Polar Bears can swim.

Some idiot called into c-span a couple of weeks ago and suggested we trap all the polar bears, scoop them up in nets and transport them via helicopter to somewhere where they would be happy. He didn't mention where that somewhere might be.

And Gustav may just make an appearance in NOLA just in time for the RNC

goldenjoe @ 6:

And Gustav may just make an appearance in NOLA just in time for the RNC

Not a problem! A simple little Persian Gulf incident will be arranged to divert our attention from both Gustav and the incredible lack of ideas and leadership at the RNC:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=67748&sectionid=351020101

Again with the fear mongering. I understand concern for the environment. I'm all for protecting species and habitat, and getting rid of pollution. Doesn't mean i have to buy into all the "booga-booga" about climate change.

And, i might also add, not believing in this hysteria does not make me a republican oil contractor. It does not mean i want to kill cuddly polar bears or consign the peoples of the earth to early graves. I'm a skeptic, and as such i sure as hell don't believe everything handed to me.

Global Warming Hype?: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/18/disproof-of-global-warming-hype-publ...

Another article from the other side: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

Scientists warned not to engage in debate over global warming: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

Carbon emissions link to global warming challenged: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

All i'm saying is, that the issues concerning global warming are not as open and shut as many people seem to assume. And if you are as scientifically minded as you would like to assume, you have to read the arguments from the other side in order to make a rational judgment. I take everything with a grain of salt, from both sides of the argument.

Gutting the Endangered Species Act means that we don't have any endangered species anymore. Duh. Problem solved!

Let's drill ANWR, let's drill it NOW.

Mother Nature is gonna drink Bush's milkshake...

In a related story, McCain beachhouse number 3 gets flooded from rising tide. FEMA called in to investigate. Heck of a job Bushie!!!

Apparently people like to toss around insults because they think they know everything there is to know and refuse to even look at the other side of the debate.

This is a debate right?

Anyways, regarding polar bears. They have existed for thousands and thousands of years. At times they have existed in climates considerably warmer than the polar temperatures of today. At times colder. Or do you think the polar temperatures have remained constant throughout the centuries?

So if all the climatologists predicting doom and gloom were correct, why has there been no warming at all for 10 years? Why are we now in a cooling trend?

fellow_voyager @ 9:

Again with the fear mongering. I understand concern for the environment. I'm all for protecting species and habitat, and getting rid of pollution. Doesn't mean i have to buy into all the "booga-booga" about climate change.

And, i might also add, not believing in this hysteria does not make me a republican oil contractor. It does not mean i want to kill cuddly polar bears or consign the peoples of the earth to early graves. I'm a skeptic, and as such i sure as hell don't believe everything handed to me.

Global Warming Hype?: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/18/disproof-of-global-warming-hype-publ...

Another article from the other side: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

Scientists warned not to engage in debate over global warming: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

Carbon emissions link to global warming challenged: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

All i'm saying is, that the issues concerning global warming are not as open and shut as many people seem to assume. And if you are as scientifically minded as you would like to assume, you have to read the arguments from the other side in order to make a rational judgment. I take everything with a grain of salt, from both sides of the argument.

As a skeptic, you might be interested in some articles from The Skeptical Inquirer:

Global Climate Change Triggered by Global Warming

The Global Warming Debate: Science and Scientists in a Democrac

Let's Keep Our Cool About Global Warming

Dubya wants do away with the Endangered Species Act because he cannot even spell it.

It was funny seeing some lady on the CBS morning show saying that Fay was sort of a dud, then seeing it hit Florida 4 or 5 times after that.

I'm all for protecting the polar bear but, you do know bears can swim, don't you? They can swim up to 200 miles (at their own risk, of course).

Heartbreaking.....

We need serious environmental world-wide leadership now more than any time in history.

Scientist have proven that this is a natural warming phase of the earth.. Middle ages were hotter... mars is warming too... 2008 has been relatively cooler than the past decade. You guys are so scared of global warming.. when I was in grade school the scientist scared us about another ice age.

