The figure for Democrats is misleading. You forget that many of us watch FOX just for the laughs and also to see what phony conspiracies and scandals the right is currently peddling.

But I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Democrats who watch FOX don't use it as a primary news source.

Right. I listen to Limbaugh and right-wing radio quite a bit (actually, exclusively), but not because I'm sympathetic to their message. Anyway, a better indication of where the country leans should be evident by the results of the last 2 elections, and not by any TV/radio ratings.

Ron

As my pipes are frozen in my house, I can't stop thinking when is global warming going to happen?

It's below zero and broke all records.

In the summer time when the weather is fine.

This tired meme comes up every time it snows or gets cold outside.

How many times does it have to be repeated that local weather events are not the same thing as global climate change? You are aware, right, that in the southern hemisphere many locations are having record heat?

The fact is that the average GLOBAL temperature is rising as a result of AGW.

Yes. Global warming means whatever the proponents say it does.

But what we do within the U.S. borders is the cause for all of it! We're to blame!

Oh, something I can help with! We love operational definitions in science!



http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/fina......ion.html

No. It simply refers to the gradual rise in the average global temperature. (That's why the word "global" is in there.)

And Glenn, that applies to your comment as well. GLOBAL does not refer just to what happens in the US, nor does the AGW model state that the US is primarily responsible.
(All industrialized countries contribute to the problem through their carbon emissions.)

So please stop making stuff up.

Not to scientists. You can read the definitions right in the papers, including the IPCC reports.

For a bunch of guys bashing egos on the internet, however, it a matter of picking your favorite team and cheering as the goalposts continually move. Rather like evolution. For the real players (scientists) the rules are clear. For the egos online or behind pulpits, you never get tied down to consistency.

The scientists have not only ego in it but each side has money on the line. HUGE money. Don't play like science is still as pure as the wind driven snow.

The "scientists" (I put that in quotes to denote those on each side with an agenda, as opposed to the actual scientists who have been shouted down by the noise machines on each side.I do not claim ALL scientists do this or either side does it more.) make sure their grants keep expanding every year. Those who get money from interested groups who want to prove it is all man made lets change and those who take money from the groups who want to shout it is a hoax.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Of course we affect our environment. It would be impossible not to. How badly, to what extent, is it bad or is it good and can our behavior change it are the real questions.

The important one is can we change it with our behavior. I think that we have proven on a level that we absolutely can to an extent. Pollution is a good example. Littering is an example. So on that scale we have proven we have an impact, we have proven it is bad, and we have proven through a change in behavior it can help. I think this is undeniable.

Scale it up and that is where you get problems. There is no money to be made from don't litter campaigns. There is where I start to diverge. Somehow the solution from the proponents is always to tax the heck out of someone. The solution always seems to be redistribution. This is where I get off the train. Even the idea of taking the temperature of the earth is pretty stupid.

I don't think the argument is if it does or does not happen. It is how to do something. Why spend energy arguing about something and proving this or that, and then helping the evidence. That is the problem. When the proponents get caught helping or fudging even if they are right it looks bad and sets them back. Then they make up idiotic excuses for it and justify the behavior. JUST ONCE someone needs to walk away from the fools and the extremes in the movement who are happy to cause economic calamity in order to get their agenda pushed.

If ANYTHING is going to be done on ANY level the proponents need to start to eject the extremists from the movement. Otherwise the other side will simply constantly point to them and cause a standstill. But since in decades nobody has done it I find it hard to believe that the entire movement does not agree with the extremes. Since nobody says "hey we don't think that" and happily keeps quoting them and just letting them ramble on how could anyone not think that is the way everyone feels?

Well I am telling you that as long as those extremists have a voice, and a loud voice not countered by anyone in the movement, you will see people on the other side (MANY motivated by only money.) use them to paint EVERYONE with that brush. And I might add quite successfully.

I have given you the way forward. You care so much, stop fighting with the other side. Start to prune your own movement so it is more presentable and so it can actually be heard. The problem might not be with the message, but the way it is being heralded. Oh and drop all the doomsday doom and gloom nonsense for me while you are at it. Once you pass the first 10 or 15 end of the earth scenarios it is the boy who cried wolf.

Unless of course it is all about the ideology and argument. In which case continue.

I welcome warmer weather. 365 days a year. Aruba....Here I come, again....

The Great Deception which could derail the The Great Deception.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2......ia-fraud

"Substantial" and "extended period in time" sound awfully vague.

If we are not the sole cause then we should not bear the entire burden. However there is still no conclusive link between carbon emissions and temperature rise. The 12-15 current year flatlining of global temperatures despite continued rise in carbon emissions does not follow that premise, Bob.

The whole warmers scam from top to bottom is rife with criminals.

Billions lost in Europe carbon trading fraud

The integrity of the European Union’s embattled Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was rocked by revelations in December that carbon-trading tax fraud has cost European taxpayers more than €5 billion.

http://climatechangesocialchange.wordpre......g-fraud/

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

Excellent advice, you should heed it as well.

There are several more paragraphs in the link. I'm sure each study defines its own paradigms and/or uses standardized models to derive them. For the purposes of conversation I felt that this was a sufficient definition.

I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone brought up the immediate here and now costs of Global Climate change? I'm talking about the fact that places like Atlanta and Alabama are going to have to start investing heavily in winter preparedness equipment: plows, salt, salt trucks, that kind of thing. It is going to be interesting as local governments have to now find budget to keep their cities from shutting down in a snow storm when they never had to pay for those costs in the past.

And that is the fault of mankind?