Burn hemp not coal. i will believe in my Gov. when they give the hemp car back to the Ford family. hemp oil is much better for heat than coal and burns almost clean without filtering. we can build houses that don't rot and save our trees. we can put our farmers to work instead of buying hemp from China. 410 mil to Mexico and 7500 dead is state sponsored terrorism. stop the Drug war and guard our trees and water.

when will the car driven by hydrogen from water be available?

Your statement that global climate change (GCC) is a myth is itself a myth. The majority of scientists agree that GCC is happening, it is happening now, and the human activity (particularly the release of CO2 into the atmosphere) is largely to blame. Denying this is to ignore the preponderance of evidence and the results of good science. How arrogant is that?

If you make a mess, clean it up. That's what my parents always taught me. How arrogant is it to expect others to clean up the mess that corporations have made in order to make huge profits for a few at the expense of environmental destruction?

The answer is to change what we are doing, not to deny reality and empower the greedy profiteers who make money from the destruction of the world's ecosystems. I wonder why someone who appears to be as resistant to change as you do would even bother commenting on a site called "Change.org." What is your interest here? 

"physically aid in restoring the mined out mountains"?!? once you blow the top of a mountain to bits, it's pretty much gone forever, dude. not to mention the nearby streams and valleys are polluted and filled for a good long while, too.

then of course we burn the coal and fill our air with toxins that cause all kinds of health problems, especially in children. and after we've burned the coal, we have mountains of highly toxic coal ash sitting around (you might have seen the massive coal ash spill that occurred last December in Tennessee, completely ruining the source of drinking water for millions of people, but in case not: http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2008/12/23/environmental_disaster_in_tennessee)

my point being, despite your global warming denial, you have to admit that there is nothing clean about coal and we need to get beyond it as a fuel source. (by the by, your GW denial is a whole new can of worms that i, frankly, don't care to respond to, except to say: if the overwhelming evidence of global warming, and the consensus not just among the scientific community but also among the intelligence agencies and military leaders of our country don't convince you, then you're just choosing to be ignorant of the problem, and nothing i can say will convince you.)

people need to work, no doubt. but people also need clean air and drinking water. people and the earth need healthy ecosystems. it's incredibly short-sighted to preserve a few coal industry jobs today at the expense of a clean energy future.

these peaceful coal country activists are working to make a healthier future for all of us, while these violent coal miners are trying to protect their jobs in a dirty, polluting industry. i'm sensitive to the fact that many of them don't know how to do anything else, but that's an argument for adequately funding green jobs training programs, not keeping our entire society hooked on dirty fossil fuels. renewable energy creates way more jobs than fossil fuel energy anyway (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/clean_energy.html), so the truly regressive actors here -- in every respect -- are the people trying to keep us dependent on fossil fuels rather than helping push us towards a clean green renewable energy future.

if you really want to keep Americans working and solve a whole host of other problems, then you should be supporting the energy revolution.

“Man-made global warming is a myth, and the moon is made of green cheese.” Saying it doesn’t make it so. What matters is what people who actually know what they’re talking about have to say. In a survey of 10,200 earth scientists 90% agreed global warming is happening, and 82% said man is causing it. Of climatologists 97% agreed that man is causing global warming. The only group of earth scientists wherein less than half - 47% - accepted the fact was... wait for it... petroleum geologists. Scientists, for the most part, tend to be very responsive to sincere enquiries. Why not talk to some real scientists,  instead of deriving all your “scientific“ information from those mental giants Limbaugh and Inhofe? The wackos are the ones willing to let their children and grandchildren suffer on a sweltering planet for the sake of short-term profits.

 sufferswelterinand grandc andchildren

Guys, science is not determined by consensus. it takes just one study to disprove the entire system. We know very little of how the climate system works and each new climate model presented by scientists proves they are still learning.

Also, there are flaws in the survey you cite,

1. only 3,146 earth scientists out of the 10,200 were contacted actually participated. So it is not a 'consensus' like you said. i found this out in one google search

2. earth scientists working in private industry were ignored - this means that those likely to disagree (according to the 'conspiracy theory' of  governments wanting a result and cherry picking the studies). so the 'petroleum scientits' may not be at a 47% accept it, it would be likely that even less, or more, 

3. there were only two questions! the first question was that was the mean temperature before 1800 lower than after. and of course 1800 was approximately the time we started to recover faster from the little ice age. the recoveries generate faster as time goes on.

the second question was this: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? This is obvious. even if you don't believe that human produced CO2 is the cause of global warming, the urban heat island effect would change the mean temperature anyways since a bunch of hot dots around the globe would produce a significant enough blip to change the global mean temperatures. 

