Kevin Grandia is NOT a climate expert, Dr. Ball is. Some of the greatest scientific claims ever made were initially met with extreme prejudice. Ignorance, religion and politics have always been threats to absolute knowledge. The concept of the world not being flat or not being the center of the universe bruised many egos. I'm afraid Dr. Ball and other likeminded scientists are bruising more than just egos. Vast amounts of money, government programs and political crusades are threatened by what could be the real truth. How little the common man has progressed. Kevin Grandia and Al Gore are pinheads.

This people at Desmogblog like to mudsling at those who dissent with their tunnel vision about "manmade" global warming or the ozone scam, claiming dishonesty from scientists that are accused of taking money from the Oil and Tobacco (tobacco??) companies. So if that's the game they like to play, well, I say they dont' mind to take the money coming from Casinos-online-pusher and recently tried John Lefevbvre. At least money from oil comes from an activity that has "pushed" forward civilization in ways never seen before, and without it civilization would surely plunge back into the stone age -or medieval times. Make your pick.

Co2 has clear positive and negative temperature correlations, which says it does not make a difference. You know this is correct because co2 is in saturation and a doubling will not change temperature by much if anything. There are many feedback loops from plants, oceans, and soil that clearly says that co2 is not a factor. This entire debate is about one political faction (oil) against another (liberal, socialist, media) both wanting control. Ask yourself if the planet were cooling, which some data indicates(entire USA average), would the environs advocate massive buring of coal and fuel? No they would not, because it would add to oil political power. Reason says that both sides should receive equal funding or none at all. That 30 billion spent in the last 6 years should be refunded to tax payers, or at least half refunded to the opposing view. Fair is fair.

I am not surprised in the least by this information. The leading expert on this topic is Dr. James Hansen. You can find his work on The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) web page http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ As you will see he has no agenda being he is a lowly government employee simply interested in the truth. I'm really surprised at the emotional response from those who opose gthe theory of global warming. They seem not to even have a grasp of the real data.

After looking over this site I had to chuckle. What brought the biggest laugh was DeSmog's Bookshelf. George Monibiot pens a tome called Heat: how to stop the planet from burning. The way I understand it is that in about 3 billions years this little blue ball we call earth is gonna become as burnt as a marshmellow held over a roaring fire, an orbiting cinder if you will. These people featured here, Gelbspan, Kolbert, Romm, Goodell all would have thrived in the middle ages. Global Warming, UFO's, Conspiracy, any crank cause to get into print is their mindset. Nobody can take any of this blog seriously. Dr. James Foy

Climate change has been ongoing for 4.6 billion years. I certainly don't advocate wildly polluting this planet with harmful chemicals, but I don't believe humanity's influence on the global climate is as big as those who profit from such claims suggest. I'd be curious to know how much money some scientists are earning in their "studies" of global warming...

We have a poor record of the changes in solar radiation over the past eons, and we certainly don't know the effects of our solars system's travel through our galaxy over the past millions of years -- I think it's very egocentric to suggest mankind is the engine that drives the climate of this planet. We aren't driving this planet -- we are only passengers.

It is clear that the global warming issue is akin to the flat earth theory. The real science is very clear and so obvious it is pathetic. Check out http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 for some real science. This is just the tip of the ice berg. Dig deeper and the evidence becomes so clear I am embarrassed for us as a civilization. You are a frightening addition to the honest debate that is needed on this subject. I recycle because it makes sense. I shut lights off because it makes sense. I have two vehicles because it makes sense for my family. I also commute to work on a bicycle because, again, it makes sense. You make no sense and would have been supportive of hanging Galileo. Shame on you.

