Slashdot Mirror

It's estimated that 50 million people have died that wouldn't have otherwise if DDT was still in common use.
DDT would need to be pretty goddam harmfull to justify those kinds of numbers, it isn't. The DDT story is the epitome of
the EPA their junk science. DDT

Heh, someone here I agree with... Oh yeah, this is an interesting site to visit... http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

It's obvious, to me, that this movie is simply a preaching to the choir type of movie. The movie can and does have holes the size of a Mac Truck.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

1. Are we releasing millenia-old stores of H2O?
   A: No, but Gaia is. And are millenia-old stores of CO2 being released by volcanoes, ocean outgassing, and animals enough to even completely mask human "contributions"?
2. We can add up the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and compare with 100 years of burning that is how much we've added.
   A: Well, have you done that? Has anybody? Al Gore? Bueller? Bueller?
3. What do animals breathe?
   A: 02. So?

1. Why is the presence of other GHG a cause for CO2 NOT to be a GHG?
   A: Who said it wasn't? But if it is a minor contributor instead of the awful horror it is being made out to be by the CO2 detractors, then maybe the fuss is a smokescreen for something else.
2. Why didn't you do the work yourself?
   A: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." -- Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow
   
3. Why pick on only one compound?
   A: Good question. How about methane? How about the aforementioned H20 vapor? Consider "Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes, although probably only trivially and to a declining extent."

The article itself has been given a good thrashing by Steven Milloy. Look under Tuesday (11-14-06) section. http://www.junkscience.com/

One site to check is http://www.junkscience.com/ . I read a long time ago that if you run the climate predicting models backward they should predict the past (time's arrow being irrelevant here) but they don't. I also remember that one of the beginnings of chaos theory was based on finding that a weather model produced dramatically different results simply because of a very small change in one datum. "The butterfly flaps its wings . . ." etc. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect%5D. When economists can predict interest rates accurately, I may start believing that weather models are useful beyond a short period.

http://www.junkscience.com/ is always a good place to read.

Dammy

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ you didn't link me to anything that proves your point. try linking to some actual maths. you should check your link before insulting others. now you just look like an idiot.

Make Congress ratify Kyoto just like the other 142 countries did?

Increase the car efficiency standards at least to the Chinese level in the USA?

Stop trying to deny the manmade global warming, which the scientific consensus supports and engage in a worldwide debate about what steps need to be taken in order to minimize CO2 output? Just off the top of my head...

Are your cars Hybrids or some alternative fuel thing like BioDiesel?

Do you bike to work?

Have move moved close enough to work/school to make Biking practical?

Have you replaced at least half of the lights in your house with LED or compact florescent bulbs? If you haven't done all or most of those things then I really wish you'd get off of "Bush", "The Democrats", "The Republicans", and Fox news and go save a baby seal or something. If you have done all or most of those things, then great job. Keep it up and encourage your friends to do the same. Either way, stop waiting for "someone to do something" and do something yourself.

By the way, I do all of those things, am not a supporter of Kyoto and not at all a fan of computer climate models (Software sucks).

your statement that the rate of temperature change has never been this fast before is completely untrue. No one can tell you exactly what the earths temperatures been doing over the last 100k years, and if they claim it they are a bullshitter (if it supports global warming or not i don't care). We also only contribute 3.4% of the atmosphere's CO2 content, a very trivial amount. the REAL elemental driver of the earths completely natural (and required for life) "greenhouse" effect is HO2. but then saying that WATER is a greenhouse gas isn't as sexy cool (nor does it sell movies cough cough) as rattling your sabre about those big bad corperations which club baby seals and kittens in order to power their evil industries. for a short primer on just why the hysteria around CO2 is horribly misguided i point you again to junkscience.com http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ i'm not saying humans aren't having a negative impact on the earth's environment. i'm saying we need to stop assholes wasting our energy on imaginary boogymen and look at real problems.

The Real Inconvenient Truth http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm

The Real Inconvenient Truth http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm

The organization at the core of all of this is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Odd linky which connects them to here.

Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy.

Demonize away!

The other interesting tidbit found here (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day ...

The organization at the core of all of this is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Odd linky which connects them to here.

Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy.

