Once again, Roger, don't panic. You are just one person. But if you want to have an effect, you need to clearly state your case. As I pointed out earlier, many North American bird populations are expanding north, some by hundreds of miles. Birds don't know Alan Carlin. Birds aren't statisticians. They are sensitive to temperature changes.

Who knows for sure if Copenhagen is a last chance? But for those of us that have looked at the evidence and believe in the integrity of the scientific peer-review process, the point of no return, if it hasn't already passed, will be in the relatively near future.

But you are not stating your case, you are taking pot shots. State your case. 

Craig.  I am in the fortunate position that I don't have a case as such - just lots of things I don't understand.  And I don't understand the strength of rhetoric around Copenhagen.  I also don't trust a scientific process, that benifits from massive funding that is dedicated to proving a point, that in turn perpetuates the funding.  I use Alan Carling as one example  He may have been wrong or misguided, or even a mad man (or not).  I don't know.  But the fact that he was censured within the EPA for having an alternative point of view is the problem.  His superiors did not say "you are wrong" they said ""I decided not to forward your comments. I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.... Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." 

Does this way of reaching consensus within a scientific Federal funded Agency not worry you just a little?

One of the best ways to stall action is to ask lots of questions or to start a debate. I teach, and just today there was a concerted effort by my some members of my class to ask lots of questions to slow the class down because some of them had not completed their homework. Once I got wind of this (one can tell from the quality of the questions), I examined all the homework and, sure enough, those with all the odd questions had not completed the homework. I have posted office hours and my e-mail address, and none of these students had attempted to contact me with questions.

This is exactly what Alan Carlin tried to do at the EPA - stall any action and try to create controversy. This has nothing to do with an "alternative point of view" or the "scientific process" - Dr. Carin is an economist who was never assigned to work on climate change. The situation was clumsily handled, but the outcome was justified. For another version of events than what you have implied, read here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?_r=1

Your final quote is a complete twisting of the facts, according to what I have researched.

To what "massive funding" are you referring?

Craig,

What do you teach?  If you say earth science, then you have your answer about 'massive funding'.  If it's biology then you should recognize the errors of the conclusions and the extrapolations based on all the non-linear terms in the assumptions.  If it's one of the real or hard sciences -- well, nah never mind you're not so cruel to teach kids the wrong skills in the scientific method...  That would backfire eventually.

If you teach writing, then I'm foing to ask you to comment on the rhetorical tools that the GW folks use to decieve the common reader.

If you teach music, then...

Q: How do you stop a drummer from playing?
A: Put sheet music in front of him.

Q:What is better an oboe or a bassoon?
A: A bassoon burns longer.

Again, what groups do you teach that the kids have so little respect that they would resort to that old delaying tactic???  Is there a topic that covers public aka "Government Schools"  I gotta go raise some awareness on that board if there is.

Craig: It's obvious that asking questions slows progress down.  If the questions are well intentioned, then this is good.  I'm sure Alan Carlin was well intentioned, believes in his case, and feels the questions are justified.  There was, and still is a serious timing issue on the EPA submissions to the IPCC.  You posted the link; it's in there.  They admit to having to rush the process to meet a political deadline.  At risk of repeating myself, this is the issue.  I have read Carlins report.  I actually agree with many critisisms.  It is hardly a scholarly work; but some of the data, especially recent data is intriguing; which is what he appears to be trying to point out.  By not including the recent data in their submission, the models used to predict future temperature may indeed be suspect.  I did not misquote or distort anything; it's in the public domain. 

I can't understand why you don't see the funding in the AGW sector.  Apart from the cost of managing EPA, IPCC and many other bureaucracies there are government  funding processes in place for research organisations doing "constructive" work in the area.  Constructive meaning reinforcing the position of the funders.  There is also very generous funding going into green industries (even those not owned by Al Gore).  There is somewhere around $3 billion on offer from US Energy Dept.  Plus investment is now coming from all the carbon producers, who have to buy carbon credits.  Investing in green tech is a way to do that. One of own companies (I too am an entrepreneur), is definitely a "green" company and we offer a great innovation for emission and CO2 reduction.  Government grants have been easy and plentiful, plus interest from conventional industry has been great, based on potential carbon tax credits.  I just wish they loved this innovative technology for it's engineering elegance, like I do.  And on that note I have to bail on this discussion. Better to be out there making it happen, than in here talking about it.