Again, science laws are not determined by a roll call, it is determined by fact and a scientist's opinion is NOT a reason to think that an issue is settled. Saying it doesn't make it so.

BTW, Limbaugh is just a gas bag, i hate to listen to him... gets me angry. i prefer to listen to actual scientists on the issue who talk only on fact, not on opinion (i.e. Dennis Avery rather than Al Gore)

oh yeah... here's where  ot the info

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Science may or may not be determined by consensus, but when an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that there is climate change, then you may want to go with that majority.  Also...

1.  Just because only 3146 scientists out of 10,200 responded doesn't mean there isnt a consensus.  It just means that most scientists didn't respond.  From the paper you've cited, there is a consensus in the 3146.  It would be safe to assume that the percentages will stand if projected out to all 10,200.  Look at it this way, when the Census Bureau conducts a survey of the population, they don't knock on everyone's door and hand count everyone they see.  They would never get finished that way.  They draw their conclusions by projecting from a sample of the population.

2.  The most credible and relevant group of scientists on the issue of climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Their reports reflect the consensus of the scientific community.  When you say 'petroleum scientists', I immediately think of scientists that work for Exxon or Chevron, in other words, scientists who have a vested interest in denying global climate change.  By the way, the 47% figure is the percentage of the general public who feel that global warming is caused by human activity, much different from the 82% of the scientists in the survey.

3. The two questions were: 1) is there a difference between pre-1800 temperatures and post 1800 temperatures; and 2) are the changes, if any, caused by human activity.  Those are the only two questions that matter!  What other questions are there?  In other words, is there warming, and are we causing it?  By the way, the 1800s is the century of the Industrial Revolution... that is the relevance of that time period.  It is in the Industrial Revolution where we start to see the sudden increase in greenhouse gases.

Scientists don't give opinions.  They don't speculate, they don't say anything until they research and conduct tests and generate hypothesis-- they besically use the scientific method.  So I find your comment on a scientist's opinion hilarious.  If the majority of scientists are saying that there is global warming, then rest assured, they have researched the topic to death to come up with the most logical, scientifically sound conclusion.

Lastly, Stephen, you really shouldn't use an article that so thoroughly disproves your argument.  Some of us are quite capable of reading scientific journals.

and it is exactly this situation when driving across America the Beautiful that I sadly notice all the barren hilltops and mountains without any life - has anyone heard about watershed around here? When the rains bring mudslides and floods in the valleys then there is a big outcry TO WHOM ?

James, we meet again. We are on the same page.

Steven Maloney,

I agree with you almost all the way, but I don't think you put down Rush. Remember that the other side has all the leftwing "journalists" doing their bidding. We need a powerful media figure on our side, helping to get out the truth. Rush does yeoman's work in that regard. OK, he's not a scientist, but he does have the official EIB climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, to back him up. Last I knew, Algore is no scientist, but that doesn't stop his loud mouth, nor the left's swooning over him. Somebody has to shout down that moron with a very loud voice. Rush is our man.

However, the coal miners are not the only people affected by the coal mines, and its not just an issue of losing jobs.  These mountaintop removal mines are highly destructive, not just to the environment, but to neighboring towns who have to deal with the soot, sludge and other toxic particles released by the mines.  The people losing their jobs are not the only angry people here... their are plenty who are victimized by these mines who I'm quite sure have strong feelings of their own.  It would be foolish to underestimate that.

Yes, coal-mining pays well by Apallachian standards. I used to haul furniture into East Kentucky, and I recall a couple of teachers who bought cheap, shoddy furniture from us a time or two (I won’t name the company, but we catered to thrifty rodents). The husband had quit teaching to mine; it paid better. That doesn’t speak well for the mines; it speaks badly for our education system. But their decent salaries are the result of generations of union organizing, and the unions are always under attack. Striking coal miners on the Cumberland Plateau are the only US citizens ever to have been bombed by US military planes, at the request of mine owners. The owners are no friends to miners or their families.

honestly, i love how no one is debating me. so far that is... how can you guys claim that you want to debate when you run away when someone with strong points comes knocking?

Steven,

Honestly, I didn't want to respond to you because the "points" that you made at the beginning were so far off.  I'm not talking about your points regarding global warming, I'm talking about what you said about the first two videos.

I was present at both of the incidents in the first two videos.