Demonize away!

The other interesting tidbit found here (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day ...

"And the significance of this is... what? Actually very little because atmospheric carbon dioxide is a trivial bit-player on the global climate stage. If nothing has interfered to reduce its effect, the 100 ppmv increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the global mean temperature by about 0.15 C, another 200 ppmv could push that up to a total net warming of about 0.2 C.

Update: Question for the day -- if atmospheric carbon dioxide is as strong a determinant of planetary temperature as is frequently alleged, why isn't the world at its warmest in April and coolest in August when the annual peak and trough in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels occur? The annual northern hemisphere spring/summer growing season sees a draw down of 4-5 ppmv in the atmospheric carbon resource yet global temperature peaks when atmospheric carbon dioxide is lowest and is a little below average when CO2 is highest. Something wrong here, surely. End update. "

Look, the ONLY point of articles like this is to bring the libertarians out of the woodwork so they can dance around in a circle chanting their magic chant that makes oil last forever and the Earth be inhabitable forever.

I don't know any libertarian who believes that oil or the Earth will last forever. What they do belive is that government interference is uncessary in dealing with the energy supply. If we start to run out of oil, prices will go up and encourage the development of alternative energy supplies (something all the billions government has poured into bloated programs has failed to do).

As for the global warming hype, check out the real inconvenient truth

As a matter of fact, there was ... from Newsweek "The Cooling World" April 28, 1975, page 64:

In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

So, as a rough estimate growing seasons are about the same as they were in the 1950s. The researchers only went back 30 years so they wouldn't have to deal with this "anomaly". That is known in some circles as "cooking the data".

If you want analysis, junkscience.com is a good one to have in the mix.

D
D
T

Too much junk science out there to acknowledge something that we should still be using, I guess.

Here's my problem with your statement, you ask me to provide cold hard facts that global warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Well, I can do that with a dozen studies and web sites http://www.junkscience.com/, http://www.john-daly.com/, http://www.climateaudit.com/ are all quick and easy to pull off the top of my head.

In addition, it's recently been pointed out that there's no Nobel Prize waiting for the person who proves anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a crock, in fact it's like a death knell to your carreer to pursue global warming skepticism, even if you are totally right.

McIntyre and McKittrick, the two people who have (respectively) a PhD in Statistics and PhDs in Math and Geology were told that they had no qualifications to argue the quality of Mann's "Hockey Stick". This work was done by climate change scientists who had degrees in, hmmm, one has a PhD in Math and Geology (Mann) and the other has a degree in Statistics (the et. al. of the report.) McIntyre and McKittrick have received dozens of death threats from the AGW crowd, especially after they proved that Mann's equation would produce a hockey stick, even with totally random data.

The reason gravity, and relativity, and evolution haven't been "shot down" is very simple. They are falsifiable theories. It takes a single fact that lies outside their purview to devastate the theory. Gravity - at least Newton's version - was ruined by the fact that the planet Mercury was in the wrong place. Look up the Planet Vulcan sometime and see why Relativity knocked Newton out of the ballpark.

The current AGW debate is based on two facts. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by approximately 80PPM over the last 160 years, and during the last 140 years, there's been an increase in temperature of about 0.6 degrees C. However, there's a big caveat in these two pieces of data. It's called "Correlation does not imply causality." It's one of the first things any good statistician should be taught. However, it's plain that the climate scientists decided to jump on the bandwagon and scream "CO2 is wrecking the Earth!".

To "prove" this, they've turned to computer models of the atmosphere. These, they say, prove that global warming is real, yet even they admit that most of their models "go runaway" and have to be thrown out. I'm sorry, but if your model is so fragile that given the same inputs it can "go runaway", then the model isn't accurate. It's equivalent to tossing a coin. It's meaningless. Who decides what is a "runaway result". Climate Prediction even admits that they threw out any run of their model that showed cooling with an increase in CO2.