Get a hold of yourselves.. you're about to let the elite tax you on unproven theorys..
And that's a FACT!

@ poster 17 (again, sorry bout the quotes)

I'm familiar with the skeptical inquirer and have read the articles you posted. In your article the author makes the claim that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver behind global warming.

Then how are we to make sense of the recent studies by 2 professors at USC, corroborated by a study produced by The Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Science, who produced a study that shows that increasing CO2 emissions has a negative relationship with warming trends in the climate? http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all

And let's look at this again. If we are already in the grips of greenhouse gas induced warming, as the gasses increase, so should the temperature correct? Why havent we seen any warming in 10 years then? http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm

There is a lot of conflicting evidence, and all i'm saying is be wary of what people are trying to get you to believe. Especially if they are trying to scare you into it.

And don't forget folks, thanks to La Nina, this is a MILD year for North America. Buckle up for next summer! And have the 50spf sunscreen handy at all times!

beancounter @ 31:

Dude!!!! WTF is up with this site today?!?!?!? Every minute, things change: posts and comments disappear, reappear, disappear again.

The past couple days haven't been so hot, either.

fellow_voyager @ 30:

@ poster 17 (again, sorry bout the quotes)

I'm familiar with the skeptical inquirer and have read the articles you posted. In your article the author makes the claim that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver behind global warming.

Then how are we to make sense of the recent studies by 2 professors at USC, corroborated by a study produced by The Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Science, who produced a study that shows that increasing CO2 emissions has a negative relationship with warming trends in the climate? http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all

And let's look at this again. If we are already in the grips of greenhouse gas induced warming, as the gasses increase, so should the temperature correct? Why havent we seen any warming in 10 years then? http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm

There is a lot of conflicting evidence, and all i'm saying is be wary of what people are trying to get you to believe. Especially if they are trying to scare you into it.

I agree 100%, but you might also take your own advice. The scare from your side is that somehow this might cost you or force a change in lifestyle you just don't want to make.

For those who are claiming that we need to hear "both sides of the story" regarding science. Sorry, but science is not a democracy... far from it.

If the deniers of global warming want to be heard, they need to submit their studies just like every other scientist has to in order to be taken seriously: via peer reviewed work.

Global warming is not a qualitative issue but a quantitative one, and it should be treated as such as much as it pisses bizness people off.

timothy @ 13:

perhaps polar bears are a myth as well. I mean just because we can see them doesn't mean they really exist, in much the same way that some people still dismiss the idea that global warming is in any way real.

No dude.. things ARE warmer.. the debate is... Are humans responsible. More and more evidence is suggesting we're not.

I'm sorry, but all this global warming talk is driving me nuts. I still to this day have not seen a credible scientist that will put his reputation on the line to back the claims of global warming caused by man.

The closer to a big city you are, the more likely you are to believe in global warming. More people, more concrete, more cars, more houses, etc.

If you look at the climate going back as far as humanly possible (and not just far back enough to support your theory *cough* Gore *cough*), you will see the temperature is all of the friggen place. It goes up, it goes down, you have the mini-iceage and then it's opposite. Then an iceage (global cooling?) and it's opposite (global warming?). And on, and on, and on...

The most ludicrous thing of all is the proposed carbon tax, to do what exactly? To make an anti-global warming device? Get real. Who are we to dictate climate for every earthing anyway.

Oh no it's too high, it's your fault - because of your car! I can't wait to hear the excuse they give when it starts coming back down naturally.

Oh no, it's too low, it's your fault - because you stopped driving!

Global warming (the theory of man at it's cause anyway), is perceived exterior threat to keep people in line. That's the way I see it anyway.