I teach music.

What do you call 20 bagpipe players buried to their necks in sand?

Not enough sand.

The same joke works equally well by replacing "bagpipe players" with just about anyone else you may not like.

I teach at a Community College. I get to see exactly how well American high schools prepare students to go to college, to think critically, to study, or to have any kind of emotional intelligence. If you can do anything to correct this, go right ahead. Good luck.

I disagree - good intentions are not always enough. Besides, ones intent is very hard to prove. I have read Carlin's report, also. It does not meet the standard of scientific research, and it has not (and never will) be peer-reviewed. There must be some standards in the scientific process, or the results are meaningless, and the process becomes endless.

I definitely see money going into stopping AGCC, just not nearly enough to make a difference yet, and it's going to take a lot more than money anyway. It's going to take faith in good science and the political process, and most importantly faith in other cultures around the world. If the situation gets bad enough, it will make true believers out of a lot more people really fast. The science indicates that it may then be too late for effective action. People are going to have to do things less for personal profit and a more because it is the right thing to do. If we wait until the right thing to do is painfully obvious, we have little chance of changing the future.

It comes down to a familiar business crisis: pay now, or pay a lot more later. There really is only one intelligent choice.

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) is well established science. If there were no greenhouse effect at all, the earth would be a cold, lifeless planet.

That "bad science" apparently goes back a long way. Is 1824 "day one" for this "publiv opinion fluff peice" of yours, or would that go back to the ancient Greeks and to the beginning of the scientific process which you seem to hold in such contempt? Do you have anything other than your opinion to support your statements?

I'm not debating the esistence the the greehouse effect.  I probably know more about it than 99.9% of the perople that are shouting about it on both sides.

What I'm saying is that the human effects are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.  CO2 will rise, CO2 will fall, so will temperatures and sea level.

Lemme toss a scenario out for you... What happens if the planetary magnetic field decided that *now* is a good time to reverse?  Aside from everyone having to buy post YPR (Year Poles Reversed) compasses, the effects on the climate really will be catastrophic...even it it only takes 6 monthes for the poles to flip we have a 25% chance of a severe radiation growing season... Whaddya gonna do about the consequences then?

OK, that was OT I know...

But let's look at th real effect of the GHGs, they increase the temperature of the night sky from say-150 to -148 there's your real two degree difference.  But in hooman[sic] terms, how much does it matter if the temperature is a chilly 150 below or a balmy 148 below zero???

The daily gross variation caused by direct sunlight is so many orders of magnitude greater than the GH effect, and it is regulated by a strong feedback loop, maintaining the ratio of net energy input to the net energy radiated to space so close to 100% that the mind boggles.

It is possible to attribute the changes in CO2 to the industrial revolution,  but, post hoc ergo propter hoc, you cannot remove enough of the other variables to conclude that CO2 is the cause of the temperature changes which have far more inherrent error than the effect you're trying to measure!

BTW, I run a company that makes Concentrating Solar Power Distributed Generation equipment.  Zero fuel, zero emissions, no GHGs in the machine, etc...  Not because I believe in GW, but because it makes good economic sense to tap a source of free energy rather than dig up fossil fuels.

If the whole GW, CC, C&T, carbon-tax, set of schemes comes to pass I stand to profit heavily!  But that still doesn't convince me that the science is correct or that I should drink the koolade, sell the koolade, or pass out the pudding (sorry wrong cult).  I simply can't preach doom and gloom.  My motives are profits and common sense.

Global Warming is False -- The Light is Green!

-- Granola  :^)

What you are saying about what we know about anthropogenic global climate change simply is not supported by the best scientific evidence:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Since you provide no references, it is difficult for me to comment further. For instance, there is no scientific evidence to support the statement "What I'm saying is that the human effects are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things." This just appears to be opinion.

You must have studied that manual/document that the believers call "How to talk to a Global Warming Denier." that's OK.

You're right I didn't provide any references, because I'm not the primary researcher on any of those programs.  What I do know is that research designed to support a conclusion is worthless, regardless of which way it's pointed.

What I also said is that I stand to profit from the hysteria, yet I still steadfastly deny the hype.