Even the most powerful simulator in the world, the NEC Earth Simulator, only works on 50 kilometer wide grids. They had never even seen a hurricane on their "simulated Earth" until two years ago, and even then, they didn't call it a hurricane, they called it a "hurricane precursor" known as a "curl" because the simulation wouldn't support the actual hurricane formation and flow. Now, hurricanes are responsible, annually, for 30-40% of the rainfall in portions of the Southern United States. Their model admittedly doesn't handle this, those areas never receive that rainfall, and precipitation is responsible for a large amount of ground-cooling in models, as well as hundreds of other effects that simply aren't modeled. And that's just one of a dozen things I could list that are wrong with computer models. I've had this argument before. (And it's dropped off my lis

you found my message unsupportable - yet I assume you found his completely justified?

Which do you want more? To be proven right or to be correct, even if that means admitting you are wrong?

What disconfirming evidence have you looked at, and why did you discount it?

The facts point the the extreme liklihood that human beings are responsible for the current warming trend, and the facts suggest that CO2 is the likliest cause. The levels of CO2 and the global temperature are strongly corrrelated.

I can see why you were upset with the pro global warming statment. Acording to this, there isn't realy that big of a data trail supporting CO2 being the sole cause of the warming. It apreas that other things like sun cycles and volcanic eruptions as well as inconsistancies in data colection contribute more then anything else combines.

This is a problem I have with global warming as it stands. There is no room in the current theory being presented for factors other then human imposed ones. When anyone points to some natural phenominom preseting some changes in the climatate they are branded as a non believer or in denial and pushed aside pointing to his esimates or science as being junk. Now the stuff at the above link could be wrong but I havn't been able to find any reference to it being wrong that have ground going deeper then I said so or a blanket "they are using junk science" with no hint of were thier science is wrong. But there are a numberof reasons to be skepticle of those claiming global warming exist in it's current state. It is more likley temperature changes have something to with the sun then with just CO2 alone.

That doesn't mean that people who accept this are pro Global Warming. What would someone have to gain by being pro Global Warming?

Your right, those people who accept it are more likly just misinformed. Or partialy misinformed anyways. But there are lots of things advocates of global warming can gain. First and probably the most common root of coruption (on either side of any issue) is money. Those claiming global warming are using thier findings to get funding from different groups inclusing the governments of the world as well as oversite bodies set up by those governments. Certain memeber can advance thier own religious teachings about being one with the earth and some may be looking for just fame (prizes and awards from scientific comunities. Who wouldn't want to be remebered as the man who saved earth) and fortune (fortune derived from speaking engagments). But in either way, there is no possiblility for them to lose. If global warming doesn't happen they can say we saved the planet give us more money and we will make sure it doesn't happen again. If it does happen they can say you should have listened to us give us more money and we will fix it. So either way, they benefit.

As far as I see it, higher levels of CO2 favor plants, not humans, so maybe all the scientists (and it really is ALL the scientists) that simply agree with the data are secretly working for the super-secret plant-world agenda. The only arguments against the facts are that they might make certain pollutors adopt certain precautionary behaviors, and that might be momentarily expensive for certain industries, and we simply can't inconv

Please go look at this page before assuming you understand the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. Realize that man's total contribution to CO2 represents about 0.28% of the effective greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that the largest greenhouse contributor is water vapor, which varies daily between 30% and 75% of the gasses.

But all that and more is made clear on the above page...

Pooh. Earth is not nearly so "balanced" as you seem to think. It is always getting either warmer or cooler. Glaciers are always either shrinking or growing. The Earth has been twenty degrees cooler, and twenty degrees warmer, before cavemen tamed fire. Dinosaurs and palm trees once lived in Arctic regions, and there was a time when most of North America lay under ice a mile thick.

The anthropogenic component of global warming that has the Gorebots so scared is mere statistical noise by comparison, if it exists at all.

-ccm

So, whomever claims that Gore is promoting "Junk Science" must publish evidence that demonstrates where the science wrong. End of discussion.

Happens every day.

If you assume that they'll only be able to increase the time linearly, then yes, it's about fifty years.

If you assume that they'll be able to keep refining the technology and keep doubling the time every two years, then we're only looking at 7.6118259 [2*log(400/28.6)/log(2)] years.

If you go by the progress rate of existing fusion devices starting from 1965, it goes right back to 50 years (52.3 specifically, but who's counting?)