Just food for thought - what caused the iceage? Dinosaurs driving around in fossil fueled machines? I think not...

fellow_voyager@43

Now, check again where i list the abstract from the study showing CO2 emissions have a negative effect on climate. http://www.informaworld.com/sm.....859~db=all

I'd like to be able to actually read how CO2 emissions lead to cooling, rather than the very brief synopsis at the bottom of that article.

That last mini-Ice Age was initiated by warming that caused the Laurentian Glacier to melt, sending cooler water into the Gulf Stream, causing the Gulf Stream itself to stop flowing for some time. Lack of warmer water in the North Atlantic led to cooling in the climate, then, BANG! Mini-Ice Age.

Or does that study prove a direct link to cooling?

First .. "global warming" is not the right term .. it's "global climate disruption" ..

Some places will get warmer, some colder, but everywhere will experience disruption.

Second .. to all you deniers I quote Bob Dylan ..

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Close your eyes, hold your noses, put your fingers in your ears and hold your breath .. it's not gonna change the FACTS.

Oh boy! Is it a 'strongly worded' letter? Because we all know they've worked so well in the past.

I will really miss the polar bears. They are beautiful creatures.

Doesn't worry me any. After all, what effect can GW have on Illinois?

/sarcasm.

I wish people would wake up and understand that while climate change is natural, our adding to it is not good, by any means. A natural cycle allows for species to somewhat adapt in that time period. For example, a few hundred years of slow change can bring about some minor changes in various species, that would allow them to survive. BUT, on the other hand, if a rapid and extreme change occurs, like it is now, then there is little or no time for adaptation and animals begin to drop like flies, excuse the cliche. Is it any wonder that extinction rates are the highest now, than any other time in the earth's history (from what we can tell in rock samples and such)? We need to stop this self-destructive path that we are on, before this tiny little planet becomes barren and void. We are the only known life in the universe. What if we are the only true life in this universe? That makes us the most important place, ever. That makes us special. It makes us a ray of hope. We cannot afford to let that ray of hope die out, because of what we have done.

me@44

That last mini-Ice Age was initiated by warming that caused the Laurentian Glacier Laurentide ice sheet to melt, sending cooler low salinity(fresh) water into the Gulf Stream, causing the Gulf Stream itself to stop flowing for some time. Lack of warmer water in the North Atlantic led to cooling in the climate, then, BANG! Mini-Ice Age.

Fixed!

A quibble with the title: I don't believe Tropical Storm Fay ever made Hurricane strength. And the rain was (for the most part) welcome here in Florida.

Thanks Nicole for bringing this to the forefront.
I always enjoy slapping flat-earthers around on the issue of global warming.
They present the same rhetoric pushed by the media.
I counter with atmospheric dynamics.
They say I don't know what I'm talking about.
I counter that I was a weather forecaster for 7 years and in the weather field for 14.
They mock my education and ask what liberal pinko college I went to.
I tell them I was trained by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force at their weather forecasting school and that I finished 2nd in my class.

Yeah...that's a conversation ender right there. The same flat-earthers who don't believe in global warming are normally the same people who find questioning anything military to be sacrilege.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm not a bad man for being so mean. Not for very long mind you. ;-)

temps are down by a pretty big margin this year...

ferrofluid (Obama + Biden = 2008) @ 53:

olo @ 45:

It's not the day-to-day - or even year-to-year temp that instructs.

It's the Gas Stupid!

The amount of atmospheric CO2 gas is relentlessly increasing.
It's a heat umbrella. End of story! Don't argue - You'll look stupid.
Digging up & torching more fossil fuels assures that the amount of atmospheric CO2 gas will increase relentlessly.
It's effects are also going to be experienced, exponentially.

So why do serious scientists say that CO2 follows temperature, in all the ice cores going back as far as they have drilled !

effect not cause

Serious Scientists. HAHAHAHA, You mean the ones quoted by the "Serious Pundits from the Serious Traditional Media"?
Go for it. Name a few hundred "Serious Scientists"

HAHAHAHAh lololOLOlolOlO

And heeeeeeeeeeere's Gustav!

