• oksteelerfan

    Well now if you don’t believe in global warming you need treatment.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/resistance_to_warmism_must_be_treated.html

  • Dan

    I do find it amusing that just as man is mastering industry, population is growing, pollution is reaching ridiculous heights (remember Beijing and the Smog Nest Stadium?) and the number of people with cars increases every year, that we are having our hottest years on record by average temperature coupled with ridiculous storms and freak natural disasters in unheard of places. And instead of trying to change the way we do things to be a little less harmful, we have people screaming “No no no, it’s a coincidence! Junk science! Uh…t Time Magazine! This happens naturally every few million years and it just happens to be starting up again now in the greatest coincidence ever!”

    Someday, the gas-guzzling, gun-toting, triple-bacon-cheeseburger-stuffing, Bible-thumping, science-trashing, can’t ever hold two disparaging thoughts in their head, world-revolves-around-me segment of this population will be dragged into the 21st century with the rest of the world even if they grind their fingers to the bone clawing at the ground.

    Not to be hyperbolic.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      You’re right. The world be a much better place if people could be more like you. Thanks.

    • RKR

      “the gas-guzzling, gun-toting, triple-bacon-cheeseburger-stuffing, Bible-thumping, science-trashing, can’t ever hold two disparaging thoughts in their head, world-revolves-around-me segment of this population will be dragged into the 21st century with the rest of the world even if they grind their fingers to the bone clawing at the ground.”

      How tolerant of you… so loving… must be a liberal!

      • Dan

        I’m not very tolerant of decisions that other people make that harm others. I’m also not very tolerant of spreading ignorance. Of course, I don’t infringe on anyone’s right to do that.

        • RKR

          Such a weak response, its laughable…

          Which of the following harms others??

          Driving gas-guzzler
          Toting a gun
          Eating triple-bacon-cheeseburgers
          Thumping Bibles
          Trashing science

          You are more self-righteous than the people you think you’re mocking. The above list does nothing to harm you, you just don’t like people who do any of these. That make you “intolerant.”

        • oksteelerfan

          If I drive a gas-guzzler, how am I hurting you? I could turn the table and say driving a chevy volt or a prius you are hurting me.
          How do I hurt you by toting a gun? The one and only reason I would ever use a gun on you or anyone else if you were breaking into my home or a threat to my life or my family’s life.
          Eating a triple-bacon-cheeseburger is hurting you how? If I could eat a triple-bacon-cheeseburger, which I would not be able to do, I can’t even finish a single bacon cheeseburger, I don’t know how that would hurt you. I have health insurance. Although once again I can turn the table and say Obamacare and the left wanting national health care is hurting me, it’s certainly hurting my pocket book.
          Thumping Bibles, how is that hurting you? I don’t thump the Bible, I read the Bible and I believe in the Bible, but to be honest and it might be something I’m judged for someday, I don’t care if you or anyone else goes to hell and don’t believe it’s my place to try to convince you of anything.On the other side of that coin, I don’t want you trying to convince me of anything either, yet I have liberals try to do that all the time.
          Trashing science? Explain how that one hurts you? In addition liberals seem to have a habit of trashing science they don’t agree with and their science is going to hurt me when I have a hard time getting electrical power or have a hard time affording it.

          Personally I don’t know why the government and nosy liberals can’t stay out of my life and leave me alone. If everyone minded their own business and lived their own life and government only governed under the powers given to them by the constitution this country would be a lot better off. Before you say Republicans want in your bedroom, I don’t think Republicans should be in your bedroom and if you want to watch porn more power to you, if you want to use birth control, more power to you as long as you pay for it yourself. If you want to be gay more power to you as long as you don’t say I must accept a marriage between gays.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Bingo.

  • RKR

    I once heard someone put the climate change issue in a different light by turning it completely around…

    What if man had purposefully set out to change the climate of the earth? How would they go about doing it? How successful do you think they would be?

    I know one thing for sure, making people drive the Chevy Volt isn’t going to change the temperature of the world by any measurable amount.

    100’s of years ago, the temperature of the Earth was related to the level of activity on the surface of the sun. The sun’s activity level started slowing a few years ago, causing some to predict a global cooling cycle…. how does that compare to Al Gore’s “hockey stick?”