I'm not a researcher, I'm an engineer and an entrepreneur. -- And I know how to interpret raw data!  The hysterics know how to point to conclusions made by others -- rhetorically it's called reliance on authority.  It works in 'print', but it can still be wrong.  99 out of 100 folks can agree on the wrong answer, that doesn't make it correct.

I don't really want to fight about this topic, but I do want to express my disgust for the apparent objectives, and the means being used.  Stop whining, start supporting viable solutions.  Do ya wanna reduce CO2 for real???  Get a CSP-DG system.  Writing a letter to a congressman uses paper, trees, fuel, and generates landfill. Capture some sunshine as electricity...

The Light is Green!

Here's a link to today's Washington Times poll:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2009/nov/do-you-think-global-warming-caused-humans/results/

And these are a snapshot of the results as of 10:30 am

Thanks for your vote.

Response Percent

Votes Yes 91% 16355

Votes No    7%   1405

Undecided  0%      49

Other        0%      17

votes 17826 total

As I said in the previous post the majority can still be wrong.  What's interesting to me is there is not one single comment that tries to explain how or why GW is real...  Just reliance on the conclusions of others.

Based on the way I was taught to interpret data the signal to noise ratio is so low that no interpretation, much less a conclusion is possible.  It's like seeing the loch ness monster in the darkness of a ripple or the face of mary on a slice of burnt toast...  The eyes can deceive.

I have read no manuals on how to respond to anyone. I do have a certain amount of disregard for the habit of projecting ones own ad homonym method of debate onto others.

There is also the well-known psychological problem of those who must reject any kind of authority, simply because it is authority. How do you know which of these groups you might fall into?

Time will tell who is right about anthropogenic global climate change. But making all the money in the world by selling solar panels may not be enough to protect your children from an over-heated future.  

So you see on a daily basis tha damage the pub -- er -- government schools have done to our kids.

It's not about rejecting *all* authority, but it is important to reject any authority whose sole claim to authority is vacuous.

As you said, follow the money.  So many of the current generation of 'climate researchers' are nothing more than frustrated weathermen ;^)  but seriousle, they're college 'kids' (in their 40's 50's or 60's) that never got ouit of the laboratory.  Writing grant applications mad doling out stipends to undergrads it the highpoint of their existence.  An negative answer would likely cut off the funds for further research... and then where are they?

I've done college/industrial partnerships (from the industry side) and I gotta tell you the notion of an 'educational budget' is beyond absurdly wasteful.  They don't just consume materials and supplies, they 'consume' infrastructure, tools, equipment, instrumentation, and then tack on 'fees' and tuition adjuncts, and finally they nickel & dime what should be a $300,000 department year into a $850,000 grant proposal.  If you'll sign an NDA I'll show you the documents.

"Not enough sand." -- LOL --  I was told my grandfather played the pipes and they scared me... but he died when I was 2 so I really don't remember. {sorry for the unintentional downer, but it's still funny}

Our public school system is locally controlled and locally funded. The worst schools are invariably found in the poorest neighborhoods. You can't blame the Federal government on that.

I will take the liberty of rephrasing your statement: it is important to reject any authority whose sole claim to authority you believe to be vacuous. In other words, you are the sole authority! How's that working for you?

Your statement about how you believe the university research system works shows a complete misunderstanding of the peer-reviewed scientific process, and how that relates to funding. It is VERY competitive, and scientific results are exhaustively reviewed. If you understood better how the system worked, I doubt you would be so dismissive of it.

Yes, there is a lot of waste in any established human bureaucracy, including those in the private sector (just take a look at our bailed out banks and automobile manufacturers). That doesn't make them incapable of good works, just more or less efficient. The big bucks never go to the best researchers, they go to the administrators, of course. Which brings to mind another joke:

Do you know how you get a professional climatologist whose research cannot pass scientific peer review off your doorstep?

You pay him for the pizza!

Ozone Al -- I like that... ;^)

In that same article, did you read what Al Gore said in response to the charges? Did you just decide to believe that he was lying, or do you have proof that he was lying?

