Take the global warming test!
 

Please send that to Pelosi!

hmm, interesting.

plant fossils of west virginia.

awesome site. great link.

i like the "we're not connected with the coal industry" name. subtle.

my favorite...

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

i feel sorry for people who can't see the bias in the mainstream media.

and i pray for them.

I'm just praying they go away.

the biggest scam in history, and they're close to pulling it off.

isn't a scam something where someone...say the fossil fuel lobby...wants to fool someone else for financial gain?

i'm looking forward to the explanation of how the climate scientist lobby has managed to pull this one off.

talk about david vs. goliath.

gov is not even looking at the science, they couldn't care less.
the scam is being conducted by the gov and the green lobby.

to what end?

the motivation for obfuscation by the poor underfunded fossil fuel lobby is fairly clear.

i'm still a little fuzzy on the payoff for all the fat cat climate scientists that have managed to buy off the government.

and please stop projecting. just because the right has a war on science doesn't mean the government still does. that ended in january.

Yes - most of what has been released in the past few months by the current administration was investigative science done under the eight years of the Bush administration, but squelched and ignored there.

sounds like a good idea. science should not be used to justify social engineering.

there is no payoff for fat cat climate scientists, other than additional grants for the ones that keep on providing the right answers.

the right has a war on science? I was not aware of that. I think you're projecting.

No, religion has been most commonly used for that.

BTW, the GOP "Crashing the party train into oblivion 2009" national tour continues:

www.dailybeast.com

" Note to Republicans: Racist “humor,” the Internet, and political ambitions don’t mix. Audra Shay, vice chairman of the Young Republicans and the leading candidate to be elected its chairman on Saturday, is now the latest in a growing list of GOP officials learning this lesson the hard way, based on pictures of a now-deleted Facebook page obtained by The Daily Beast."

Sigh ... I may have to take back all the promising things I've said about the future of the GOP lately.

Probably because you are not in a scientific field. I am. Yes, the "right" -most notably the Bush administration - indeed had "a war on science". No additional grants for anyone under the Bush administration, no matter what their answers were.

And thank goodness that's over and done with now. One of the major reasons I voted for Obama.

Global warming alarmism is the official state sanctioned religion of the U.S.A.. I have the constitutional right to believe or not. The Govt. doesn't have the right to jam it down Americans throats. Maybe its getting warmer, maybe mankind is to blame. Maybe not. Geological time isn't measured in months, but centuries and eons. When the price of energy goes up the price of everything goes up. Does anybody remember last summer? The economy started tanking after the price of oil (and gas) skyrocketed. The left always wanted high gas prices to slow consumption. They just wanted it to be from taxes. Our tax dollars and time might be better used to adapt than to try to stop something that may be an unstoppable, natural, and cyclical phenomenon.

no it's probably because I have a better grip on reality than you do. there was no war on science. that's a political characterization used by the left to paint the right all as bible thumpers who don't believe in science. obviously you've fallen for it.

No, I only need to look at the truth of it: the documentable lack of our governments support and funding for science, across all fields, during the past 8 years.

That has nothing at all to do with "bible thumpers", "the right", or "the left".

BTW, the sciences are objective fields. There's little to no "belief in science" involved. It exists no matter what some people "believe". Just like climate change.

There is a complete, complex, and rather large discussion and examination of global warming that takes place completely outside of "the government".
Kind of hard to ignore that.

If the "discussion" is being financed by the Govt., and large sums of grant money are involved, the outcome will surely please whomever it has to to keep the dollars rolling in.

The Govt. is setting policy by looking at one side of the "discussion". Don't sweat the conflicting data. "It's been hot or cold lately where I live" doesn't prove anything about climate change. Thousands of years of data may not be enough to prove or disprove anything. Mans involvement is harder to prove. I just think it's another attempt by the Govt. to not let a crisis go to waste, whether the crisis is real or perceived.

