Some of the more enlightened probably got my point in that the names I sited were indeed prosecuted by religion, just as Global warming has now BECOME a religion! A religion where the believers in the doctrine mercilessly ridicule, threatened, kept silent the many credible scientists who challenge the doctrine. Creighton is just one name. Someone below in this thread has sited many others. Of course the believes will just say they are quacks, not credible, ext ext..
I'm not going to argue it with you. You can NOT change a person's religion! Keep drinking the koolaid, and maybe you can even rise up the ranks in the great global warming pyramid scheme!

Michael Creighton was a writer of fiction. So, your evidence that your right is that everyone thinks your wrong. That doesn't make you right it just makes your more wrong. The men you named were men of science who were persecuted by the religious. Nice try.

Climate Debate Daily is a highly regarded, unbiased source of news on this subject. Links to hundreds of essays and research are presented in two columns. The left column is titled, "Calls to action" and the right column is titled, "Dissenting voices".

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

wow, now those who don't believe in the global warming, wealth redistribution, pyramid scheme are just those evil bible thumping, church going republicans. Funny, but the recently deceased scientist; Micheal Creighton was one of the leading debunkers of Global Warming. He is actually very liberal in his political beliefs. He has wrote extensively on how global warming in of itself has become a new religion! Countless other world scientists have also written compelling evidence to debunk global warming, but just like Coprinicus, Galalaio, Newton, Da vinci, of the past. Their theories are ignored, shunned, and persecuted by the zealots of the new global warming religion.

Yes, computer models are imperfect. However, this type of science is based on the best evidence not perfect evidence. Computer models are however revised as new data comes in. Recently, temperature trends were altered downward because climatologists had underestimated the amount of cooling caused by cloud cover and the contrails caused by Jets. If you really want to cool the atmosphere in a pinch all you would have to do is allow coal plants to release sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. There was a recent Nova entitled The Dimming Sun which features a UW-Madison professor. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/. You used to be able to watch online, however, you can read the transcripts.

Thank you mrbread, I'm glad someone FINALLY has an intelligent, scientific response to what I've been saying. I'm always more than willing to listen to and debate someone who comes forth with concrete evidence and can present it in a scientific fashion.

One more fact, temperature changes are cyclical. Earth's history shows us that warming and cooling trends are natural, another natural part of theses trends is mass extinction. An unnatural part of the equation is the speed at which this trend is occurring today. If trends follow recent patterns, we might get to live to see these mass extinctions, whereas without our "help" it might not happen for another 1000 or so years. Evidence leads to theory, not an off the cuff statement. Scientific Theory is based in countless conclusions drawn from countless data. Theories can be revised, theories predict with supreme accuracy events that will occur.

Because humans weren't burning carbon buried deep in the Earth and liberating it at an alarming pace. By some estimates we have used over one third of all the fossil fuels in the Earth. Fossil fuels that sequestered Carbon over countless millenia. the carbon was sequestered during a warm time in our planet's history, one in which the average temperatrue was much higher, and the Earth is thought (evidence points to the fact) to have been essentially a large swamp. Thousands of years of natural Carbon sequestration, eliminated in a hundred or so years. Carbon dioxide is a direct product from these combustion reactions. The Carbon dioxide released today, may not reach the upper atmosphere for 100 years. So we are not seeing the effects today of what are actions are, we are seeing the effects of yesterdays actions. Imagine what may happen in the next hundred years. Think of the Fox River, in the last decade, they have been dredging to elimate Mercury and other heavy metals that were contaminating the wildlife, pollutants that were largely added over sixty years ago. All you have to ask yourself is, do you want to roll the dice? If you do, then you are probably not looking at the big picture. All evidence points to one cause, and one that we can easily control. I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, wait...Sarah Palin didn't "believe" in it either, she was Republican, and fairly bright too? No I'm kidding, no dissing Republicans or Democrats. But seriously she didn't, and she is a moron.

People that don't believe that global warming is caused by humans are just more educated :) How is it we had an ice age millions of years ago when humans weren't spewing out greenhouse gases?

justsaynotomath, I find that most people who believe in Global Warming, are anti-religion, and are democrats. Maybe every democrat is brain washed, and maybe every republican is brain washed.

I've given you names of over 9,000 PhD's who believe global warming is bunk, and all you've given me is a run-around providing no concrete evidence, statistics, and bashing my viewpoint because you don't agree with it. I've provided SCIENTIFIC evidence, stats, numbers from climatologists, scientists, former IPCC scientitsts, employees of NOAA, National Hurrican Center employees, etc...yet you think my view on global warming is religiously impacted. Again, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any religious views I may have.