Generally you want to stick to linear when something has been linear throughout the vast bulk of its existence, rather than to arbitrarily switch to some equation which has both a name you recognize and a number output you prefer. Otherwise you'd be much better advised to look at it as an order ten polynomial, which could give us fusion by Thursday. Also, gas consumption should fall off as the fifth logarithm if usage, we'll discover oil fields as a stepwise linear expansion of current capacity, and France's population will zero right away.

People like you are why I think we should require a license to use statistics. In the hands of the wrong people they're as deadly as cars, guns, poisons or pop music.

Numbers vary by source, but here are the very interesting links:

http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/faq.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_cost.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/impact/index.htm

I was off by a little. The CDC claims 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 per year, with 1 million+ deaths.

It is an astounding number.

  Charles

The "DDT is dangerous" has been conclusively and comprehensively DEBUNKED years and years ago. There is NO reason this crap needs to continue, except for the psychological agenda of the enviro-facist movement.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Basically, 'Silent Spring' was based on test data that was wrong.
The birds whose eggs were shattering, had been raised on a diet containing less than 20% of the calcium they usually got. Duh. Low calcium = weak eggshells.
When the experiment was repeated with a proper diet, there was NO such finding, even in birds HEAVILY fed DDT.
Even the original authors of the experiment had, by 1971, turned their investigations more to PCBs, and discounted DDT as an issue with bird populations.

An administrative Judge ruled even at the time that DDT wasn't dangerous.
Nevertheless, the administrator of the then-new EPA ruled it would be universally banned...and then promptly went to work for the exact same anti-DDT enironmental lobbying group, after he left he EPA.

But I find that DNR staff, ecological speakers visiting schools, reporters, etc all have cheerfully and unquestioningly swallowed the Kool Aide on this because of its SEMINAL impact and justification of the environmental movement. To be fair, when confronted constructively about it, are rather shocked but eventually persuaded that there MIGHT be some doubt...which is a lot when you're attacking such a sacred cow. However, I have yet to see anyone subsequently change their presentation, curricula, or (effectively) beliefs.

Question that DDT might not be dangerous? That might make people wonder about the validity of the whole "movement", if they could be shown to be such easily-gulled rubes.

Heck, it might even make you think global warming is BS...but no, that MUST be true, right? Scientists say it is.

From the DDT FAQ, a very fascinating read:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.

[Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.

[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

#

        The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937.

        [Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

#

        After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

        [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."

[J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]

If it's fact show some real studies. It's not fact it is COMPLETELY made up!

Here, have a few FACTS, you might learn something.
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Here's an interesting DDT FAQ entitled 100 things you should know about DDT.

Smoking causes cancer?

http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/newets.htm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/stats.htm

Actually it has more to do with surviving in a hostile environment. Malaria kills millions and especially children under 5. When children have such a high probability of passing in the first few years of life, you tend to have more children. How would you like to survive drought, famine, and disease in a grass hut infested with malaria carrying mosquitos and then raise a family and keep them your defenseless children alive longer than 5 years? When you don't have to fend off such crippling disease, starvation, etc you could probably find the time to work, educate yourself, and live in something better than a grass hut.

I don't think you have any comprehension on this. The toll from malaria on a society is HORRENDOUS

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/01080 6074841.htm
http://junkscience.com/malaria_cost.htm

1) China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.

Either pollution is a problem, or it isn't. It's not just a problem for some people on earth, and not for others. If you contend that Global Warming is 'catastrophic' doesn't it seem pedantic to then say "But those guys over there should get a chance to pollute since they haven't had their turn yet." WTF?
China and India don't have to make the same mistakes the rest of us made; they don't have to claw their way technologically through some sort of wierd forced-industrial-evolution process. Since all the Greenies INSIST that upgrading our infrastructure will be somehow (insert hand-waving here) beneficial to our economy, why wouldn't it be also beneficial to China or India? Why would one imagine that they aren't somehow clever enough to likewise reap these mysterious benefits of gigantic, government-mandated conformance?
Oh, and I'd love to see a link that provides proof (or even credible SUGGESTION) that their citizens are the "most likely to suffer". A pulled-from-the-ass statistic if I've ever heard one.