  • CS

    The planet goes through periods of cooling and heating on it’s own and has for millions of years. More than likely this is caused by a change in the earth’s orbit around the sun every 60,000 years or so ( which they now think is responsible for Ice Ages ). Personally i would be more concerned about the continued de forestation of the rain forests and other forests than i am about global warming as at best all we may be doing is speeding up a process that is going to happen anyway. De forestation should be concerning because without trees the whole eco system gets thrown off and that effects food supplies not to mention the fact that we get the oxygen we breathe from trees. If i am the goverment and scientist’s, i would be spending my funding figuring out how to avoid or survive the next Ice Age ( which is due )

  • Mike from Monroeville

    I predict we will still be arguing about this 20 years from now when it will be too late. The only difference will be the right will be saying we couldn’t have done anything about it anyway – it was God’s will.

    • Mason

      If the earth does heat up a couple degrees, what exactly do you think will happen?

    • Ken

      I think we’ll be laughing about it 20 years from now, the way we laugh about Time and Newsweeks covers from the 1970s predicting doom due to an encroaching ice age.

      By the way, even a lot of scientists who believe that global warming is real and man-made concede that any current treaty and proposal that addresses it would have an insignificant effect.

    • RKR

      Sure, right about the time we run out of oil…how many times was I taught in school that all the oil in the world will run out in 20 years? That was 30-some years ago.

  • Dr. Phibes

    “Turn out the (CFL) lights, the global-warming party’s over……”

  • Karen

    John, on my Facebook page, for about the last 3 months, I have posting the record high temps for that day and what year they occurred in as a way of showing people that it was actually hot before this generation lived. I have found more record highs in the 1880’s and 1940’s than in the 2000’s, and it’s not even close. I keep asknig how this is possible without SUV’s, coal plants and Aqua Net hairspray, but none of my ‘enlightened’ friends can tell me.

    • Mike V

      There have been periods in the history of the world that the entire planet was like a tropical forest.

  • Joe Ferretti

    While government solutions still search for a problem to solve, I believe in a multi-national collaboraative effort to study the problem of global warming to determine if it is natural or man-made. I maintain that is still not settled. On a broader scale, the question about climate change and environmental impacts was settled long ago. That is why I participate in and support the dumping of limestone “fines” into our trout streams to combat the insidious effects of acid rain which is a by-product of our activities.

    • Richard

      I don’t understand why whether global warming being man-made or not is even an issue.

      Activities that cause pollution, whether they contribute to climate change or not, are not healthy for us as a species. We should be upset when companies fracking along the Marcellous Shale kill entire fish populations in creeks. See Dunkard Creek in 2009.

      Who cares whether climate change is man made or not? How about not polluting water systems and land and air because it’s not good for people?

      • Mike V

        I’m all for stopping pollution. I just don’t want to have to act because someone tells me the Earth is going to die because of global warming. People die from pollution all the time and there are statistics that show how polution contributes to a certain number of deaths a year. Nobody has shown me global warming has contributed to any deaths. Stop pollution, not global warming.

      • RKR

        Richard,

        I agree with you regarding pollution versus global warming. However, it becomes difficult to define “pollution.” The automobile engine has exust that is harmful to humans, should we drive cars? Is the amount of pollution created by a car acceptable?

        • Richard

          One way is to try and define what acceptable emissions standards of an automobile.

          All I’m saying is, we should use some freaking common sense about our consumption and what we do, and the rest will take care of itself.

          You can’t mandate it, but why not use cloth grocery bags rather than plastic ones? Is that so hard? Jesus christ, conservatives should even be able to get behind that.

          • RKR

            Cloth bags are MORE harmful than plastic, cost more, and create an environment for the spread of bacteria – like ecoli.

            No thanks….

            Things are not always what they seem on the surface, that’s what causes a lot of the problems.

            Who gets to define the “acceptable standards”? Based on what criteria? Of course, Jesus Christ would have all those answers, thanks for bringing him up!

            Again, I AGREE pollution should be the focus, but it is not as easy to agree on standards as you might think.

            RKR

  • franji1

    I always wondered how there are maps of Antarctica land mass from 200+ years ago? Was the world destroyed then? (wait a second, we’re still here – maybe it wasn’t!).