My point was, my lack of conviction that global warming isn't human caused to the effect that Al Gore and his croinies say it is has nothing to do with my religious views. I never denied believing in a higher power, just stated the fact that any religious views I may have are NOT at all associated with my views on global warming.

Again, more flawed logic. I can guarantee you 80%+ of the 30,000 scientists who signed the anti-global warming petition are not religious. Who said I was religious? All I did was say there's little evidence to support Jesus and Mary M. had a child...how does that make me religious? I believe in evolution, I believe the earth is billions of years old. You are trying to paint me as someone who isn't convinced of HUMAN MADE global warming because I may possibly be religious? Sorry, but your assumptions are WAY off the mark.

Ummmm...justsaynotomath, what do any religious beliefs have anything to do with global warming? My opinion on global warming has to do with hard numbers and hard science and has absolutely zero to do with any type of religion. I'm not sure how you can assume religion and global warming having anything to do with each other in my eyes???? Your logic is failing even the simplest of minds. Just because I stated in a different story that there's not evidence that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdelene that somehow that has to do with global warming? Give me a break!!
.
To answer your question edsci, a lot of the IPCC report is based on atmospheric models that are nowhere near exact and are based on a worst case scenario. I HIGHLY doubt we'll ever reach 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human contribution. Yes, the process has occurred in the past and it was NOT caused by humans. Honestly, most atmospheric models used today deviate highly after 3 days, yet I'm supposed to look at an atmospheric model going out 20 or 30 years and believe what it says? There's a big reason why DOZENS of IPCC scientists have left the IPCC and are running in the opposite direction. 30,000 scientists, 9,000 of which have PhD's all petitioning to have the other side heard.

The problem isn't just that the average global temperature is increasing, it is that when CO2 level reach 1000ppm the oceans turn acidic and start belching that acid into the atmosphere. This process has occurred in the past. The problem is that once the temperature reaches a certain point the process begins to speed up and is difficult to reverse.

For those of you who think Global Warming is a scam I would like to know what part of the IPCC report don't you agree with? What studies don't you agree with? The Global Warming issue is only a controversy in the popular news media like Fox news.

My only thought is, we have had pollution standards in place since the 60's, and emission control on our cars since the 70's. Recycling since the 80's...What is China doing? India? Columbia besides deforestation? Seems we are doing our part.

My basic point is the whole thing is a financial scam. It's actually quite similar to the Ponzi scam of Bernard Madoff; which just blew up for the tune of %50 billion. In which the believers were simply duped. The whole carbon credit thing is nothing more then a massive redistribution of wealth which will make many people fortunes, and bankrupt counties that fall for it.
.
I personally have FAR MORE pressing things as "catastrophe's" on my radar. Like say Iran getting a nuclear bomb, or Russia going back to their old way.

I hope the assumptions of Global Warming apologists are wrong as well. The only difference between now and the times of Copernicus, Columbus, etc.; is there were only a handful of people who understood scienece back then - today there are millions of scientists worldwide :)

I appreciate your last response, however, it is not likely that we will be around to see if our assumptions are correct, our children will be. And neither I, nor you, are qualified to make those decisions, fortunately. Remeber, there was a time when people thought Copernicus was nuts for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun, Columbus for suggesting the Earth was flat, Darwin for suggesting that slow steady changes in our genomes would produce changes in an organisms appearance, and perhaps now us, that we are actually affecting the chemistry of our environment in a potentially harmfull way. So I ask skeptics to consider one last time, do you want to roll the dice? or do we as a species become more thoughtful of our impact on entire planetary climate. I appreciate your response, again, and it is apparent you are thoughtful of this. I, for many, want to be proven wrong, I don't want to see catastrophe. In regards to mohican, does an economy matter, if the prognosticators are right(and they may not be, granted) and catastrophe does strike our vital economic centers? There may come a time, when no amount of money can supply you with food or clean water. Probably not in our lifetimes though, so who cares...

Just wait till we have another major volcanic eruption, like Mt Saint Helen's in the 80's...Well, there goes more Co2 into the atmosphere then man has done in decades! This is so laughable. Hey meybe we just start a mass suicide campaign. We can all join a global warming cult similar to the Jim Jones, Peoples Temple. Take the koolaid in masses, and cut out all those co2 emissions by ceasing to breath!

I have no doubt CO2 levels are higher now than ever and that our land, waterways, etc. are more polluted than every. I am taking steps every day to lessen the amount of pollutants I'm putting into the atmosphere. I agree we are mistreating the environment and we all need to take steps to lessen the damage. However, I'm not convinced the atmosphere is going to become the oven that Global Warming apologists are throwing out there. I've seen the data, I've studied it, and at this point my conclusion is global warming is not a crisis, it will not eliminate humans, and the earth will continue through normal climate variations over thousands of years including ice ages in the future.

