Some people say it best

SamCogar wrote:

Rain or Shine, Environmentalists Want to Control Us

This is the winter of environmentalists’ discontent. They desperately want the earth to be warming to prove Al Gore’s truth inviolate and they are going to make you pay thousands of dollars for it no matter whether it’s true or not.

Only a fool would hold a global warming event in a foot of snow –unless he or she was desperate.

That desperation might get to the heart of the issue. Hansen recently told Britain’s Observer that time was running out –- fast. “We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world.” Prince Charles, a fellow alarmist with a scientific resume as microscopic as Al Gore’s, recently declared we have “less than 100 months to act” on climate change.

But four years, eight years or Gore’s much-cited 10 years all add up to one thing. It’s not the planet that’s running out of time — it’s the environmentalists. The warming of the earth has flatlined like Tom Daschle’s political career.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/11/gainor_global_warming/

[/quote]

I took the time to take a course in Climate change. The professor was a Richard Wolfson, P. Hd. Dartmouth. He is professor of Physics at Middleberry College The following is his resume'

Richard Wolfson

Middlebury College Ph.D., Dartmouth College

Richard Wolfson is the Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College, where he also teaches Climate Change in Middlebury's Environmental Studies Program. He completed his undergraduate work at MIT and Swarthmore College, graduating from Swarthmore with a double major in Physics and Philosophy. He holds a master's in Environmental Studies from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Physics from Dartmouth. Dr. Wolfson's published work encompasses diverse fields such as medical physics, plasma physics, solar energy engineering, electronic circuit design, observational astronomy, theoretical astrophysics, nuclear issues, and climate change. His current research involves the eruptive behavior of the Sun's outer atmosphere, or corona, as well as terrestrial climate change and the Sun–Earth connection. Dr. Wolfson is the author of several books including the college textbooks Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Essential University Physics,and Energy, Environment, and Climate. He is also an interpreter of science for the nonspecialist, a contributor to Scientific American, and author of the books Nuclear Choices: A Citizen's Guide to Nuclear Technology and Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified. His previous courses for The Teaching Company include Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non-Scientists and Physics in Your Life. The reason I took the course is that I wanted to be able to seperate the BS from fact. I wnated to know what was real and wahat was hype. I spent a summer looking at a website that gives both sides of the arguement. However, that didn't answer my questions. All that it managed to do was prove to me that one cannot get thier facts from the news media and talking heads. Nor can one depend on those with specail interests to give you the facts without hype and twist on either side of the arguement. Dr. Wolfson just presented the facts, which I found I could confirm. He didn't get into policy in fact he avoided policy, other than one comment he would make about petroleum, a petroleum based economy, and our messure of wellbeing. Now that being said, the following facts exist. The level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increase from approximately 220 parts per million at the beginning of the industrial age to 380 plus or minus today. It should be obvious that one of the reasons for this increase is the simple fact we are burning carbased fuels and thus liberating cabon that was once sequestered in the earth. Secondly, the average temperature of the earth is increasing. The is evidenced by direct observation of tempurature measurements around the world. Additionally, suddle changes can be observed. Some species of migratory birds aren't migrating as far north or as far south as in the past. The earth's temerate zones are greening sooner than in the past. While this is a simplistic explaination, not complete in and of itself, it does illustrate that something is happening adn that our use of fossil fuels could well be a contributing factor. Does this mean that Al Gore and Nasa's Dr. Hansen is right and we have to act immediately or we could be facing catastrophy of epic proportions. No it doesn't. There is little question in my mind that these men are driven by seeking government grants and filling an uninformed publics head with gloom and doom for the sake of money. And yes Sam you are right that a part of the global warming hype is little more than people wanting to contorl the lives of the public. This being said, do we just sit back and allow this to happen. From here on is just my opinion. Should we allow this to happen? No, I don't think we should. If for no other reason than carbon based fuels are finite and we will eventually deplete them, we should be moving away from fossil fuels and move toward alternatives. We should be moving toward nuclear, wind, and solar energy. While some of these technologies are in their infancy, nuclear power, at least fission produced power, is there and we know how to harreness this source of energy. Additionally we need to quit subsidizing fossil fuels completely, so that the true cost of fossil fuels is passed directly to the consumer. That way the consumer can decide what they want. This will also faster inovation in the market place, which is where the really good ideas will eventually come from.

Well Cato that is a well-reasoned position.

Greenhouse gases (especially CO2) are increasing measurably and global temperature is rising. Regardless of anecdotal examples of how this or that particular spot is having a big snow or unusually cold temperature on a particular day.