  • Niblick

    There is strong scientific evidence that the planet has been warming up since the late 19th century. Evidence for warming of the climate system includes observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The Earth’s average surface temperature, expressed as a linear trend, rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade). There are about 40,000 weather stations around the world whose output has been recorded and stored in digital form.

    The question is whether or not that warming trend is caused by man. That is still subject to debate.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      Do some research into the reliability of those weather stations.

    • Paul

      There’s also strong evidence that the earth has been cooling in the last few years.

      • Mason

        Niblick, dig deeper into those temps. I may be wrong, but my research shows that those temps are not raw data temps. I believe the IPCC is the only group that gets raw data then the manipulate the data. Again, if I’m not mistaken, this is partially what the stolen emails were about. You know, the ones that were passed between members that control the raw data and how they talked about manipulating the data because it wasnt supporting their models. The IPCC refuses to release raw data for the entire science community to study. This is another fact that should tell you everything you need to know about AGW.

        • Niblick

          Being a long time reader of this blog, I find myself to be one of the few skeptics here. I question everything including global warming. But, I am the type that will investigate these things rather than plop myself down in front of a mindless TV show. I am not yet convinced that global warming is man made . . . but I am convinced that global warming is taking place.

          255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organization. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. It was published in Science magazine. Take a few minutes and read it.

          If you are a denialist then that is your right. You might even be one that believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. If that is the case then you will never believe any rational and logical explanations. I find it hard to debate the creationist crowd because theirs is an illogical world.

          • Mason

            I think most agree we have gone thru a warming period, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that has happened. I also believe most people like me have taken a position of defiance (for lack of a better word) against the AGW crowd because of there extreme position that tends to stifle debate and differing opinions. I also think the negative affects of a couple degree increase is absurdly overblown. I have read numerous articles that point out potential benefits with crop growth for example, as well as creating much more fertile ground.

            I see the end game for that crowd as a massive money gathering/redistribution scheme on a worldwide scale.

    • Ken

      It also warmed in the middle ages. Before large CO2 emissions.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

        Obviously cow farts.

      • Jim

        It’s cyclical. Check out a chart on the history of ice ages.

    • Heisenberg

      The “evidence” you present is misinterpreted, manipulated, changed, or conflicting evidence thrown out. Look at all the leaked e-mails out of Europe in the past year. If you think the conclusion (man-made global warming) isn’t influenced by money changin hands (gov’t grants), you’re naive, or you’re receiving some of that grant money.

      • Niblick

        I do agree that the evidence can be manipulated by specialty groups and politics. No doubt there. If you want the truth you have to get your information from the right sources. Not your favorite TV show or your favorite newspaper columnist. They all have agendas and they skew the information their way. If you take the time, you can get peer respected information from people that don’t have agendas. But, it takes work on your part. Simply believing anecdotal information because someone told you is wrong and just plain stupid. That is not what education is suppose to be. The problem is that most people are lazy or have crazy beliefs that prevents them from thinking critically.

  • oksteelerfan

    Is it global warming or climate change now?

    Whatever it’s called and whatever causes it, I kind of enjoyed this earlier spring this year. Although I remember mild winters in my lifetime and I remember early springs as well.

    BTW, I’ve always thought it was a bunch of bs.

    • Jim

      Perfect example. Tang, aluminum foil, pride in being the first….the list goes on. All for mere trillions of dollars. Thanks Big Government. Anyone who believes the space program (other than close proximity projects like Earth orbiting sattelites) shouldn’t have been dissolved thirty years ago simply doesn’t understand how vast space truly is. Collossal waste of money, manpower and resourses brought to you by Uncle Sap and paid for by the sheep. Lets put the Government in charge of even more.

  • Heisenberg

    Global warming is junk science. From “Aliens Cause Global Warming” by Michael Crichton; “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus…..Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right….In science consensus is irrelevant…..Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agree that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.”

    It’s just Big Gov’s way of telling you what kind of light bulb you’re going to use or what car you’re going to drive.

    • Niblick

      This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read from a blogger on John’s post. Science is all about consensus. Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. That is the beauty of science versus some whacky religious beliefs. Science leaves itself open to experimentation and possible change in positions over time. But, Einstein’s theories, speed of light, and how far the sun is from the Earth has been proven many times over. Big government has nothing to do with science. Other than the GOP trying to downplay its importance and play up the stupid religious myths.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

        I think science is about PROOF. Especially when the government is using the consensus to gain more control over our lives.

