Savetheplanet

I am sure you are right, why research anything at all? Former Lord Monkton isn't a scientist, has no scientific credentials, and has never had anything he has written reviewed and printed in a peer reviewed journal. Why is it you guys can not come up with even ONE credible scientific body that disputes ACC? How about a few PEER REVIEWED articles that refute ACC? Waht? All you have are op-ed articles? hmmmm. On another note, I do find it amusing that your user name is a bit aggressive and you end your post with peace and blessings, it's kind of a Freudian slip that shows how bi-polar you are. And it's no wonder that the only source you site is Lord Monkton, after all he has the title of LORD, so it has to be true right? I mean, you believe in a guy who who's mother was a virgin, his own father strung him up to die, but then he came back to life and is now an invisible sky god, who will send the natives in Borneo to hell just because they have never heard of him............but he loves them. You believe in all that but don't even think we should error on the side of caution concerning ACC?

Ok so I copied the links, big deal. I am still waiting for you to post the names of 3 major scientific institutions dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere, that don't believe in ACC I hear nothing on that from you guys but crickets chirping.

Can any of you ACC skeptics name 3 major scientific institutions dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere, that don't believe in ACC? How about 3 research institutes in any developed country that don't believe in ACC. Why are there so few peer reviewed articles supporting your case? I don't blame you for not answering the question and changing the subject, the truth hurts don't it? Below are a few of the scientific institutions (the list is long) that unequivocally believe that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135 American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_...e_position.html American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

hahahaha, I must say Trim, you are very entertaining! Thanks.

Who are these lucky few who will make billions Nick? Who is making this "cash grab" to redistribute wealth? Why do people care sooo much about carbon caps that have not even been passed ye,t but never mention the $30 billion a year in farm subsidies that have been going on since the 30's? Just asking Seems to me that if the fiscal conservatives that have refound their religion again really cared about $$ they would have been railing on these subsidies a long time ago. I think it really comes down to the culture war

Can you please site your source on ACC believers telling everyone that our last 5 winters would disappear? And no I was not making the same point as you were, the point you were making was that because it's been cold where you live, GW is BS . \ One data point does not dismiss GW. And Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Stevie, the only answer I ever get from them is follow the money, or they tell me that Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.). Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135 American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_...e_position.html American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following: Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing: BP Shell oil Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada: Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.

Cocheese,you aint never spent much time on book learnins and such like have you? The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change.

The same huh? Obama has only been in office for 5 weeks and he has done more in that time than the science denying George W. did in his 8 years. You guys are in the minority now, the public supports environmental protection. Here is a list of what Obama has already done, read em and weep, then open up your wallets and pay for your overconsumption. • January 26, 2009: President Obama directs the EPA to reconsider the agency's decision to deny California's strong limits on global warming pollution from cars, and he calls on the Department of Transportation to raise national fuel efficiency standards. • February 4, 2009: More than 100,000 acres of Utah wilderness win protection from oil and gas drilling after the Department of Interior announced that it will cancel 77 leases issued under the Bush administration. • February 5, 2009: President Obama signs a presidential memorandum requesting that the Department of Energy set new efficiency standards for common household appliances. This will save in 30 years the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America over a two-year period. • February 6, 2009: The EPA announces it will reconsider its decision to deny California permission to set standards controlling greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. • February 6, 2009: On instruction from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to drop the Bush administration's desperate appeal to resurrect EPA's illegal and harmful power plant mercury rule. • February 10, 2009: Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he is going to make a thorough review of the five-year Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program that was announced in the final days of the Bush administration. • February 10, 2009: Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC to reconsider and "stay" for three months a harmful midnight air pollution rule adopted by the Bush administration in mid-January 2009 that would allow dirty industries to release more pollution. • February 13, 2009: Congress came to an agreement on an economic stimulus package that includes bold investments for renewable power and energy efficiency, including weatherization programs that will save consumers billions while creating up to 90,000 jobs. Repairing our nation's outdated and corroded water and waste systems will also create more than 200,000 jobs and improve the safety of our beaches, streams, and drinking water. • February 17, 2009: EPA Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC, Sierra Club and EDF to reconsider a disputed memo signed by Administrator Johnson in December 2008 that refused to regulate carbon dioxide from new coal-fired power plants. She announced that EPA would convene a public process to review this memo, in what was widely seen as the first step to reversing the Bush policy. • February 20, 2009: The Obama administration puts its support behind an international, legally binding treaty to reduce global mercury pollution. This position--a dramatic change for the stonewalling of the Bush years--influences policy reversals from other nations including China and India. Now more than 140 countries commit to regulating this dangerous neurotoxin. • February 24, 2009: In his first State of the Union address, Obama calls on Congress to pass legislation to cap global warming pollution and drive expansion of renewable energy. He also pledges $15 billion a year to invest in solar, wind, biofuels, and more efficient vehicles, and to put American to work making our homes and buildings more energy efficient. • February 25, 2009: Thousands of acres in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado will be protected from harmful oil shale research and development after Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he will reverse course on the Bush administration's leasing program. • February 26, 2009: The Obama administration releases a federal budget that is the first in history to make critical investments in our clean energy future and tackle global warming head on. It includes revenue from a cap and invest program to limit global warming pollution, which is forecast to generate $150 billion over 10 years starting in 2012.

By definition I can't see how greed is good. Definition---------Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism

I think it's even more arrogant to think that we can't change the climate, maybe we can agree that we disagree.

I agree, the media makes $$ from playing on the D fear, just like they did with terrorism and Iraq a few years ago. However trying to get the public to go out and spend money they should be saving is what got us into this problem in the first place. As far as Ford Mo. Co. goes those gas guzzlers that made Ford all that short term profit are coming back to bite them in the A$$.

