"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Geez. Here I thought you macaroons were only
debating the CAUSE of global warming (It's cow farts, I tell you!) not the FACT of global warming.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

Wasn't it Einstein who said 'the difference between genius and stupidity, is that genius has it's limits."

Nonfalsifiable theories that have nevertheless been widely embraced have a long pedigree. Freudian psychoanalysis is one, for example. Never imagine that people will shy away from a notion they find attractive, just because it's logically unsound. And we know how attractive environmental activists, and Leftists generally, find the notion of power over others.

The warmistas cannot be challenged on the basis of their theory, for they maintain that it's their right to modify the theory so that there can be no counter-evidence to it. But they can be beaten by allowing the public to learn: 1) the full implications for human well-being of their program for remaking the world economy, and 2) just how ridiculous they are when compelled to confront a contradiction to their views. You've just provided ammunition to the second of these assault columns. Thank you.

"2) just how ridiculous they are when compelled to confront a contradiction to their views."

Imagine. Scientists who actually report anomalies which contradict their own hypothesis.

Now, imagine if the WH had editorial control over the data. What a safe world we would enjoy.

I've finally figured it out. (Wing)nuts are the direct descendants of all those folks from the 15th Century who were sure the earth was flat. That explains it because there sure isn't a rational explanation for your cynical response(s) to the issue.

Black is white, up is down, and in this case, warm is bitter cold.

Oh well, remember the Gallup poll re liberal mental health. I explains it all.

I am enjoying the nut job JFO and his ilk watch their "people are killing the earth" theories go down one by one. This happens when you march in line with Algore. Pity that you cannot be reached. You lefties have been thoroughly brainwashed. ww

hmm..perhaps some folks are priviledged to live in a smaller burg. Cool..those that do not?
Smog is not the result of humans. Smog has been around since Genesis created our world 10,000 years ago.
Next Summer...China Olympics...that smog is natural...
The layers in our atmosphere that allows real life only here in our solar system is not effected by us humans.
..Not one stream or river has ever been or will be effected by industrial waste. Mercury in fish has always been with us.
No soil is contaminated unnaturally.
Lead is a part of our planet..and our friend.

No one here would have a problem with a large chemical/refinery next to your property because there is no threat.

We can trust large cooperations to regulate themselves. We as humans, are taking care of the planet that sustains us.

Global warming, like other tactics of the left are meant to distract us from the real fear..

..Terrorist Immigrants sneaking across the border to set off a dirty bomb on the street where we live...

Semanticleo - "Now, imagine if the WH had editorial control over the data. What a safe world we would enjoy."

Yeah... just imagine, (pdf file) if the IPCC had editorial control over the data. Oh wait they do!

As for The Goracle, he's a bit bit too many pharmaceuticals of late.

As long as Gore (and the rest of the 15% on the Democratic chart of insane) keep polluting the air I breathe with their Jets - and as long as they allow "out-of-control" forest fires that burn thousands of houses that waste more energy during cleanup and reconstruction, then...

I COULD CARE LESS!!!

(btw, the woodburner that heats my 14,500 sq. ft. home works GREAT!!! - I've paid $$0 for natural gas). So screw you libs.

nogo - "The layers in our atmosphere that allows real life only here in our solar system is not effected by us humans."

Finally a glimpse of the truth from nogo!

The only way for you to know that as fact is if you were an alien that had visited each and every corner of the solar system.

Congratulations for slipping into the normal/truthful side of life. (if only temporarily)

No..I have not visited the eight planets of our solar system (I miss Pluto)..
However, if you have knowledge of more than micro life on the other seven established Planets...please link.

My point is simply we take for granted, no matter your view on creation, how fragile and connected life on this planet is.
Even if you have doubts as to the extent we humans are disrupting the fragility, why is there such resistance to doing more than we are now doing?

nogo - "why is there such resistance to doing more than we are now doing?"

I see little resistance in making a legitimate effort at a cleaner environment.

I see a lot of resistance, and rightfully so, to bowing before hypocritical scam artists like The Goracle or Robert "NIMBY" Kennedy Jr.

steak...I assume you live in a rural area..
we have many friends living in Colo Mts that use a combination of wood and solar by choice and necissity.
However, if urban areas all heated our homes via stoves..here in Denver, because of the valley/inversion reality there are many Fall/Winter days where wood fireplace/stove usage is banned...(we are solar/natural gas/insulation with a high winter cost of $110)

Heck, we can't even burn leaves in the gutter anymore. Again this is simply a uniqueness to our location and may or may not reflect other places.

Did the moonbats claim to see any penguins on their 'global warming artic' trek?

"Did the moonbats claim to see any penguins on their 'global warming artic'[sic] trek?" == GianiD

Well, I don't quite think they have the ability to see through the planet, as penguins dwell in the Antarctic (and other parts of the Southern Hemisphere).

"A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite."

Now, I know it's awful for someone to lose their toes, the words "global warming" and "frostbite" in the same sentence is one of the funniest damn things I've ever read. Yes, there is just a teensy bit of irony there.

Then maybe they can claim they saw Polar Bears in the Antartic??

(note sarcasm)

That would not stop jac ass's like Al Gore or Kucinc or any other libtard from claiming they saw something (penguin)( UFO )( GLOBAL WARMING )that do not exist as or where they say..

Frostbite...ha ha..

"would not stop jac ass's like Al Gore or Kucinc or any other libtard from claiming they saw something (penguin)( UFO )( GLOBAL WARMING )that do not exist as or where they say.."

Comparing UFO's to GW would be hilarious if it weren't tragic ignorance. You have soulmates, Cassy!!!