You statement that Al Gore "uses enough electricity in his home to power a small town" was never true. If you are open-minded enough for a fact check, go here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/ 

Factcheck is not the ultimate place to check for facts. I don't believe them either. I'm open minded enough to not accept an opinion piece as fact. In fact, I will draw my own conclusions based on what I read, not on what you read. Gore is a blowhard and a liar in the same vein as Kerry, Bush, and Obongo.

Hilarious! Where do you go to check your facts? Fact check is certainly less of an opinion than your posted opinions, which you have made no effort to substantiate! Fact check actually looked up Gore's utility bills.

I post links so that you can go to them and read them yourself! Then you can draw your own opinions from what you have read, also. That is, unless you are too close-minded to read the links I post.

Tell me, what public figures do you trust?

By the way, I did a google search on the name "Obongo," and I came up with some of the more racist web sites I have seen in quite a while, all in the top few links. Was this your intent?

I trust NO elected official and very few scientists engaged in this battle to prove global warming. The Earth has been through many cycles of cold, heat, drought, flood, etc. When you have a cyclical condition such as cooling or warming, we don't need elected officials making billions of dollars from scare tactics put forth by leftist professors and scientists.

And now I'm a racist because I made fun of the president? Why don't you crawl back into your cave and save the Earth for my children and grandchildren. Thanks.

Jack,

I don't really care for the 'obongo' tag either -- It made my eyebrows go up.

Don't misunderstand me I think Presbo is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long long time, but it has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* to do with the color of his skin!!!

I don't like his economics!!!  That's the #1 biggie. I don't like his politics, I don't like the people who are close to his administration, I don't like the Chicago political machine, I don't like his views on world government, I think he's weak, I think he's indecisive, I know he lied in his campaign, I don't believe the junior senator ever should have been a candidate... I can go on and on, but as hard as I look for bad things to say, I can't find anyting negative to say about his race or his skin color!!!

So far I've been in agreement with all your comments and analyses -- Don't dirty your good points with an offhand remark that might be funny to a 9 year old, but has clear connotations to those of us with a few more decades of hair loss. ^_^

Jack, you can calm down. If you reread my message, you will notice that I did not call you a racist. I just asked what your intent was. Maybe you didn't realize the racial content of this particular moniker.

You may not trust any politicians, but you benefit every day from many of their efforts to make our society work better. Is there no space in your heart for just a smidgen of gratitude?

CTYankee Aeon,

I never googled Obongo after I saw a guy wearing a tshirt that read "Resist, Obongo Is Not My President".

Found it here, http://www.zazzle.com/obongo_is_not_my_president_tshirt-235997148339341303

I'm not sure what makes obongo a racial slur, other than after I googled it and saw that race hating websites use that word. I just think it was funny and mean no racial slur. I guess I still don't get it.

Actually I don't care what color the pres is, I just don't like him. I didn't like Bush and had pet names for him also but nobody called me a racist when I called Bush "President Chimpy".

Thin skinned are we or am I still missing the point?

Fascinating?  Nah. It's reciprocal I'd say. :^)

I can tell you why I'm here.  I won't speak for others, but many will say they like what I say.

We ('scuse me) I am sick and tired of the counter productive attitudes of the Greenpeace types that believe that certain causes are inherently more worthy of help and support because they are less successful than other causes.  Big picture; Western Civilization and Capitalism have done an awful lot to benefit a lot of people.  That makes some folks feel guilty, so they take up positions against the very system that enabled them to live a lifestyle that freed them to protest in the first place.

-- OK, that's enough for now. ^_^

Touche'.  But I don't know a single person on either side that is *pro global warming* the way you describe it. 

Denying GW is not akin to seeking it.  Same goes for 'god' many seek to believe, but a lot of us simply deny it's existence and have no need to fulfill that 'spiritual need' that others feel is in all men.  Both GW & god are a desire to embrace something that simply isn't there ...  They say: "But it's ok jusy because it doesn't show up in objective test, we can still believe in it." 

What utter nonsense!

To deny AGCC, to someone who believes the accepted science, is to oppose action necessary to avoid serious damage to the earth's ecosystems, which is already beginning to cause human suffering on an immense scale. That's beyond utter nonsense - it's willful ignorance.

The real utter nonsense is to compare the belief in God to believing the accepted science supporting AGCC. One is science, the other is faith, and that is a HUGE difference.

