1.htm

Did you know that they drive more environmentally friendly cars in China than you do in the USA? That’s why your cars can’t be sold there. They don’t meet the Chinese environmental standards.

On this issue you really should waive [sic] that white flag. Go rent Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, you might actually learn something.