Those are objective conclusions based on objective measurements and criteria.

Conclusions about how that will affect us in the future are subjective, obviously.

Neither the "alarmists" nor the pooh-poohers" know for sure.

For my part, I hope the "pooh-poohers" are right.

But I tend to put more stock in what the "alarmists" say.

But again, thank you for a good objective post.

I wish we had more of those.

Willy, that was a very good post and I sympathize with your concerns. But let me enlighten you on a few of your misconceptions.

Cato wrote: Now that being said, the following facts exist. The level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increase from approximately 220 parts per million at the beginning of the industrial age to 380 plus or minus today.

Willy, that is correct, atmospheric CO2 has increased. But you are associating that increase with the beginning of the industrial age with the implication that the advent of industrialization was the cause of it. Willy, you are absolutely wrong on that assertion. The fact is, the increase of atmospheric CO2 is the result of what permitted the beginning of the industrial age, ..... not vice versa.

Willy, the temperature started increasing as the Little Ice Age (1600 to 1850) ended. So temperatures were on the rise from 1800 onward. With a rise in temperature this permitted the growing of more food, less deaths do to hunger and cold, and thus an increase in population. Thus, warmer temperatures and more population ushered in the Industrial Revolution. And the warming has continued and the population and the industrialization has followed suite.

Cato wrote: It should be obvious that one of the reasons for this increase is the simple fact we are burning carbased fuels and thus liberating cabon that was once sequestered in the earth.

Willy, as you well know, what seems obvious ...... is not always the cause. And the obvious increase in burning carbon based fuels is not the reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Willy, the oceans are a giganic "sink" for CO2, meaning the CO2 is easily absorbed by water, .... rain water, river water, lake water, ocean water, .... and the amount of CO2 that can be "stored" in water depends upon the temperature of the water. The colder it is the more CO2 it will hold, the warmer the less CO2 it will hold. Willy, just like a can of soda pop or a can of beer. If you open one up and as long as you keep it really cold it will take hours n' hours before it goes "flat" (all the CO2 escapes). But now Willy, heat one of those cans of pop or beer up and then pop the top. Better yet, for a good demostration shake it good before ya pop the top. Now Willy, do you understand what a CO2 sink is?

Anway Willy, you know how long it takes to "warm up" a large pot of water on the stove, right. And how long it takes to cool back down, right? I'm sure you do so now consider how long it take to "warm up" that giganic pot of water we call the ocean.

So now Willy, if the ocean started cooling down about 1500 and thus absorbing more CO2 ....... and didn't start warming back up until about 1820 then the CO2 in the water would not start escaping back into the atmosphere until after 1820. And the warmer the ocean water gets the more CO2 escapes into the atmosphere.

And there you have it Willy, the increasing temperatures since 1800 not only ushered in the Industrial Revolution they also exacerbated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. And this is why historical records all show that any increase in atmospheric CO2 always lag behind increases in temperatures.

Cato wrote: Secondly, the average temperature of the earth is increasing. The is evidenced by direct observation of tempurature measurements around the world.

Now Willy, it is a fact that average temperatures have been increasing ....... but don't you be believing they are being evidenced by direct observation of temperature measurements around the world.

Those temperature measurements are "bogus" and are continually being adjusted and massaged to get "the results" that want to justify the increase that they are trying to blame on the increase of atmospheric CO2 which they are calling a "greenhouse gas".

They are bogus because they are not even considering the "effect" of a more potent "greenhouse gas", ....... water vapor. And water vapor has twice, two times, the heat retaining ability as does CO2 and there is up to one hundred and four (104) times more H20 vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2 in the atmosphere.

Concentration of atmospheric gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppm - 0.0383% --- Specific Heat Capacity - 0.844 kJ/kg K
Water vapor -- (H2O) at surface - 1%-4% --- Specific Heat Capacity - 1.930 kJ/kg K

GEEEZE Willy, even you know yourself that if water vapor clouds move in and block the Sunshine the air temperature cools off. And if there is fog or clouds at night the temperature won't cool down as quickly.

And in neither case does the amount of CO2 in the air change that much. So don'tja think it is kinda silly to be blaming all the Global Warming on the CO2?

So Willy, think about all of that for a while.

.

There you go willie, sam just refuted everything your so-called informed source said.

See what I mean about deciding what source you want to believe?

sodbuster wrote:There you go willie, sam just refuted everything your so-called informed source said.

See what I mean about deciding what source you want to believe?

Sam is entitled his opinion. At the very least it doesn't follow the party line and I respect that.

It sure does follow the party line.

.