Although with High Priest Gore in town yesterday, the amount of hot air coming from him might have changed that.

So that's how Gore boosted the earth's core to several million degrees -- sucking in all the hot air. The man is amazing.

Since 1998. That's how long we've been sans any, 'Global Warming'. Methinks this is why the talk-points all changed in the Church of Green camp. Now it's, 'climate crisis', and, 'man-made climate change', and what not. Never forget, this has nothing to do with science, the environment or even man's contribution to enviro-calamity. It is, always has been, and likely always will be about money.

The middle-class found 'em some people to kick around, and kick they will. Until the next class-fight-fad comes our way.

Unfortunately, if the Russians are correct about the sunspot cycles, and our Earth's climate is dependent upon natural warming and cooling cycles of the Sun, then we are in for a cold period. A really cold period. And this will be far more disastrous than warming could be for our species...think massive crop failures coupled with tremendous overpopulation.

Me, I don't see the theories of anthropogenic global warming and that of the Earth's temperature being dependent upon the Sun's natural temperature cycles, as necessarily contradictory.

As they teach us in Logic 101, A is not B.

Sun big. Mankind small.

But Vance is likely right...at the end of the day, there is lots and lots of money to be made off of the rubes, and that slick billionaire Al Gore is exhibit A.

Once again, an article misunderstanding the difference between climate change and "global warming".

The article's talking to scientists who are debating whether temperatures are rising or not. It's not about global climate change, or whether human activity's causing it, etc.

Once again, here's NASA explaining the difference:

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

And here's the source:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

But again, off in a corner, people like to rage about the "hoax of global warming", while just about every scientific body in the world talks about global climate change--not global wrming.

It's like there's a group of people that still debate the merits of fashion in 1978.

"Unfortunately, if the Russians are correct about the sunspot cycles, and our Earth's climate is dependent upon natural warming and cooling cycles of the Sun, then we are in for a cold period. A really cold period. And this will be far more disastrous than warming could be for our species...think massive crop failures coupled with tremendous overpopulation."

The sun has a 22-ish year cycle - an average of 11 years building to a solar maximum, and then another 11-ish years down to a solar minimum. The beginning of cycle 23 (the 23rd time we've observed this trend since the 1750s) was in May of 1996.

Here we are in 2009, 12-ish years after the last solar minimum. I'm sure this has no effect on anything though.

Here we are in 2009, 12-ish years after the last solar minimum. I'm sure this has no effect on anything though.

I have yet to hear anyone credible deny the Sun and Moon have a relationship with the Earth and its atmosphere and temperature. Have you?

"an article misunderstanding the difference between climate change and "global warming"."

Hey, just read the headline, it says avg global temps have remained constant for 10 years. We've been told for years now (and Gore made his fortune this way also) global warming is the issue, so now we get told that it's not so much warming as climate change. Of course, no one can really substantiate how we measure climate change and what causes it.

When you get some objective facts and can draw an accurate causal conclusion let me know. Expecting a lawyer/pol like Gore to be objective (especially after his main tome is a picture book light on substantive facts) really pushes it.

We've been told for years now (and Gore made his fortune this way also) global warming is the issue

If Gore is your main source of information and main target of criticism, I don't know what to tell you. Why focus on Gore? I don't. Most people don't--that is, except for folks looking for a scapegoat to criticize.

so now we get told that

that might be your main problem, Steve--you're relying on "getting told" instead of relying on "finding out".

Expecting a lawyer/pol like Gore to be objective (especially after his main tome is a picture book light on substantive facts) really pushes it.

Gore's really the beginning and the end of all it for you, isn't he?

When you get some objective facts and can draw an accurate causal conclusion let me know.

See above. When you want to discuss something other than "Al Gore", let me know.

"See above."

Looked above and saw article references with a lot of opinions. The only one with quatitative data I saw was Mr Bog's original article.

I mean I really want to believe, but we get whipped up into a frenzy saying things are the end of the world (like going to Iraq, banking crisis and the UN guy saying we only have 20 days 'til a meeting in Denmark to save the world) and then we divert a lot of effort and in the end nothing much changes. Gore is the lighting rod for all of this, so I mention him as a figurehead since we really have no specific scientific spokesmen.

Tell me the measurable markers that show climate change then.

Looked above and saw article references with a lot of opinions.

No Steve--"see above" meant "see above about Al Gore".

I mean I really want to believe

Want to believe what? That humans are affecting the climate? Why is that difficult to believe? You know that climate includes the air, the atmosphere, the land, the water, all of it--right?

Tell me the measurable markers that show climate change then.

Good grief. Steve, look around. Notice the number of people dying around the world due to dirty air and water. Notice entire forests dying due to manmade air and water pollution. Notice the permanent disappearance of aquatic species due to trashing and warming of waterways (did you know a one degree change can doom many species?).