Andy K Jong Il @ 63:

Tim @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 59:

fellow_voyager@49

From your second link:

This weakens and grows stronger every 80 years or so. When the circulation is strong, temperatures are warmer.

So how do you explain worldwide mountain-top glacial melt visible to the naked eye? Look at that melt on Kilimanjaro over 90 yers- hell look at the melt over 9 years!

And I'll apply the same example to your first link there. Coldest winter in Chinese history? Record snowfall in the northeastern US? These are temperate climates- the temperatures will vary. But in the higher elevations- like Kilimanjaro- the climate remains nearly the same year-round, for thousands of years at a time. It's the types of enviroments that aren't subject to change under non-unique circumstances that you have to look at.

90 years in the earths existence is barely recognizable... you can't determine all of earths weather history by observing 90 years.

So are 10,000 years, but we're not really talking about how global warming effects the mantle and core of the Earth, Tim. We're talking about triggering an ice age that would greatly diminish the surface area that is suitable for growing the food that feeds billions of people worldwide. When those glacial lakes on the surface (but below the ice) bust out of Greenland, and all of that fresh water fucks up the Gulf Stream, there's going to be snow covering the fertile grasslands in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Dakotas and Minnesota, creeping down to Iowa and Nebraska...then there's Poland and Ukraine, and who knows how much fertile land in China. And it's not like you can just shift the farms to Mexico or North Africa, because the soil there ain't necessarily suited for crops, no matter the weather.

You see, it takes epochs to build it up, and years to tear it down. And right now, with no proof that the evidence we see is caused by massive volcanic eruptions, or meteoric impacts, and no proof that we're being punished by gods, I'd think that maybe, just maybe, we should trust our instincts that tell us that we're the ones tearing it down.

Nice statement... it's interesting until the last paragraph.. you said there's no proof it's caused by this or that so we should assume it us is madness. It's cutting off your nose despite your face. Human induced weather phenomenons should be studied, but there isn't any proof there yet.

Tim @ 64:

Andy K Jong Il @ 63:

Tim @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 59:

90 years in the earths existence is barely recognizable... you can't determine all of earths weather history by observing 90 years.

So are 10,000 years, but we're not really talking about how global warming effects the mantle and core of the Earth, Tim. We're talking about triggering an ice age that would greatly diminish the surface area that is suitable for growing the food that feeds billions of people worldwide. When those glacial lakes on the surface (but below the ice) bust out of Greenland, and all of that fresh water fucks up the Gulf Stream, there's going to be snow covering the fertile grasslands in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Dakotas and Minnesota, creeping down to Iowa and Nebraska...then there's Poland and Ukraine, and who knows how much fertile land in China. And it's not like you can just shift the farms to Mexico or North Africa, because the soil there ain't necessarily suited for crops, no matter the weather.

You see, it takes epochs to build it up, and years to tear it down. And right now, with no proof that the evidence we see is caused by massive volcanic eruptions, or meteoric impacts, and no proof that we're being punished by gods, I'd think that maybe, just maybe, we should trust our instincts that tell us that we're the ones tearing it down.

Nice statement... it's interesting until the last paragraph.. you said there's no proof it's caused by this or that so we should assume it us is madness. It's cutting off your nose despite your face. Human induced weather phenomenons should be studied, but there isn't any proof there yet.

Here's a little vignette set in the 19th century:

Zachariah: Doc, I is not feelin' m'self lately. I is losin' weight and my breathin' ain't so good.

Doc: Well, Zach, you seem to have the consumption. Didn't I tell ya to give up the tobaccy?

Z: But Doc, you ain't got no proof what says the tobaccy causes the consumption. Why, in fact, when I was visitin' the kin down in the Black Patch, Doctor Marlboro Raleigh told me that tobaccy calmed the nerves and had no other side effects but!