2) ...FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth....
Firstly, you're being pretty disingenuous if you believe that the story was not pointed directly at the darn Americans who aren't buying into Kyoto.
And as far as reducing emissions plus maintaining growth: Really? Who?
Last time I checked, none of the larger advanced economies was actually conforming to their Kyoto targets (excepting countries whose industrial bases essentially collapsed), and none of them that are even close are anywhere near economically healthy.

3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one
Really? I understand some climate data was determined from tree-rings in wood frozen in Greenland glaciers...but wait, that means that there were trees in Greenland? 3C would certainly be disastrous, I'm sure...well, unless you visit Central Park in New York city, (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/425725030010 .2.1.gif) where the Mean temps were 2-3 degrees C higher 180 years ago. I mean, we can all recall the tens of thousands of people dead, the icecaps melted, cities were wiped out, human advancement faltered, and the mass human and animal die-offs of 1820, can't we? I mean, 3C...it MUST be a disaster, right?
What EnviroNazis can't seem to grasp is that if you don't come to the situation with preconceptions (say, for example, cherry-picking data from the climatological record to produce a 'hockey stick' graph), it's very hard to draw conclusions - the 'trend' doesn't exceed the 'noise', which statistically means you usually need more data to be confident about the results. To spend $TRILLIONS$ on such flimsy conclusions is irresponsible and frankly stupid. It's like noticing that the weather's been getting cooler the last few days, and promptly bricking up all your windows and doors, and then wrapping your whole house in thermal blankets. Yes, that would be stupid.

4) the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct.
Really?
"The approach allows for the identification of thirty extreme wet periods and thirty-five extreme dry periods in the 1,425-year precipitation reconstruction and 30 extreme cool periods and 26 extreme warm periods in 2,262-year temperature reconstruction." (Colorado Plateau) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/re constructions/northamerica/usa/colorado-plateau200 5.txt
"Temperature maxima during the Me

I do not know the source of their figures, however JunkScience.com estimates that the US alone has spent about $173,548,050,000 since February 16th, 2005 to theoretically lower the impact of pollution by 0.001799776C. To theoretically impact the temperature by about 3C we would need to spend $289,286,125,055,910.

I agree polution is a problem, I agree that we need to clean up our act, however an article over at the BBC seems to point out that our cleaning up pollution is increasing the effects of global climate change. See also a previous Slashdot story on this subject.

If we pollute we increase global warming. If we clean up our act, we increase global warming. Until more data is gathered on the cause of what we see as global warming it is premature to blame man exclusively.

Again, I do feel we need to clean up our act, however acting prematurely because "we must do something" can cause more harm than good.

The IPCC, in Chapter 6 of Climate Change 1995 (Kattenberg et al) make two alternative assumptions for the future behaviour of sulphate aerosols for their future projections to 2100. One assumes a moderate continued increase in aerosols and the other that aerosol values will remain constant at 1990 levels,. If it is assumed that aerosols remain constant up to the doubling of carbon dioxide, then the modifications to the range of climate sensitivity are -0.8C to -1.6C, giving a revised IPCC range of -0.1C to +3.7C, with a "Best Estimate" at 0.9C to -1.7C. This time the "Best Estimate" almost equals the "Best Fit" from the temperature data, at its lower end. The IPCC avoids admitting that the models can predict a zero temperature change or a temperature drop by selecting a figure for the sulphate aerosol effect which is above the extreme high figure, for the future predictions.

These regulations exist because every time polluters get the choice between profit or pollution, they choose profit every single time, the move to the Maquiladoras being just the most recent example. This is the side of the 'free market' that free market advocates don't want anyone to see.

These regulations exist because every time polluters get the choice between profit or pollution, they choose profit every single time, the move to the Maquiladoras being just the most recent example. This is the side of the 'free market' that free market advocates don't want anyone to see.

I am fully aware of this.

Funny, because you're completely (and purposefully) ignoring it.

Erm - that is you - you are ignoring the expertise. It is the thousands of climatologists who are fully aware of solar maxima and minima. Please provide some substantial scientific publications that demonstrate that solar intensity changes do indeed account for all warming.