So, what do you think about all the climate change information being generated, examined, and discussed having nothing at all to do with our government (especially financing) or any other?

Conflicting mostly. Not in urgent need of massive tax hikes that rely on still developing technologies that may do more to increase global warming, but will almost definitely hurt our economy and cause a further loss in manufacturing jobs.

??? Really? Where? How?

Some say man has no effect. Some say man is responsible. Some say warming. Some say cooling. Some say the discussion is over.

Even if global warming is a danger and man made, Cap and Trade makes no sense as all it will do is result in less carbon emission from the US and increases of carbon emission in foreign country's that will expand production on virtually everything minus solar panels, wind mills and any other US subsidized industry that in essence will serve as a second tax Cap and Trade provides. Since their factories are far less efficient and their power plants less regulated I'd say more carbon will be produced. More US jobs, specifically in the production and transportation industries will be lost. (Will Mexican trucking and foreign shipping companies be taxed? How about Chinese factories and coal plants providing energy to those factories)

IMO it's kind of like trying to put out a grease fire in the kitchen with a bucket of water while the rest of the house is on fire. Much better to stand back be safe and come up with another plan provided the house is actually on fire.

And with the economy and unemployment in its current state this is the last thing we need to do.

By the way how much carbon was released by all those great firework shows this weekend?

Sun spots have far more to deal with cooling/warming than man ever has. What a bunch horse **** global warming is. One of the coolest years on record is this year. Snow in NE in June.

Why is it so hard for people to frame their arguments when it comes to this issue? Your first sentence is a great point worth debating. Then your last three sentences completely detract from your point. Pointing to single occurrences or single years of data is completely useless and for some reason is always the ploy of global warming deniers. There is a great argument that global warming is not man-made. But there is no denying that global warming is occurring:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...ror-bar-pg.gif

No, that's not true. Outside of the government, out within the global scientific community, there is overwhelming agreement regarding the big picture issues you outline.

Seriously - the political considerations have to be separated from scientific reality here. They are not one and the same. Disbelieving climate change isn't occuring because someone doesn't like Al Gore or the Democrats (not saying that's you, just an example) is like disbelieving the world isn't flat because someone doesn't like Italians.

The climate is always changing. I'd like to separate it too. No cap and trade.

I think you need to apologize to all Italians for comparing them to Al Gore or is this so complicated only Jimmy Carter ( J.C. apparently to you and O'B only able to understand?)

and before you respond give me some Carter views you agree w/related to his understanding of the mid-east?

please enlighten me on my view that



Even if global warming is a danger and man made, Cap and Trade makes no sense as all it will do is result in less carbon emission from the US and increases of carbon emission in foreign country's that will expand production on virtually everything minus solar panels, wind mills and any other US subsidized industry that in essence will serve as a second tax Cap and Trade provides. Since their factories are far less efficient and their power plants less regulated I'd say more carbon will be produced. More US jobs, specifically in the production and transportation industries will be lost. (Will Mexican trucking and foreign shipping companies be taxed? How about Chinese factories and coal plants providing energy to those factories)

:zz:

I'll pay for your reading comprehension course.

and you need some common sense and realize you were a Dem all along. Now tell me where you exactly came up with the belief Carter has a deep understanding of the mid-east?

??? I think you need to go back to the other thread and read what I wrote about Carter in the first place.

save me the time you don't think he has a understanding of the mid east kind of like Obama?

Dell..if someone's view of the Middle East disagrees with yours, does that mean they have no understanding of the Middle East?

And no...this is not a Steven Wright joke..

only if they agree ending a six day war, transferring the oil rich Sinai Peninsula from Israel to Egypt, the Egyptian leader assassinated 3 yrs later, the Israeli leader resigning 5 yrs later while American's waited for odd or even days to get gas while we provided defense aid to both is the result of 'understanding' and then coming to the conclusion Israel is the worse perpetrator of human rights abuse, worse than Rwanda on earth. (just to keep on subject) lol