..and by the way Mr Scott, I am a college educated scientist holding a Master's degree from the University of Wisconsin Madison. To assume that I don't understand carbon dioxide emissions, is to assume your sources are credible.

Your right Scott, let's roll the dice. No one is trying to force anyone to believe in science. Data is objective. Increased greenhouse gases mean warmer temps. What the outcome is, remains to be seen. What is evident, is that human beings are having a profound impact on the chemistry of our environment. This alone should be troubling to all human beings. Let's not debate one of the multitude of deleterious effects our actions as humans has on the planet. Let's embrace the notion that we need to be more considerate of our contributions to the chemistry of the Earth. On a side note, plant growth does increase with increased levels of carbon dioxide, but what business is the rest of the world in? Preserving wild spaces? Take a look at what is happening to the lungs of our planet, the Amazon Rainforest, tell me if that statistic still comforts you. This debate can move away from greenhouse gases, to pollution in our oceans, air, drinking water... Be considerate, not cynical should be the rule of the day. Skepticism has no meaning when it is laced with bias.

Global Warming will be an EXCELLENT means for China to become the lone world super power! They, of course, are EXEMPT from the Kyoto treaty (because they are a "developing nation, haha). Once the US gives into to this cockamamie, Ponzi scheme of wealth redistribution, not only will US jobs vacate the country in masses to avoid the insane carbon taxes, you proceed to set up China to become the most dominant super power the world has ever seen in modern times. As they will never answer to any of the nonsense that ANY authority imposes upon their business, and the ponzi global warming scheme will make them wealthy beyond all imagination!
.
Meanwhile the planet will continue to cool down, and 10 years from now Scientists will be back touting the coming of the new ice age like they were in the 70's, which was plastered all over Time and Newsweek!
.
This is almost to funny to be happening. If you want to cash in on it, put your $$ into the major blue chip stocks on the Shanghai Exchange, and SHORT SELL the major energy players in the US who will be HAMMERED into bankruptcy by this coming carbon legislation! While you cash in, enjoy the idiots driving some electric powered tin can thinking they are saving the planet!!

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"What happens when you add more gas to a fire...It burns brighter. What happens when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere...it traps more heat. Can it get any simpler?"

So how then do we explain the cooling pattern that we are in no matter how temporary? If I add more gas to the fire and continue to add more gas the fire does not pause and cool iteself for a while. If the atmosphere is heated by more CO2 being added and we are continuing to add more then we should see a continued steady rise in temperature which we are not. Next analogy please.

mrbread - where are you getting your 99.9% figure from? I can almost bet that if you were to poll climate scientists the number would be closer to 60%-40%, not some bogus 99.9%.
.
I would suggest you actually understand CO2 before claiming 'more CO2 will just trap more heat'. Recent research at Berkley shows that as increasing CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the rate of warming on the ground. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
.

Also...A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

I'm with Mr. Scott in that desertification is probably as big a culprit as CO2 and methane emmissions.

Did you know Mr. Scott that 99.9% of credible climate scientists who have spent their lives interpreting this data, agree that humans contributing to increased concentrations of green house gases will have a profound effect? What the effects will be can be interpreted many different ways, but the bottom line is that we impacting our atmosphere in potentially drastic, irreversible ways. You can bicker over the details, they are unimportant. What happens when you add more gas to a fire...It burns brighter. What happens when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere...it traps more heat. Can it get any simpler?

whybesad, although I too am skeptical of Global Warming and our ability to stop it, acid rain is a horrible analogy. Acid rain was causing serious issues with lakes (Lake Erie was on the brink), but the solution was relatively simple, reduce sulfur dioxide emmissions. Global Warming is caused by CO2 emmissions, which is virtually impossible to reduce, plus there's no compelling evidence that states exactly how much CO2 we can safely emmit or if we do, that Global Warming will stop.

I don't know what your education level is justsaynotomath, but here's a 12 page dissertation debunking commonly used anthropomohic effects supposed caused by "global warming".
.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...
.
What's the big deal with copying and pasting? I can't post an entire article here. I'll either post a link or paste the relavant parts of the article. You're right, I've only listed one scientist and I did so because he's the most outspoken critic of global warming. Would you like more names and more research? I can gladly do so.
.
Did you know glaciers began melting and the ice caps diminished over 100 years before we began using carbon based industry, and they are melting at the same rate now as they were previous to that? OR that the sea level has been rising for at least 100 years before we started using hydrocarbon based industry? If anything, we should be more worried about desertification warming the earth than hydrocarbon based industry. There's just little correlation between hydrocarbons and the so-called effects of them on global warming.

