I'll have to read it. But skimming through it a little, it doesn't look like it's a report ala Al Gore if you get my drift. I'm not sure they take the stand of the global warming lunatics about man-made warming. Plus, I wonder how much this symposium was done for some political purposes. Remember, the enviro's have sued the navy to stop them from training with active sonar.

You're right. But it does show that atmospheric fluctuations have been happening for a long time. Long before the "global warming movement" arrived.

Well, SD, melting Arctic ice in the 1920's is not the same as record lows today.

It's fairly one-sided and easy to dismiss if you are of the opposite suggested persuasion, but life is like that, and more so by the day.

What is?

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975...wsweek/page/0/

How much financial support do you think is going into the "global warming movement"? And from how many sources pushing it's theories? If you don't think they're not a "well-funded machine" in and of itself, you're fooling yourself. There is a ton of money going in that direction. ;)

Of course it's a movement with strong financial backing. Through taxes and fundraisers a lot of money can be raised. Events such as live Earth, awful as it was, raise money. Whereas on the deniers side you'll find it's streams of cash from fossil-fuel groups. As far as i can see, there's only one professional scientific society that is not in agreement with the IPCC, and it's the Petroleum Geologists. And they're reviewing their position.

Calling it the global warming movement is rather inaccurate, the Earth is warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not seems to be the current debate.
I say debate, but it's a bit of a shoddy one, with one side very much composed of special interest groups.

Yeah, but I wonder, why is it the shorelines are basically unchanged? I've heard from Global Warning believers that the melting iceaps would cause the sea level to grow dramatically...Strange.

Well Arctic ice melt will not influence sea levels nearly as much as that of Antarctic ice, seeing as it's already displacing water. The real danger here is the loss of the reflective nature of the ice, instead we'll have more heat-absorbing ocean.

Coldest August Day in NYC in Almost a Century

Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67.


:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...almost-century

Yeah it's been a cool summer throughout the northeast. Buddy of mine tells me they already had a frost up in Maine.

Seems like Philadelphia is warming up. :88)

Or maybe melting down.

Kyoto calamity

The fact is that except for the exempt nations, no Kyoto ratifier can do what it is supposed to under the treaty without inflicting severe damage on its economy.



http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/...ion/280299.txt

My biggest issue with Kyoto is that international flights are not counted, simply because they can't decide how to assign their damages to nations.

Agreed on the economy, though. There's no way to significantly fight anthopogenic climate change without fundamentally altering our economic models.
Still, we can't eat or breathe money.

There seems to be a total lack of understanding as to the difference of climate and weather in this thread.

Also, there is a mixed message of "global warming isn't real/It's natural anyway/but doing anything will kill the global economy" combo argument, which effectively reveals a lot of bias and lack of objective opinion.