Semanticleo - "Geez. Here I thought you macaroons were only debating the CAUSE of global warming (It's cow farts, I tell you!) not the FACT of global warming."

Well then, that brings you in complete agreement with your presumably beloved U.N.

"Among the world's chief contributors to the global carbon emissions problem, Arteche-Carr cited using data sanctioned by the UN, the number three pollutant worldwide comes from transportation: cars, trains, ships. Number two is the world's factories and manufacturing infrastructure, and the IT industry may have greater influence there than with transportation."

"But it's the number one global carbon emitter that had everyone floored: livestock. "It comes as a shock," Arteche-Carr said, perhaps understating the fact.

Semanticleo, care to join me for a very large Beef, Pig, and Goat buffet? I'll even give you a ride in my 11 mpg Pajero SUV. At twice the speed limit.

Oh, and what were you saying about "facts?"

Marc;

A casual review of your compatriots comments reveals a continuation of the poster's immoderate ignorance. If you are not in agreement with them(ie. UFO's and Global warming are urban legends) now is the time to separate yourself while you can. If you choose not to, we will understand. But it does seem you are not arguing against GB's EXISTENCE, just it's primary source.

GB=global warming

nogo,

yes, i live on 26 acres and have no close neighbors. my only point is, "screw al gore and the rest until they practice what they preach". Huckabee does.

"But it does seem you are not arguing against GB's EXISTENCE, just it's primary source."

I've never said it didn't exist in any forum or blog.

I will argue the extent of mans importance which I think is minimal, at best.

If you think for a hot second a rational being should put ANY stock in what loonbats like The Goracle, to name one, has to say either via a speech or his slockumentary you're as loony as he is.

"you're as loony as he is."

Well, at least you're not as Barmy as the
local multitude.

For the uneducated amongst you.

barmy
adj : informal or slang terms for mentally irregular [syn: balmy,
bats, batty, bonkers, buggy, cracked, crackers,
daft, dotty, fruity, haywire, kooky, kookie,
loco, loony, loopy, nuts, nutty, wacky

Semanticleo - So since you seem to consistently tow the U.N./IPCC line will you now place more emphasis on ridding the planet of all livestock in an effort to slow the Earth hotting up?

"will you now place more emphasis on ridding the planet of all livestock in an effort to slow the Earth hotting up?"

Since you ask; :"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)

Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed."

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

And, no I am not an advocate of outlawing human behaviors which are self-destructive. Diet is a personal choice, but the increasing scarcity of water will lead to food shortages of every type. Global warming will exacerbate those issues culminating in a 'Perfect Storm' of worldwide famine and disease. But y'all can just keep shopping. Pay no attention to the facts.

Note that in some stories they are trying to change Global Warming to "Climate Change". If they successfully pull that one off, they can blame anything that humans do for the constant changing of the earth's climate.

The earth's climate has always changed and always will change. There is no way to prove whether or not humans have any degree of impact on the climate. Look at it this way. If the average temperature raised about 1 degree celcius over the last 100 years then any effect we have had on temperatures is negligable at best.

We certainly have not caused 100% of that 1 degree. Arguing over what fraction we have caused if any is stupid. The point is that making economical changes and forcing people to live to anything but their fullest potential because we may have caused part of a degree temperature change over the last 100 years is shear idiocy.

Proponents of this point out that they would rather be safe then sorry. I would rather be safe than sorry on an economical stand point, especially when there is nothing to be sorry about from an environmental standpoint.

Do you think edison or ford would have not invented their inventions had they known they might have helped contribute to part of a degree celcius temperature rise over 100 years? I highly doubt they would care, and rightly so.

There is all kinds of antecdotal evidence of "glaciers melting" and "polar bears drowning" and everything that is supposedly an effect of global warming. How were the great lakes formed? Glaciers froze over the area and then melted off. It happened without a single SUV and i can contend that it would have happened anyways had there been SUV's.

There is no climate crisis. If there IS one, we didn't cause it, and we aren't contributing to it in any significant way.

Global warming will exacerbate those issues culminating in a 'Perfect Storm' of worldwide famine and disease. But y'all can just keep shopping. Pay no attention to the facts.

First of all I could care less about all your presented quotes, but will note the U.N. data used to determine livestock as the primary cause of global warming includes all the infrastructure that is part of the livestock industry.

So what.

As for the rest... why yes, I will continue to shop, buy and drive what I want when I want with complete disregard for fuel mileage, BBQ at least three times a week with the finest beef, and pork available year 'round, continue to support all forms a auto racing if for no other reason than to piss off the greenies and finally will do so as long as said "greenies" continue to perpetuate the "scientific consensus" scam.

"why yes, I will continue to shop, buy and drive what I want when I want with complete disregard for fuel mileage, BBQ at least three times a week with the finest beef, and pork available year 'round,"

And this means what to me? If you want to beat your head against the wall just to see the stars, it's OK with me.

> These are not the first people to try and prove that global warming is true by hiking through the Arctic, where the polar ice is supposedly melting.

This story got a lot of attention. Other blogs mentioned it along with commentary very much like yours. Back in MARCH when it happened.

Trolls like Semanticleo are most annoying not because of their message but because of their own ignorance of the topic they claim to have superior knowledge of.

For instance, there is a lot of debate in the scientific community over the causes of changes seen in the Arctic, and in fact a recent NASA press release describes some new conclusions about changes seen in the '90's:

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

Did those two moonbats study their geography? Seems to me that if they wanted to swim across the Arctic Circle, they would have to be on an ocean somewhere. From what I get from the story, they started out on the shores of the icepack. From all of the maps that I have looked at, they were 200-300 miles inside the Arctic Circle. Unless they had powers that no one else has, they would have one hell of a time doing that.