Doc: Well, if it calms your nerves, you go right on ahead. Can't hurt ya now, I suppose. But, mark my words, you won't live too many days past that next birthday of yers.- and if I'm recollectin' right, that's in about two months time.

Zachariah: Yip! and I plans on ya bein' at my side.

------------------

One month later, at Zachariah's graveside

Doc(singing) : Swing low, sweet chariot......See ya next month, old Zach. Don't you go no place.

When it comes to oil and greed conservatives don't care about humans, Bush and Cheney of killed hundreds of thousands of them to date in Iraq, you think they care about polar bears?

Bill @ 67:

Fay was just a rainstorm. I'm far more concerned about Gustav. My fiance lives in New Orleans.

What, she can't leave and come back after the storm passes?

It is absolutely astounding that in 2008 there are these entrenched revisionists casting doubt on the findings of scientists who have overwhelmingly agreed on the fact that human influence is not only contributing to climate change but likely is responsible for it.

I'm also stressing that the vast majority of "peer reviewed" scientists (not flaky shills who prostitute their backgrounds in science for petro dollars) have all arrives at the same conclusion:

Pollution = higher CO2 levels = higher temps.

It's a positive feedback loop, as this condition worsens it will continue to aggravate climate change and speed the damage caused by mankind, further worsening its effects on much more than just mankind.

We are causing serious damage to the planet, and the country doing the most damage, the United States, not only fails to lead, it tries to silence its scientific critics by altering their reports or casting doubt on their findings.

The Third World will suffer most at the hands of countries like this one, and leadership is desperately needed.

odanny @ 73:

FedUp @ 71:

I agree that the climate is warming and that the sea ice and bears are a result of that BUT why do you take it too far and include the hurricane?

A hurricane needs heat to increase in strength. It is, literally, a "heat engine" fueled by latent heat liberated when huge quantities of water vapor condense, and they develop in late summer when ocean waters have reached temps. of 27C (80F). It has been said that a single degree increase is exponential in the increased intensity of a hurricane, making it thousands of times stronger, more enduring, and more destructive, so imagine what only a tenth of a degree change in temp. can do

Well said odanny, and the current water temp is 85 in the Gulf of Mexico. Watch Gustav fire up when he hits warmer water. This could be similar to Katrina or Rita. Although the forecasters are saying that Gustav will likely max out at Cat 3. You can never predict these things accurately. I'd be surprised if Gustav doesn't exceed a Cat 3.

james Ratliff @ 75:

The way I see it now all we can do is hope the re
publicans drown first!

Mr. James Ratliff, if ever we meet, the first round is on me.

Idiots @ 9:

What are you kidding me?
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/reports-record...
http://jjprzy.envy.nu/images/ArcticIce.jpg
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh

The Earth is done warming(correlated with recent solar activity and magnetic field shift in the earth's) and will begin to get cooler(via solar activity) and return to the temperatures of the medieval cool period by 2050 where it will remain for another 50-100 years.

It's called the Earth and it's temperature has changed since the dawn of time, nothing ever does *not* change when it comes to the weather [Deleted. Abusive. Site Monitor]

How did nobody respond to this guy? Did you look at the links he posted?? LOL

First one is of course from newsbusters - the infamous right wing parody site. Well, it's not actually parody, it just appears that way I suppose. But, I don't want to just discredit it because it's from site, the article they wrote is rather hilarious. Here's the jist:
Satellites only started recording images of ice in 1979. Therefore, how could anyone possibly know how much ice we had before that. LOL - I suppose it pretty easy actually, and I don't even do that stuff. I've heard all they have to do is drill out ice samples and they can pretty easily tell everything from the temperature at the time to the actual year it's from.

The only other point the article made was saying some guy navigated the Northwest Passage 100 years ago in AUGUST (the end of summer, I'm assuming that's when the most ice has melted) and so therefore apparently there was never very much ice up there... or only sporadically... LOL - You can't make this stuff up. The horrible part is that so so many people buy into it.