Hey Craig,

Actually they are quite similar from where I sit.  I'm a longtime atheist, so I have no feathers to ruffle.

The cultures are similar, both are based on beliefs that the average person cannot see, smell, touch, feel, hear, i.e beyond the senses. Reliance on the interpretation of signs, buy an elite subgroup.  A call to sacrifice for the greater good, and a cohesive set of guidelines for a better life... OK 'nuf said...

You even have a nice compact representation for the 'proper form of recognition' -- AGCC

You started the last post with 'deny' & 'believe' and a declaration of blasphemy...

I don't believe, *because* the science is *NOT ACCEPTABLE*.  The serious damage you fear... What is it exactly?  Erosion, rising sea level?  These things are going to happen!  They've happened in the past, they'll happen in the future.  Evidence suggests the Sahara was a lush forest in the past, long before we started burning coal... What happened?  The Himalayas were at sea level in the distant past.  The Great Plians were an inland sea once, and will be agian.  Florida was part of Africa, New York and Scotland were close enough for borrough events like bingo and highschool football rivalries.

Could Bangladesh end up under water? Yes! It's a river delta, so is New Orleans.  I maintain that rebuilding post Katrina was a waste of resources. 

Just because human suffering is on the short list of consequences of doing nothing, it doesn't automatically follow the human suffering *isn't* on the list of trying to curtail AGCC! Does this make sense?  Has anyone pointed out this logical flaw in the GW plan?

Gotta go, talk to ya sometime after Monday.

I really don't believe that you even understand what science is! This would be yet another failing of educational system. Without a real understanding how science works, there is no way you are going to believe it. Unfortunately, you rely on science (the kind you can't directly observe) every time you type a message to me on your computer, or use your cell phone, or eat much of the food that you buy at the grocery store, or drive a car, or fly in a jet, etc., etc., etc... But you don't believe it!

The earth is always changing, but if it changes to fast for life to adapt, some life is lost. Science is telling us that we are begin to cause far more rapid change than anything humans have ever experienced. This just wouldn't happen without our help.

I agree with you about building a city in a swamp. The problem is, these cities are already there, and most other humans seem to be about as hard-headed as you appear to be when it comes the believing in science!

And no, the logic in your penultimate paragraph doesn't make any sense, now that you've asked. 

OMG, memories of Jessie Pollard, and the penult, ante-penult, and all 5 tenses that I can't name anymore.  Gaudeamus igitur, Juvenes dum sumus. {shudder}

Now what were you saying?

Oh yeah, hooman[sic] suffering.  Let's say GW is in fact happening, we'll ignore the "AG" part for the moment.  There will be human suffering, on that we can agree.

Now lat's say we take the economically destructive steps 'required' to check and arrest the "AG" part of GW.  Do you accept that there will be human suffering in other areas, e.g economic deprivation caused by needless escalation in the price of energy on a worldwide basis?

I'm trying to raise to possibility that the proposed solution to AGCC is a lose-lose scenario, whereas you are suggesting that AGCC itself is the lose-lose.  It's possible we're both right.  the difference is that your treatment is certain to be prompt, and may be worse than the disease.  My laissez faire approach could take centuries to have any catastrophic *global* outcome if any at all.

So for expediency's sake I'm willing to write off Bangladesh and New Orleans, because they represent an insignificant fraction of the 'globe'.

Yes, I agree some life will be lost.  Some is lost every day. C'est le vie, c'est la guerre.

As for me not understanding science.  I'll share that with my MCAT students, I'm certain they'll enjoy the humor, at least I hope they will(they seem to get softer every year).  What I am not is polished or subtle in the fora; it's so rare to find people that can isolate themselves from their biases (myself included occasionally) that I don't worry about it that often.  What will convince me is *data* hard data, not lists of interpretations by people whose livlihood depends on a specific interpretation.

objoke: "Data" is not the plural of "Anecdote".

P.S. I didn't expect to have computer time, tis is my son's last weekend leave before shipping out to a new base.  But he wanted to see some friends.

Oh damn! The House just passed the Healthcare reform bill.

Need not be economically destructive... That's true, but name a single government program of such scale that has not gove over budget.

I've defined what i consider to be acceptable losses, ans as you observed if AGCC is worst-case.

