Global warming - a big, healthy dose of reality here:

[subroc]

Where does gore's infor come from?

[dnf777]

Where does gore's infor come from?

You'll have to ask him. How the he!! would I know??

[david gibson]

. When you look at trends, it appears undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, or else there is an unprecedented acceleration of climate change never seen before outside of catastrophic volcanic eruptions.

absolutely BS. when you look at the "trends", there are many steep and short frequency adjustments, none of them matter in the long run - its the "least squares analysis" or other statistical smooting that really counts. like Neil Frank PhD said, they take models that are unpredictable at 5 -7 days and extrapolate them to 100 years and want to cry out "the sky is falling".

are you forgetting that the last 11 years shows a very strong cooling trend???

[dnf777]

Hold on. Are you mocking taking 5-7 day trends extrapolated to 100 years, then turning right around and applying an 11 year trend to climate change time frames?? For an eleven year trend, I would refer you to your first line regarding short term adjustments...and their lack of significance. I agree with your statement on short term trends, but not in its selective application.

[david gibson]

You won't pin me down on this....I'm not a climatologist.

why dont you entertain us and actually comment on the story i posted that is the real subject here? Dr. Neil Frank IS a climatologist. One of the foremost hurricane experts in the world. read his credentials. this guy is not only knowledgeable but plugged in. he knows the game as well as all the players. you dont serve as director of the National Hurricane Center for some 20 years for nothing.

[dnf777]

why dont you entertain us and actually comment on the story i posted that is the real subject here? Dr. Neil Frank IS a climatologist. One of the foremost hurricane experts in the world. read his credentials. this guy is not only knowledgeable but plugged in. he knows the game as well as all the players. you dont serve as director of the National Hurricane Center for some 20 years for nothing.

I think he raised some excellent points, and questions that need to be answered. Nothing however to refute global warming. The debate seems to center around to what degree man has contributed to the change. That's been said here before. I've posted three or four times now, that to accept Al Gore's version of climate change is almost as foolish as to dismiss it altogether. I hope that entertained you. I'm sorry I didn't take your bait and try to discredit a person with excellent credentials. I don't operate that way just because I disagree with someone, even though its the typical MO on this forum.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I think he raised some excellent points, and questions that need to be answered. Nothing however to refute global warming. The debate seems to center around to what degree man has contributed to the change.

There has been global warming and cooling long before humans had anything to do with it. It would seem reasonable that within the long-term trends (one way or the other), there were also short-term trends.

So, refuting climate change is a waste of time. However, to make drastic changes in our economies which may, or may not, have any bearing on climate change, does not seem sensible.

I think conservation is a sensible thing when applied in a sensible fashion. It is even an economic advantage when it leads to more independence from foreign sources for our energy needs. In even shorter suppy than energy is, perhaps, common sense in achieving the most beneficial end result.

[subroc]

well said Gerry...

[david gibson]

I think he raised some excellent points, and questions that need to be answered. Nothing however to refute global warming. The debate seems to center around to what degree man has contributed to the change. That's been said here before. I've posted three or four times now, that to accept Al Gore's version of climate change is almost as foolish as to dismiss it altogether. I hope that entertained you. I'm sorry I didn't take your bait and try to discredit a person with excellent credentials. I don't operate that way just because I disagree with someone, even though its the typical MO on this forum.

there was no bait, just wanted you to address the topic of the post. the article was not intended to refute global warming, just to show the intentions and dubious methods of those pushing it

[Terry Britton]

The manmade global warming models are not working because there are statistically insignificant amount of data for all of the inputs required even though Al Gore (would try to lead you to believe other wise without full scientific methods backing him.

We do need to become energy independent.