Global warming is the same cry that environmentalists had in the 1970's when they were freaking out about acid rain and how it was going to destroy the world. It's all about grants from the Government. These scientists get "free" money to study this. Gore wants to tax us on our carbon usage. It's all about money. Gore is making millions of money on his lies.

Should say "shouldn't" give you peace prizes for junk science.

*Al Gore to you thank you, can you say noble peace prize ? or how about volunteering for Vietnam and going without a gun (journalist). Al Gore has served his country his entire adult life. *

Al Gore was in Vietnam a whopping 5 months as a newspaper staffer with the Army.

You mean "Nobel" and "they" don't give you "peace prizes" to folks unless they are working to further peace, not junk science.

Al Gore's "service" to the country has made him a very wealthy man, much like most other sons & daughters of career politicians. Makes you wonder, doesn't it, since they don't pay politicians too much?

It is the height of human arrogance to think that just by burning a few fossil fuels for the last 150 years we are altering the entire ecosystem of this planet. The green movement is nothing but a boondoggle.

*Ignorance is bliss, in the 70's I could find a bunch of scientists/medical experts to say smoking wasn't harmful.*

1870s, maybe. Not the 1970s. In the 1970s, the scientists were telling us that a new ice age was coming. That's a fact.

Justsaynotomath (and to thinking objectively, evidently) and whythink (an apt name...):
Here is a book I suggest you and all others read.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deniers-Renowned...

I would further suggest opening your mind to the fact that PERHAPS Gore has a vested interest (in dollars) in his 'theories' being accepted. If he did not, and he sincerely was as interested in this topic as he SAYS he is, then he would NOT be flying around in his own private jet, he would NOT be living in the immensely expansive (and environmentally harmful) home in which he lives, he would not be driving the planet killing car he drives...he would have changed his lifestyle to match his rhetoric. At least others that profess this dogma of global warming I can respect if they 'live the lifestyle' that they profess is needed. Gore is simply one very large tool in the global warming garage of life.
MagicOne

and to answer your question about my education, I have a BS in geography and environmental studies from UWW and will soon be attending the NIU masters program for climatology.

Here's the petition with over 30,000 scientists signing to reject global warming as written in a Kyoto Agreement in 1997. OVER 9,000 signatures are from PhD's.
.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

justsaynotomath - I'll start with Dr. William Gray. Currently a professor of climatology at Colorado State University and world renowned hurricane expert. Highly skeptical of anthropologic global warming and believes it's a fraud. "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Uneducated?...Riiight, because it takes SO much mental horsepower to blindly follow a failed POLITICIAN and his hoax.

I knew some uneducated person would say, but the GLOBE can't be warming because it is cold in WI. I guess I was wrong, multiple uneducated people stated that.

Ignorance is bliss, in the 70's I could find a bunch of scientists/medical experts to say smoking wasn't harmful. Heck I could find a 90 year old who smoked since age 10 who was just fine.

We know the truth now, hopefully we learn from history, listen to Gore and do something about it.

Unlike smoking in the 70's, global warming isn't a choice.

Well if Obama actually tries to do all this (which I doubt), then perhaps we will finally see a substantial investment in our nuclear industry. That's the only silver lining I can see.

Accidentally posted the wrong article (though its a good one), here's the correct "Al Gore" article...
.
http://www.dailycommonsense.com/30000-sc...

30,000 scientists are petitioning Al Gore to debate them claiming he is a fraud when it comes to global warming.
.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/25...
.
The Earth is warming, but the effects of humans on global warming is not know. The earth has gone through warming trends and cooling trends in the past and will do so again in the future. We are not in danger of baking in a few years, and the sea level is not going to rise 30 feet by the year 2030. Do we need to curb pollution? Yes, but in no way am I sold that the current warming anomoly is in large part created by humans.

By the way, it may not be a wise thing to trust climate scientists since there are millions of dollars in government grants available to study Global Warming's ominous effects while there is almost nothing available for climatologists who are skeptical of the Global Warming dogma.

It is funny how this story appears on the coldest day of the season so far and just a few days after it snowed in New Orleans.

"While skeptics are already using [recent global cooling] as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming."

You can't make this stuff up.

I bet Algore believes in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too... global warming, LOL.

Sure could use some "global warming"...this is going to be another record cold year.

Stop Gorebull warming!!!

Please explain to me how this is a news story and not an editorial piece. Not one conflicting point of view? Disputed data being used as fact. Anyone wonder why some believe the media have an agenda