        • Mason

          You are confusing two things Niblick. Proven fact and consensus on theory. Regardless of that, good science welcomes descent, the AGW crowd scorns descent, destroys descenters careers and hides descenting evidence. It boils down to one simple thing – money. There are literally trillions of dollars at stake here. Right down to the college professors that get multi-million dollar grants for the schools to study this unprovable weather event.

          • Ned Twyman (formerly known as Chad Farthouse)

            The amount of money potentially available to advocates of Global Climate Change is NOTHING compared to the potential losses for big oil. Exxon-Mobil is the most profitable company EVER. Therefore, the profit driven argument is invalid because Big Oil has a much bigger motive to lie than all of the scientists in the universe.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            But you discount the possibility that the oil companies are on the right side of the issue because they have billions of dollars at stake. They do have billions of dollars at stake, of course they’re not going to give it all up for an unproven theory. Their self interest doesn’t change the argument.

          • Ned Twyman (formerly known as Chad Farthouse)

            I personally do not believe that Big Oil is on the right side of the issue. However, what I’m saying is that the global warming deniers can’t logically use the profit motive as support because the potential profits that researchers might make is dwarfed by the potential profit of the energy companies. It is a classic pot and kettle situation.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Fine. But the oil companies’ profit motive doesn’t make their argument any less valid.

          • Dan

            How does it not? They fund these “studies”, buy time to lobby Congress, line a few pockets to get some politician to get out in front of their cause, and get what they want.

            Lifting or relaxing environmental restrictions, after all they did to clean this whole city up, is one of the stupidest causes I have ever heard championed in my life.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            You’re starting with the assumption that they are wrong about man made climate change being a hoax. And you discount the possibility that they’re right. If they ARE right –which I think they are — of course they would be more invested in preventing government overreach than anybody else.

          • Dan

            I think they are wrong that we are having NO long-term effect on the environment. I also think it’s better to err on the side of caution when it comes to the quality of our air, water, and soil. One side is only interested in the economic effects of environmental restrictions and precautions. The other is interested in that AND more. It’s that simple.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            One side is also interested in increasing the power and scope of government. That’s every bit as dangerous to me as worrying about the Earth’s temperature going up bu a millionth of a degree in 2512. Even if the threat is real, if all of the regulations that the hysterics want were put into place, the effect would be negligible. I’ve been stock piling light bulbs and will continue to do so. I just hope that I’m not harassed by the light bulb police.

          • Dan

            I was referring to “one side” of the issue. You have bought into the politics game because this used to be a common sense issue. Heck when they came out with a light bulb that last several times longer and as a bonus was less harmful to the envoronment I thought it was great. Apparently you went the opposite way. You’ve bought into the science bought and paid for by Big Oil. Congrats. They really need our sympathy with their billions in profits while I paid $4 a gallon to fill up yesterday.

            We didn’t learn our lessen the first time I guess. Screw government restrictions, we should go back to doing this to ourselves – http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/10347/1109235-114.stm

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            You’ll be longing for the days of $4 gasoline if Obama and his cluesless energy secretarty get their way. I love the oil companies. I think gas is ridiculously cheap when you compare it to say, Pepsi or bottled water. Think about what goes into producing a gallon of gas. I’m glad the oil companies are here to provide the energy for my car that contributes so much to my freedom. You can take the bus. I’ll be in my car. If I break one of those light bulbs I have to call HASMAT to clean it up. The CFLs? are a waste of time and shining example of government overreach. Kind of like my toilet that has to be flushed six times.

          • Tim

            You can blame the Bushes (Sr. and Jr.) for signing the toilet flush and CFL bulb legislation respectively.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Yep.

          • oksteelerfan

            You know until recently I didn’t know about the light bulbs and have thrown many of them away, I wonder how much damage these bulbs have caused to the environment?

        • Mike V

          John and Niblick are both wrong. Science is about discovery and not consensus. It is about discovery and not proof.

          Copernicus had plenty of proof the Earth was the center of the universe until he discover it was not. There was still a consensus though until the paradigm changes slowly.