Rammed down your throat? I am not getting that one, maybe my bedside manner could use some tweaking but it's just my opinion on a random thread that I did not even start. You come across as a bit sensitive and overly dramatic with the religious comparisons. And I never said we noodle at 7500 ft. You know, as usual, if we were to have met at a bar or wherever and not on the internet, we would probably talk about these issues and get along fine with no insults. Just making an observation Anyway back to the subject, you don't really think that it has been proved that there is no climate crisis do you?.

The thread title is "proved:there is no climate crisis" not "STP must defend his lifestyle and his grammar mistakes" But hey, that's what some conservatives do when they can't articulate their case, they make ad hominem attacks or more often than not come up with some BS analogy. I don't mind a little thread drift but. Peoples opinion on ACC and the environment in general comes down to where they stand on culture. It's more of a cultural thing than anything. If you guys were really worried about how much $$ you have to give up then you would be screaming about the $30 billion a year that tax payers pay to farm subsidies each year. You don't really care about the money, it's just a culture thing that you can thrive on. By the way, I don't use a boat to fish, I don't drive one single mile to hunt but when I do drive (seldom) I get 50 miles to the gallon. You see I live in the sierra's at 7,500 ft. in a community.

until the day when we re-evaluate how far we transport food and how much energy we use to create the food the cost will be high. Food travels between 1,500 to 2,500 miles every time that it is delivered to the consumer. The travel of products from the farms to the consumers is 25 percent farther now than it was in 1980. And then there is the true cost of food production that is not accounted for. Like for instance, what is the true cost of all the dead zones in the ocean's created by runoff fertilizers. Even Wallmart is forcing it's seafood vendors to use fisheries that are certified sustainable.

Maybe Obama can run our deficit up like Regan did.

So I am the same as the 9/11 terrorists? The pack I run with would probably haze you for being code W (wussie) at night time while we noodle for catfish. What's that? You don't know what noodling is? I probably hunt and fish more in one summer than you do in a lifetime. By the way you spelled forget wrong, not that I really care, just thought I would let you know since you are head of the grammar police.

you recycle but still drive a mustang, nice. I like you think it's important to have a least one rationalization/justification each day.

hahahaha your a funny guy, now go dig your bunker to save yourself, and don't forget to warn others

No I won't move on just because you say so, and please tell me when were you elected to to be speaker for everybody here at BON. There are actually quite a few people here at BON who agree with me. If you don't like what I have tyo say then you leave.

Although I do love this country, america ranks 16th freest country on this list according to the Democracy Index of the Economist’s Intelligence Unit. Most americans don't want to drive a Focus, but then again they listen to rush Limbaugh in vast numbers, watch NASCAR more than Formula one, drink coors light and watch american Idol sooooo. http://www.listsofbests.com/list/28209

It's our right to keep you from burning tires in your back yard, and it's also our right to regulate C02 to protect the planet. Open up your wallet and pay up for your gluttonous consumption. It's our turn now we handed you your ass on a platter in the last 2 elections, we have a mandate.

On the contrary Nick, you guys are the ones who are anti-civilization, all you care about is the now, with no thought of future generations. Keep driving that gas guzzling mustang, it's a fun car to drive, and I am sure that is the only reason you bought it, you just want to have fun. I am sure it has nothing to do with you being insecure and trying to impress people with your wealth and the bad boy image you want to project. But yeah keep that head of yours in the sand Nick, right next to Ford Mo. Co. Ford has been losing market share for 20+ years with no thought to the environment. In the end they will get what they deserve. When Ford Falls Nick you might want to look into being the impartial moderator that you at Hanity.com , until then, keep up that gluttonous consumption of yours and go buy some cheap plastic Chinese crap from wall mart so you can impress your neighbors.

While you guys are here on BON trying to debunk ACC, (the debate was over a long time ago, you lost) the rest of the developed world is moving forward.The signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is, as far as I can recall, by far the biggest victoryby an American President in his first month in office. Environmentally, the bill is the most important piece of legislative support for clean energy ever adopted. Its provisions include $80 billion for a wide variety of environmental programs. The President, before he signed it in Denver, visited a solar-energy manufacturing facility. In addition to directly funded investments, the bill also contains important, if little commented on, incentives to industry, states, and local government to go even further. Some of the second-year funding for energy efficiency, for example, is contingent on states following California's lead in giving their public utilities as much incentive to save energy as to increase electricity generation. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, in a letter to the Sierra Club, made it clear that the administration will move forward to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that EPA must regulate under the Clean Air Act. And only days earlier, the administration also set in motion the process to grant California its clean-car waiver, which will enable at least fifteen other states to join California in reducing CO2 emissions from motor vehicles by almost twice what Congress mandated in the fall of 2007. Combined with the federal role in restructuring the auto industry, the U.S. is now on a pathway to decarbonize personal transportation -- a goal the Sierra Club has pursued for thirty long, lonely years since Congress first mandated fuel-efficiency standards for Detroit. The decisions to grant the California waiver and to begin the process of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act represent quick victories for half of the Sierra Club's suggested "Clean Slate" agenda for the Obama administration. Two other Clean Slate goals -- protection of streams and communities from mountain removal mining and ambitious short-term goals for an economy-wide climate bill -- remain to be accomplished as the administration and Congress move forward. , the Sierra Club rolled up major state and local victories in its campaign to stop new coal-fired power plants. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm announced a statewide moratorium on new coal-fired plants, an enormous step forward since Michigan was the proposed site of more new coal plants than any other state -- eight plants. By the end of this month, the Sierra Club's three-year-old campaign against new coal plants will have stopped 93 plants -- almost two-thirds of the way to our goal.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I give your trolling post a 7