Reading your comments, I have to ask you--do you know what "climate" means?

Gore is the lighting rod for all of this, so I mention him as a figurehead since we really have no specific scientific spokesmen.

Critics, media, and people that are "getting told" what's going on like to make him a "figurehead". Is he famous? Yes. Is he the only person speaking? No, not even close. He's just a convenient "lightning rod" for casual critics, because he's a layperson trying to illustrate a critical problem.

"Notice the number of people dying around the world due to dirty air and water. Notice entire forests dying due to manmade air and water pollution. Notice the permanent disappearance of aquatic species due to trashing and warming of waterways"

Fine, then we can address pollution. However, I asked for markers for climate change - Y'know something kind of scientific?

Attributing all of this to climate change is kind of tough when you can't even define climate change factually. Try to remember correlation does not equal causation.

Try to remember correlation does not equal causation.

Fair enough. But pollution is a leading cause of climate change. I'm talking about permanent (and extremely long-term) climate effects. Waterways warming because of pollution and other human activities is climate change. Pollution that enters the atmosphere and stays there, altering chemistry, is climate change.

Arguing about how much carbon dioxide is manmade and how much is not is almost beside the point--the fact is, humans are (and have been) altering the climate. Now, in the present, we're reaching a point (some like to say "tipping point") where those activies can cause precipitous, irreversable changes. Some of those are extremely evident, like the effect of water temperature change on species, air, and human health.

If you need a focus other than Al Gore, Steve, here's one: what are you going to do if there's even a good chance (not 100% certainty, but a very good chance) that human activity just might be decimating the planet?

Sit around and wait for someone to "tell you" that it's "certain" and that you have permission to act?

"human activity just might be decimating the planet?"

Authorize eugenics committees to select best of breed for survival purposes and give out reproduction permits. What did you want - A govt committee deciding on what are permitted behaviors?

You are making a huge leap that CO2 is causing climate change since it now obviously hasn't caused global warming for the past ten years. So we'll find another symptom to pin high CO2 levels on.

If you could drop the hysterics and gather some data to analyze what is going on - Great.

Eco, could you just get rid of us humans all together so we wouldn't be "affecting the climate".

That .05% human affect that some scientist might agree on is just too much.

"what are you going to do if there's even a good chance (not 100% certainty, but a very good chance) that human activity just might be decimating the planet?"

What are you going to do is there's even a good chance (not 100%) that you may die one day?

Would you be willing to forego any pleasure in your life or typing on the computer if that shortens your life by one iota?

I'd like to think you would prioritize certain things while realizing the inevitability of others.

What did you want - A govt committee deciding on what are permitted behaviors?

If I'm listing wants: I'd like to hear your answer to the question at the end of my previous post.

You are making a huge leap that CO2 is causing climate change

No Steve, and CO2 is only part of climate change. I said so. You're still focused on "global warming" and "Al Gore".

What are you going to do is there's even a good chance (not 100%) that you may die one day?

I know the answer: try and make a difference in the world while I'm not dead.

Would you be willing to forego any pleasure in your life or typing on the computer if that shortens your life by one iota?

I already forego plenty of things that may shorten my life, Steve. But that's a false choice--manmade pollution already shortens the life of thousands in America, including children. How do you feel about involuntary shortening of lives?

Eco, could you just get rid of us humans all together so we wouldn't be "affecting the climate".

The beauty of the ecosystem is--destroying it guarantees that we've "gotten rid of" ourselves.

And to think, I was wrong about streetcars all this time. They really are magic. I repent.

And my apologies to Van Jones.

"that human activity just might be decimating the planet?

Sit around and wait for someone to "tell you" that it's "certain" and that you have permission to act?"

I'd really like a believable factual source to make some connection between a cause and symptom. I'll grant we should reduce pollution, but no one is making a connection between rising levels of CO2 and anything yet.

Next question, atomic power probably has the least environmental impact / watt is that OK?

And, yes, we all should focus on conservation where possible.

atomic power probably has the least environmental impact / watt

Except (Chernobyl) when (Three Mile Island)it doesn't.

"Except (Chernobyl) when (Three Mile Island)it doesn't."

You're right, I prefer lots of coal-fired plants. Everything has implied probability of risk - including living.

You're right, I prefer lots of coal-fired plants.

So I only get to choose between nuclear and coal? Another false choice, Steve.

Everything has implied probability of risk - including living.

Except, apparently, waiting to see "proof" of human impact on the climate. That seems risk-free.

"Another false choice"

You threw only criticized one alternative, nuclear, so I gave you another choice, coal, in comparison. If you want more options, fine.

I was hoping you are aware there are other choices in power generation. We may even find one you like.

I'm not arguing that humans have impact on the environment. Heck, a butterfly in China may cause hurricanes here, if you want to spend the time and establish a connection instead of chasing butterflies in China all day.