Oh no no no sir...you've got it all wrong here. You see, it is you who is propounding the idea that we need to reduce CO2 emissions in order to curb climate change, not I. I am saying there is not enough data to make such a conclusion. The burden of proof is on you, dear sir, to provide unquestionable, unassailable, irrefutable evidence backed by broad, overwhelming, near-total scientific consensus that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions as you advocate. When you provide it, I will promptly, fully, and without reservation endorse the concept of reducing CO2 emissions. Until then, you're spouting poppycock with no proof. You, like thousands of others, are guessing about the cause. If you're going to advocate such sweeping ideas like banning or significantly curbing CO2 worldwide -- and the associated negative effects that could cause global economic catastrophe, especially for developing nations who are huge CO2 polluters -- you'd better have mighty good evidence supporting your position. You don't, and neither does anyone else.

Prove it. You claim it is a lie - then please provide numbers of papers for and against.

If you weren't so blind to things around you (or living in an echo chamber) you'd be aware there are vastly differing opinions on global warming/climate change/whatever. Since you've obviously been content to arrive at your predetermined conclusion, I have no doubt you haven't bothered to research anything that disagrees with said conclusion. However, I'll do you the service of puncturing your self-insulated little bubble with the results of a quick Google search:

Three Views on Global Warming
Research, and Life Experiences, Put Scientists at Odds

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

Myths of Global Warming

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders

This is just a quick sample of the 3,940,000 hits I got searching for global warming facts and myths. Seeing as how you're utterly unaware of nearly 3.5 million websites devoted the concept of disagreement over global warming/climate change/whatever, I can only conclude that you're either too stupid to search for it, too apathetic to care, or too biased to risk exposing yourself to contrary opinions. I'll be generous and say it's the latter, but you feel free to give me reason to change that assumption.

For your edification, a graph of global mean temperature plotted with CO2 concentration showing the CO2 - temp "correlation" http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom1880. htm

Perhaps those who want to jump on the "Sky is Falling" hype, check out http://www.junkscience.com/ -- /.'ers should read both sides of the story before making rash uneducated statements. They have a wonderful write up of "real" data, from a ton of different studies, tearing apart this latest NASA report.

Stop worring, http://www.junkscience.com/ will shed some light on that nasty old boogyman, global warming. What ever happened to the good old days of Geeks doing research instead of believing stupid stories like they were good little MSCEs?

Here is some commentary on this article from the Junk Science people:

http://www.junkscience.com/feb06/NotCO2.htm

I find their opposing views are sometimes interesting.

Let's see. I could waste my time explaining to you precisely how much of a crackpot Hansen is, but others have done that research for me.

I could further waste my time by explaining the difference between a real scientist (Not Hansen), and a political hack (Hansen). I could discuss things like how policy decisions are not within the purview of a scientific paper, or how real scientists (again, not Hansen) don't tweak their data to support their conclusions. But I suspect that in the end, you'd still continue with your Gaia worshipping global warming will kill us all four legs good two legs bad wankery. So piss off.

* "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (1968) * "Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969) * "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969) * "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

Yet today: 1) Food production is well ahead of population growth and obesity now kills 300,000 Americans a year, 2) the air in New York and L.A. is cleaner than it has been in decades, 3) with two years until 2000, England's odds are looking mighty good, and 4) there are no key minerals facing depletion. Almost all of them, along with raw materials in general, are far cheaper now relative either to the Consumer Price Index or wages.

How much is hype and BS encouraged by the mass, liberal media? How much is hype on the other side by the oil companies? Fear and panic sells!

You should visit this site: http://www.junkscience.com/
Some of the graphs are very interesting -- http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_de sign.htm
which shows that if you include ALL the recorded data, some areas are getting cooler, but the graphs you typically see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/ show an increase.

You should read Crichton's book State of Fear -- it will make you really think about this in a new light: http://www.crichton-official.com/
You might actually begin to take a critical view of what you read in the press.

Also, you should read http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm -- what are they really measuring -- how are they cooking the numbers to mislead you (about most everything). Remember, bad press sells.... Death sells.... CNN had great ratings during the Gulf War. Many more watched the news following 9/11 and Katrina. Death and destruction and fear sell.