Huzzah, we have reached common ground: "... { sorry ^_^ } AGCC is a total myth, will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, will provide great environmental benefits, will provide great health benefits, and will take billions of dollars out of the hands of terrorists, Russia, and Chavez. This is bad?" -- No this is wunderful[sic]

I'm sorry Bangladesh is only 48 inches above sea level, but I didn't puut it there.  Someday it will be underwater, so will New Orleans, we'll just agree to disagree on whether or not it's good/evil. I say it's a fact, no more, no less.

Be-mem-ber[sic] I've done University/Industrail cooperative projects; it's like sleeping in a trombone, you can only do comfortably if you're crooked.  The GW researchers have demonstrated that their conclusions are for sale.

Look at how unca-al handles questions about the science of GW/CC, he says: "That's been discussed already. I'm not taking any questions on that topic." and you can see the blood rush to his cheeks.  Avoidance and indignation!  It's like Pelosi discussing the constitutionality of the healthcare bill, except she's been drained of blood for a few years now.

Yeah, I have insurance.  But for how much longer?  My insurer will raise my premiums sky-high, and since switching will no longer be an option, I suppose I'll end up dropping private coverage and paying the fine! It'll be cheaper.  But rather than pay a large fine, I'll be laying off workers, selling my machinery to the leasing company and bankrupting my business.  Then I'll lease-back the hardware, and hire the workers as contractors unloading the benefits and both halves of SocSec.  In the end, who wins?

At some point, the option of shipping my machines off-shore and not looking back becomes the prudent choice.  I'm a capitalist, not a host for parasites.  Who knows perhaps AGCC and the tax/expat issues both contain some mysterious non-linear term???  Only time will tell.

It's 2:am EST, my son is home, have a nice weekend :^)

I saw the same video you did about Al Gore. He was asked questions he had already answered by a confirmed global warming denier journalist, not a scientist. I saw no blood rush to his cheeks. This is just your fantasy.

By the way, you ARE a host for parasites, lots of them (according to science). I still say you don't understand the scientific process, if you think that results are for sale. Why do you think all those high-tech gizmos work - magic?

Oh, and since the question was by a denier it was ok to blow him off???  Al Gore is an opportunistic whore. (heh it even rhymes) If you missed the fire coming ouit of his nostrils, you're looking at the wrong video.  The Left is running rough-shod over the Constitution or haven't you noticed?

The parasites I'm referring to are the exploiters, the leeches and the moochers in DC, not the symbiotic bacteria in my gut, or even the swarm if tiny-tiny creepy-crawlies that hoomanity has co-evolved with.

As for results being 'for-sale" not only do I think it, but I know it! -- Got a fresh batch of proof today!  Been working on a proposal, and it got turned inside out by... I'm not going to say, because not all of the players would appreciate my candor.

But in case you want to know why my mood took a nose dive... well, this is part of the reason.  Anyway if you're 100% convinced that AGCC is a fact I suggest capturing farts in a plastic bag and breathing deeply.  Magic indeed.

BTW, I'm dumping this thread too, so you'll get the last word if you want.

IPCC -- bah! humbug!

Craig, I was willing to meet you part way, but, after reading that IPCC nonsense, I'm concluding you can't tell the difference between Shinola and [censored].  11.5 degrees?!? You gotta be kidding!

Let's talk lowlands... I've gotta go over the top to get you to see the foolishness of the GW & CC arguments.  Suppose I want to see them sink into the ocean?  Suppose it's my goal to cause sea leven to rise?  Who says my goal is inferior to yours?  I've joked about a 45 ft rise in sea level upgrading my house to beachfront property! But the more I think about it the more I like the idea.

If that means Bangladesh & New Orleans end up between 40 & 50 feet of water, then I'll have more interesting places to scuba.

I'll admit it, I'm really getting sick & tired of GW alarmists.  Every post I read makes me want to vomit, and clean it up by burning a few acres of trees, and putting out the fire by drowning the landscape to wash the ashes into the ocean.

Yeah, fed-up is a pretty good analysis of my attitude.

A good, science-based rebuttal.

If you are so fed up with "GW alarmists," why are you hanging out at a web site titled "STOP GLOBAL WARMING?"

You must secretly like all the indigestion!