          Galileo had plenty of proof the Sun was the center of the universe until he discovered it was not. The Republicans of his day, one probably named Santorum, brought him before the Inquisition.

          The problem with our country is we are not out to discover anything. We’ve lost all innovation and the rest of the world has caught up. If there was a game called “Consensus, Proof, Discovery” (in lieu of rock, paper, scissors), there wouldn’t be a way for either proof or consensus to win.

          • Ken

            Galileo was a brilliant man, but his story has been distorted by history.

            He was never brought before the Inquisition, at least not what is typically thought of as the infamous Inquisition which questioned and tortured people.

            The Church did arrest and confine him, but it was a rather benign confignment quite literally in a palace. He was quite popular with most of the Church heirarchy.

            The Church supported and funded Galileo and many other scientists of the time. People like to paint the Roman Catholic Church as this barbaric instituion. It’s true that it’s had a lot of dark moments, but no institution in world history contributed more to art and science and the advance of civilization. And I say this as a long-lapsed Catholic who has considered himself an athiest since before he was a teenager.

            Galileo was brilliant, but he wasn’t always right. Some things that he wrote were flat-out wrong. What got him arrested was a book that he wrote which ridicular the Pope in a very thinly veiled way. He refused to apologize for it. The Pope in those days, which I think was the waning days of the Holy Roman Empire, was a lot more powerful than now. If you read the accounts of what actually happened, Galileo kind of comes off as a smartass. He made fun of the wrong people and was confined. Again, in a palace.

          • Mike V

            I guess it is OK to arrest and confine someone for their views then…

          • Ken

            Of course not.

            But his story isn’t always portrayed accurately. He wasn’t tortured by the Inquisition. He basically thumbed his nose at people in power. The church is made out to be this arch-villain. They were wrong to confine him (it was house arrest). But it’s often lost on people now that the Church was responsible for more advancements in science and civilization than any other organization in history.

          • Ken

            Mike – who is treating people like the Inquisition?

            There are legitimate skeptics of global warming. Thousands of them in fact. Richard Lindzen is a leading one, and he merely went to MIT. Al Gore has refused, out of justificable fear, to debate him because he knows that Lindzen would make him look foolish.

            People like Lindzen are referred to as “holocaust deniers” by the left and are regularly slandered, despite impeccable academic credentials. By whom? Republicans? I don’t think so.

            Liberals are actually the most illiberal of people. They try to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Look at the campaigin against Rush Limbaugh now. It’s not enough for them to change the channel, they have to set out to destroy anyone who sponsors his show.

          • Mike V

            You missed the point…

          • Jim

            Right on. The Liberal point of view is that eveyone is entitled to their own opinion and lifestyles – no matter how far out or what effect it may have on society. Unless, of course, you happen to have conservative views. Most of my close friends are conservative with the exception of one who is extremely Liberal. He is the only one of our group who is absolutely unbending on any issue. Totally closed minded. Ironic to the point of being comical.

          • Ken

            Kind of like the Supreme Count. Two of the five members (Roberts and Kennedy) of the “conservative” side are considered swing voters. But the four members of the liberal side always seem to vote lock step in unison on the liberal side of any issue, regardless of constitutional arguments.

            It’s a joke that Kagen is even there. No judicial experience. And a travesty that she didn’t recuse herself from healthcare debate.

      • Ken

        All through history, science has been about consensus. And all through history, scientists who break from consensus are ridiculed, typically by other scientists. Yet many new discoveries were outside the existing “consensus.”

        There is a lot of politics and money in science. If you play the game and accept the conventional thinking, you get grant money. If you don’t, you’re ostracized. That’s why the global warming skeptics, who are portrayed as being a small minority while actually numbering in the thousands, are always described as being on the same level of holocaust deniers.

        Most of the great scientists of history – Newton, Copernicus, Galileo – were portrayed as skeptics and deniers in their own time.

      • Ken

        “Big government has nothing to do with science.”

        Seriously? How many research centers and foundations get all or nearly all of their money from the government? How many are actually part of the government?

        Science and government are intricately linked and have been for centuries.

        • Mike V

          Big government gave us the space program which gave us some of the greatest inventions and innovations in the past 60 years. The problem now is all big government gives us are free things we would be better off without.

    • CS

      I felt like i was supposed to take a shot everytime you used the word “consensus”