Is global warming real? There are many indicators that it is. But there are those that show some places are colder and that overall it is actually getting colder. We need more accurate data, more research, and more CRITICAL thinking, not mass fear and suppression -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

How much is hype and BS encouraged by the mass, liberal media? How much is hype on the other side by the oil companies? Fear and panic sells!

You should visit this site: http://www.junkscience.com/
Some of the graphs are very interesting -- http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_de sign.htm
which shows that if you include ALL the recorded data, some areas are getting cooler, but the graphs you typically see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/ show an increase.

You should read Crichton's book State of Fear -- it will make you really think about this in a new light: http://www.crichton-official.com/
You might actually begin to take a critical view of what you read in the press.

Also, you should read http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm -- what are they really measuring -- how are they cooking the numbers to mislead you (about most everything). Remember, bad press sells.... Death sells.... CNN had great ratings during the Gulf War. Many more watched the news following 9/11 and Katrina. Death and destruction and fear sell.

Is global warming real? There are many indicators that it is. But there are those that show some places are colder and that overall it is actually getting colder. We need more accurate data, more research, and more CRITICAL thinking, not mass fear and suppression -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

For any stance you may take, someone else takes another one:

I don't believe many experts any more, but that's just me.

OK so, science is better than faith. It's based completely on fact, and few errors. Let's look at some "issues" science has faced, and how they are faith based decisions.

Let's take the earth being millions of years old. Most dating methods for fossils and such have been shown to give false positives under easily replicable situations. Case in point, during the 80's (and still to a degree today) Carbon Dating was the huge big thing. It was incredibly accurate. Then, all of a sudden off the coast of the US we found tons of fossilised trees and plantlife that looked suprisingly similar to what was present today, yet were dated to be from the time of the dinosaurs. Scientists researched the issue and 'lo and behold what was found? They were trees that hadn't been down there more than a few months.

The cause? Mount St. Helen had exploded, tossing into the ocean a tremendous amount of trees and asundry vegetation. The combination of rapid heat changes and changes in pressure had immediatly fossilised the material, thus giving a false positive. So you see often times science itself and the methods used are faith based as well. Scientists must take the data they have and have faith that any outside influence that may or may not effect the experiment did not occur.

Also add in the fact that you have so many activists, and non-scientists, determining the "publically held beliefs" about science just on words alone and you have more problems. Case in point DDT is banned by the EPA as a carcinogenic even though no scientific evidence has been shown to prove it is (actually there is something like 9000 pages of scientific evidence proving that it isn't). How was it banned? Simple the head of the EPA at the time belonged to an activist group who wanted it banned, so he did regardless of the findings of the scientific community. Now everyone automatically thinks it is a carcinogenic, including otherwise intelligent people in the scientific community, not because they saw any evidence of this, but simply because they were told it was. As was lead in paint. Not saying lead isn't bad for you, but you would have to ingest so much of it to do harm that little Billy eating the paint chips peeling from his walls isn't going to be any more stupid from it than he is from not getting a decent education from parents who are content to let him sit there and eat said paint chips as long as they leave him alone.

Same thing is happening with Evolution. It is a completely unproven theory. When I was in school and we discussed it the teacher made sure to say that you can see evidence of adaptation within creatures to their environment, but nothing has ever been found or shown which can show the leap from species to species, and thus it is purely still speculation. That however is not how it is taught in schools anymore. It is taught as incontrivertable fact that evolution is how we got here period, and that is scientifically dishonest, plain and simple. But no science is no longer a study based in fact, and I would say a MAJORITY of the present day scientists build their knowledge off of "hear say" or what they have been told as to past scientific determinations rather than actual facts and researching for themselves. Basically it has become a religion unto itself, with no more foundations in many areas than those historical documents which may or may not be true that others base their personal beliefs off of.

So let's not be hypocritical or disingenuous ourselves here. If we are all so truly concerned about "science and faith" being kept seperate then we need to start fixing the crap and lies we've been spreading and letting be spread first before we start asking people to clean up their backyards. To quote an old addage, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.

For further support you can check here that shows how so much of what we "believe" about science is bunk because of bad scientists and idiots in general: http://www.junkscience.com/ [junkscien

Global Mean Temperature