Not one of these comments provides a sound argument against global warming. Fact of the matter is the burning of fossil fuel contributes 6.6 petagrams of CO2 a year to the estimated 750 petagrams present in the atmosphere. While this seems like a minor amount imagine how much this has thrown off the earth's NATURAL carbon cycle over a period of 100 years. Furthermore, to compare global warming controversy to past tobacco scams is a false analogy. However I find it amazing how many of you comment on the dollars that would be lost should the public find out the truth about "global warming." You fail to recognize how much money the oil companies have placed into bad science in order to quash further awareness of global warming. What amused me the most was your petty attacks on Al Gore as if his hypocrisy justifies global warming. On the contrary a wealthy politician buying carbon offsets to ease his mind should not be presented as evidence in an argument against global warming. The "greenhouse effect" IS sound science and global warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed if not for the sake of your future but for the future of your children, grandchildren, and so on. Not to be rude, but I find that those that are most closed-minded on climate change are people age mid-30's and older. I believe that it is because they have experienced a vast amount of technological improvement in their lifetimes. I could imagine how hard it would be to "think" that you would lose these nice new things should there be reform. One person pointed out that "at least money from oil comes from an activity that has "pushed" forward civilization in ways never seen before, and without it civilization would surely plunge back into the stone age -or medieval times. Make your pick." I am shocked by how mislead this statement is. Fossil fuel did not make our civilization. WE made our civilization with the help of fossil fuel. We have the ability to do great things without the dependence of cheap oil. Now my take on global warming is that it is a very real problem that needs to be dealt with, but it won't be. And I'm going to have to face the consequences of my actions as well as everyone else's. I will admit. I am a hypocrite. I drive a mid-sized truck that gets about 15mpg. But do I really have any other choice? The suburban structure we have built leaves me none, especially being a college student working two jobs. For those of you that are thinking "well by a Hybrid. Take the bus. Carpool" you're still failing to see the root of the problem. We need to put our ingenuity that got us to where we our today and apply it to combatting two things (1) the dependence of fossil fuel and(2) a grave future brought forth by climate change. Finally, just because a celebrity makes a statement does not make it invalid. And just because a scientist claims something does not make it the gospel truth. It is important that we as intelligent humans apply our brains to becoming critical thinkers of everything presented unto us. Think of how many conflicts, disasters, wars, etc. could have been avoided had society just stepped back and analyzed the WHOLE situation. Even if you still don't believe in climate change/global warming just think what harm could be caused in taking caution. I myself would love to see a world with less pollution. As for the people who claim that it has gotten hotter since when they were children I have no comment being that I am only eighteen. However my advice to you is that the next time you're driving in a highly trafficked area roll down all of your windows. You will start to feel your eyes burn from the overwhelming amount of pollution in the air. I know I already said finally but I have one last thing. This comment probably struck me the most. "I think it's very egocentric to suggest mankind is the engine that drives the climate of this planet. We aren't driving this planet -- we are only passengers." There was a time when this statement was true, but not anymore. Our capabilities as humans has far exceeded the boundaries of nature/earth. Once a man could look at a tree and be baffled at its indestructibility. Now we can cut trees down faster than we can throw away the piece of paper used from the tree. Its safe to say that we ARE the stewards of this planet. We have the ability to destroy our whole world within timespan equal to a minute fraction of its existence. The only problem is we'd be destroying ourselves as well. Should you have any comments I can be e-mailed at cfulton@hayeslaw.net

I also have a PhD, mine in biochemistry from work with a Nobel Laureate at UCLA, and I also have an MD from the University of Miami.
The most obvious thing to any real scientist is that this "debate" does not exist within the scientific world. Global warming is a FACT within the scientific world. There is no debate in scientific literature.
The only debate is from coming from charlatans like Dr Ball and fools like GW Bush, not scientists. Dr Ball has left the scientific world and published nothing within the scientific literature about this, because his "facts" are manufactured and interpreted with malice and supported by his ridiculous superficial childish arguments that no scientist would allow in any scientific journal.
Was his retirement from the scientific community due to early onset dementia? Surely there is an explanation for his loss of any significant fact based thought process, which he presumably once possessed.

Kevin Grandia, can you provide figures on this "Sponsorhip Scandal" like how much dirty lolly?

I wouldn't want an astute journalist with such integrity as you to be involved in a 'climatic storm in a tea cup' and be seen to smeering Phd climate scientists over pin-money?

Regards Dr. Tims, "What's wrong with global warming? There are lots of positive benefits to global warming" can you advise what is actually wrong with warming?

High temp and CO2 levels make plants grow faster, longer growing seasons and every eco-system on the Planet benefits. Please tell us all what scientists haven't discovered yet?

vfaph hjyfdc tlszroyp ypreamnz kifv wecnglzk mvanz

killfile – Userscripts.org
Provides a killfile for certain blogs. Covers livejournal, haloscan comments, most typepad blogs, most blogspot blogs, scienceblogs.com, and more as I add ...
userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107