The second response cites a single study. Big deal!

On the third through fifth points, it seems there is no disagreement – melting at the edges, accumulation in the middle. The models are claimed to predict this but, so what? If it’s ice loss we’re worried about, where is the problem? If it’s warming we’re worried about, would cooling be better? Perhaps we are at the single exact perfect temperature and we must maintain it at all costs or the planet is doomed.

If your local weather-person can’t accurately predict the weather a week in advance, let alone a few days, why do we believe that the uber-weather-geeks can predict decades into the future? By the way, there’s this bridge in Manhattan that I have an option to sublease on a contingent basis and I’m wondering if perhaps you would like to…

I’m certain that Al Gore is sincere in his beliefs. So are many global warming scientists who are doomsayers.

However, there are many “global warming skeptics” who are very smart folks as well. You are foolish to dismiss them as “pawns of big oil” and other such nonsense.

When you think that big oil Repubs must be controlling the debate, keep in mind that the doomsayers are being funded by government, universities, and environmental groups…all of which are heavily “leftist” in political viewpoint. In fact, the universities where much of the climate research is being done are so heavily politically leftist that a downright hostile workplace exists for anyone who dares to criticize the global warming doomsday status quo way of thinking.

No one is impartial and the BS is flying from all sides. Be skeptical of everything.

As for this article, here is my take on some of the “Claims”

CLAIM: “[T]here is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming we’ve seen so far.”

This is clearly true. While there is some solid evidence that humans are contributing to the warming, no one has a clue how much.

CLAIM: “When it’s not even clear that the warming we’ve seen is hurting us — many argue that it’s a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable — such draconian solutions should be unthinkable.”

I read an incredible number of stories daily that talk of the ill effects of a warmer world but almost never see one citing benefits. Common sense tells me that dumping a huge amounts of “stuff” into the atmosphere and artificially changing the climate is probably not a good thing. However, it is overwhelmingly clear to me that the continuous stories of disaster from minor temperature changes are greatly exagerated. I just saw a story about the abrubpt loss of Costa Rican tree frogs in 1987 because of global warming. This is rediculous and totally unsupported by facts.

In a nutshell, those clamoring for drastic changes to combat global warming face the burden of proof..first they must prove that humans are to blame. This is fairly well established but not totally. Second, they must prove that there is significant net harm from the warming. This is not even close to being established in my opinion. And third, they must demonstrate a cost-effective solution. So far, the Kyoto-type proposals I’ve seen fail miserably…the cure is far worse than the disease.

CLAIM: “Various studies show that warmer temperatures are causing the ice sheet there to lose mass at the margins. But, as in Antarctica, higher sea temperatures are also causing greater snowfall and building up ice in the interior…In fact, Science had earlier published a study by Ola Johannessen that used satellite measurements to determine how much the ice sheet was growing. Johannessen found that, between 1992 and 2003, it was gaining on average 5.4 centimeters of elevation per year.”

When it comes to sea level, only Greenland and Antarctica really matter since they hold most of the potential water. Right now, both are very close to being “in balance”…neither shrinking nor growing very much overall. Different studies conclude different results…but consensus is that the two are losing ice on the fringes and gaining in the interior which is consistent with a slightly warmer world.

In the next few years, we will know a lot more about this. Right now, the measurement and analysis of these remote ice packs is in it’s infancy. Each side seizes of each new scientific paper to spin it to their preconceived point of view.

Scientists are like hookers?????? I’ll remember that next time I have an MRI….

Please keep your 2 cents. You have no qualifications to talk about this!

Anvilhead…what an appropiate name!

Knowledge is power…do I believe you (a nameless, faceless blogger) or the scientific community? Hmmmmmmmm

Can’t read anymore,,, the neo-cons are subverting all truth!

If mankind isn’t making things worse, with our CO2-spewing, oil-depleting ways, we’re certainly NOT making things better. In fact, I’m tempted to use thinking similar to Pascal’s wager (araphrased — “It’s safer to think that God exists, because the results of being wrong are so bad“) and say, “Whatever is causing global warming, our lifestyle can help mitigate the damage, if only we change our ways.”

It doesn’t matter why, but it does matter what we do. If we end up with evidence that it isn’t our lifestyle that’s making it happen, at least we haven’t made it worse.

Ed

Come on down to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and say that with a straight face. Better yet come on down during the next cat 4 storm and stand on the beach in Pass Christian when the next eyewall moves through. Don’t worry, if you watch FOX news while you do it you won’t be affected.

Yes, it is a certainty that the sun will enlarge and consume the earth in the distant future anyway, so to a large extent we are only arguing about timing and proximate cause.

If there is a nearly universal rule about life on earth that can be taken from earth history is that virtually all life forms go extinct at some point. Perhaps given the pitiful state of humanity these days, this may be not be an altogether bad thing. After all, how could 200 gazillion Archeans be wrong?

It is nonetheless ironic that those who often profess the superiority of their own sense of personal morality over logic seem so curiously oblivious to the consequences of “bearing false witness” when their own souls are on the line.

saying things like, “he [bush] doesn’t care about global warming and neither does anyone else in their right mind” give you away, backwash. that is a statement of colossal ignorance on your part. bush may not care about it, you may not care about it, and everyone else that is concerned are not in their right minds, you claim. falling back on that ‘look at the crazy tree huggers’ argument is the idiot’s way out of a real debate, jackass.

for us to have an intelligent discussion would require that you even comprehended what was being said to you, which you clearly don’t. it would have required someone with a grasp of the issues, and not microwavable psuedo-facts from a junkscience website. you reply with non-answers and vagueries that have nothing to do with fact. you provide nothing to support your assertions.

if you can’t see that the real tragedy of being able to say we could’ve done something about oil dependence 30 years ago is the fact that we continue to do nothing about it, you deserve to be fossil fuel for the next dominant species.

you waste everyone’s time with your mere existence, jackass.
good riddance.

That’s understandable, it’s a typical human reaction called fight or flight. Because I’m mild-mannered and don’t take anything personal I’m not going to let it bother me. I have no ill feelings toward you like you have for me Progressaurus Rex. I wish you the best.

did i mention that you’re a jackass?