Ok, next links: http://jjprzy.envy.nu/images/ArcticIce.jpg
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh

No idea what he's going for here... Maybe he misread the maps. The first one shows a picture of ice and snow cover from august 2007 (not much ice or snow -- summer), and then one from February 2008. The latter obviously had much more ice coverage. I have no idea what he was trying to prove with that link... Maybe that in the summer there is less ice than in the winter?

The second one links to a script that lets you see ice coverage at various points since 1979. Again, it appears that the ice has shrunk considerably since 1979... So AGAIN I have no idea what his point is...

Possibly "idiot" does not know that the ice does go through seasonal changes just like his yard? yikes

tim @ 79:

odanny @ 72:

It is absolutely astounding that in 2008 there are these entrenched revisionists casting doubt on the findings of scientists who have overwhelmingly agreed on the fact that human influence is not only contributing to climate change but likely is responsible for it.

I'm also stressing that the vast majority of "peer reviewed" scientists (not flaky shills who prostitute their backgrounds in science for petro dollars) have all arrives at the same conclusion:

Pollution = higher CO2 levels = higher temps.

It's a positive feedback loop, as this condition worsens it will continue to aggravate climate change and speed the damage caused by mankind, further worsening its effects on much more than just mankind.

We are causing serious damage to the planet, and the country doing the most damage, the United States, not only fails to lead, it tries to silence its scientific critics by altering their reports or casting doubt on their findings.

The Third World will suffer most at the hands of countries like this one, and leadership is desperately needed.

maybe you should google -17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming-

It's my recollection that many of them are not even "scientists", but specialists in fields like geography, or even broadcasting.

Again, if you want to discuss peer reviewed research, by scientists involved in researching climate change, you will see they overwhelmingly agree on the effects of climate change and mankind's contribution to this.

Start off with researching the most credible source there is for any discussion on this matter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who recently issued their first new study on climate change since the last in 2001.

Does anyone know the elevation of Bush's home?

Is this why he's moving to Paraguay?

Or is it to live in splendor while his blackwater trained private army ships cocaine to the USA?

A carbon tax is an environmental tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Could this be why all the scare tactics? Now some scientists are saying we are headed for another ice age. I remember that scare in the 70s. Cutting down on pollution and using clean energy is great but this panic about global warming is just another way to get your money. Don't fall for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIk7Q_DJIgQ

Can't be arsed to read all the comments, but Fay was never a hurricane, doh

Sorry I couldn't get back sooner but - here goes:
ferrofluid (Obama + Biden = 2008) @ 53:

olo @ 45:

It's not the day-to-day - or even year-to-year temp that instructs.

It's the Gas Stupid!

The amount of atmospheric CO2 gas is relentlessly increasing.
It's a heat umbrella. End of story! Don't argue - You'll look stupid.
Digging up & torching more fossil fuels assures that the amount of atmospheric CO2 gas will increase relentlessly.
It's effects are also going to be experienced, exponentially.

So why do serious scientists say that CO2 follows temperature, in all the ice cores going back as far as they have drilled !

effect not cause

...Because I am interested only in what Silly Scientists are saying - like those who work for the United Nations, (That's a Silly Scientist Comedy Club located in Satan's armpit; aka NYC): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7056601.stm

Just imagine all the laughs I get from the guys & gals at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.pdf) who seem to think you flat-earthers are full of some Serious Shit.

Anyhow, we don't have any Serious Scientists living on the coast. So... I did a google on the term "Serious Scientists"& the #One Hit - was, Ta-Da. this newsweek article "Sasquatch and Bigfoot Meet Serious Science | Newsweek Animals and ..."

-----So I see what you mean. I need to heed Serious Scientists...Forget about the Big Melt - & just go chase Snowmen.

Tony @ 89:

And how can sea levels be their 2nd lowest ever if all the ice caps are melting and raising levels??

They're not, dumbass.