The Black Republican

Of course I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, and I haven't slept in that special motel in quite some time; all that aside, I diagnose the planet with viral gastroenteritis.

" There may also be flu-like symptoms -- including fever and chills -- that last for one day or more."

Though antibiotics do not work on viruses, the good news is that "The illness should subside on its own".

Could it be that this is just a huge scam to get lots of money??? I wonder how much Gore has gotten on his movie and then how much does he charge for each ticket to see his scare tactics live. Then we all know that the scientist are getting billions of dollars for research. Man made co2 = 3% earth made 97% hmmmmmmm

James, of course it's all about the $$$$$. That is rule #1... follow the money. Why does government do 95% of what it does? Because someone somewhere get's a payday! This is the type of thing Hillary and all the other liberal Democrats have been espousing for the past 40 years!! Look at the immigration bill, the energy bill, the stem cell research bill, all motivated by the desire to take $ from one group (taxpayers and/or whatever evil corporation happens to be currently in vogue) and give that $ to another. It's all about transfering from those that have to those that want. In other words: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

I saw this article from the Capital Times in Madison, WI and it's interesting that the "father of Climatology" no sees the Global Warming theory "hooey."

Local Scientist Calls Global Warming Theory Hooey

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

Now THAT'S food for thought. I wonder if AlGore got the memo?

Here is an interesting exercise. Google the name of the 'father of climatology', 'Bryson,' along with the words global cooling, time and newsweek. You will find that Dr. Bryson is the person whose name comes up most often talking about potential global cooling in the late 60s and early 70s. Congratulations. You form your opinion on an important issue on word of a geriatric scientist whose pet theory was discounted 20+ years ago, an idea mocked in this thread.
;
Note - Pre-industrial CO2 content ~275 ppm. Today's CO2 content 385 ppm and rising. The increase is absolutely known to come from burning fossil fuels, because the isotopes being added come from ancient carbon. Human contributions may be only a small percentage of overall natural carbon fluxes, but our influence is enough to throw the atmosphere badly out of balance. Almost 40%, NOT 3% . . .
.
By not acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will ensure that the poor, and those least able to deal with climate change will be hit the hardest -
.
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9163426

Touche'! Wow, you really got me there! I must admit that twenty (+) years of evidence have proven that the extreme and alarmist predictions of an eminent and respected Academia regarding the possibility of a Global Climate catastrophe were completely wrong. It's almost as if it predicting Global Climate is not yet an exact science and that there are things we just don't know about why Global Climate may or may not change.

All sarcasm aside, I must thank you for pointing out the inconsistence of Professor Bryson. If someone as fully versed and widely respected in the field of Global Climatology can get a prediction of Global Climate temperature so spectacularly wrong, why should anyone believe Al Gore and Leo DeCaprio?

As for your CO2 content statistics... you might want to double check your source...

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.

You may also want to start questioning whether or not CO2 statistics are really such a good indicator.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.