In response to your first paragraph, I don't know what bomb threats you are talking about.  We are talking about the escalation of violence that is happening here in the southern coal fields of West Virginia, and we are not talking about an extremist group here.  The first was a non violent protest centered around the dangerous location of a school here beneath a dangerous slurry impoundment, next to a coal processing plant, and under the blasting of a mountaintop removal site.  

You said something about a man being hit in the first video, and the police being justified?  Of course they were justified.  The woman in the Massey stripes hit Judy Bonds, a woman not a man.  This paragraph makes no sense, perhaps you did not understand what happened in the video.

Regarding your next paragraph:  The second video (honestly, the solemn music wasn't necessary. just to point it out)

that was the music that was being played on stage, not something added

is justified because they crashed a party that they probably shouldn't have even known about.

what exactly do you mean, the video was justified?  do you mean the acts of these drunk men were justified?  a party that they should not have known about?  this makes no sense.  The festival on Larry's mountain happens every year.  Are you really trying to justify the actions of these drunk men who threatened to slit the throat of a child?  please think about what you are saying.

Of course they might have had their own reasons like the gathering was bothering them. Please refrain not to just look at one side of an argument, if they were sorry about it, then they were wrong, but if they have a reason, listen to it.

So if they have their own reasons, like being bothered (even though these men did not even have family on the mountain, they drove to the festival just to try to intimidate us) its okay if they were sorry about it?  Even folks who don't agree with us about mountaintop removal certainly agreed that threatening families and children was NOT acceptable.  I will listen to any man or woman who wants to talk with me, no matter if we agree or disagree.  It is a big part of the work that I do here.  But don't ask me or anyone here to listen to a man who is threatening the life of a child in front of his mother and father. 

Jen, i'm just offering a different viewpoint in many of these problems. There HAVE been bomb threats at institutions like the Heartland institute and the Cato institute and many others who house global warming 'flat earthers'.

in the first video, i could not see who the woman hit, but the first person i saw from that side was the man with the gray beard. i did not see an woman that she hit.

in the second video, the camera cuts from scene to scene, but the music is constantly the same. that means that the music was added, or was recorded at the stage and added on later.

i'll concede the facts that you gave about the men in the video, you obviously know more about it and i admit when i'm wrong. But i'd like everyone to remember there's always two sides to every story, and not to judge to quickly, judging quickly is the reason why misunderstandings and subsequent under-representation of certain groups happen undeliberately

Steven,

The title of the video is "Judy Bonds Slapped at Marsh Fork Elementary Protest."

In the Kayford "Mountain Madness" video, the music that you hear is the bands playing on the stage.  It changes as the video progresses because the bands and the music changes.

Sheesh!!

 Ok Craig, I call your bluffs.

First, the idea that Walter Block is an economist is correct, but the idea that he has defended voluntary slave contracts is wrong, slavery means someone owns another person, not a company which ‘owns’ you. It may be ‘slave-like’ conditions (in my opinion it’s NOT, if you choose it, you can get away from it)

Second, there have been peer-reviewed papers that state that humans are not largely the cause. Just follow the links:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/mclean_defreitas_carter_jgr_2009.pdf -this is a study on El nino’s effects on the climate, and how it’s been the driving force of warming

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/robinson%202008%20gwreview.pdf

Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon.

Environmental effects of increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Oregon Institute of Science and medicine

“When we re viewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained; so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming” are now available.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently in creasing as the Earth re covers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.”

So, there goes your first statement where there aren’t any peer-reviewed studies. There’s one right there, and I have many more where that came from. (for the graphs showing the facts, click the link). The scientists who authored are among the best in the world in their fields, all they did was compile data, however, their data is correct and the paper has been peer-reviewed

Third, has anyone heard about the Oregon petition? That, if anything, is proof that there is not a consensus on the subject of global warming. Over 31,000 people who are scientists and engineers, 3,697 scientists were of atmospheric, environmental or earth science disciplines. 5,691 scientists and engineers were of the physics and aerospace variety. All this occurred without funds from any energy source. So while 3,146 earth scientists out of 10,200 say global warming is true, 3,697 (perhaps of the same 10,200, but likely outside of that number) say there’s no such thing as a consensus in the debate. Yes there are some abnormalities in the data but that’s bound to happen with larger and larger groups.

Finally, you misquote me when I say ‘small bits’. Then I was referring to the urban heat island effect not the strip mines. And I laugh at the false science of aesthetics; all they really are, are overpaid art critics, that’s all! The have no possible value that they give to society and could in fact remove productivity in the markets by making women care about their beauty more than their work. However, I am in agreement with you where ‘the storage of toxic mine tailings… the degradation of water quality, or even the long-term economic value of the land destroyed’ is a problem. That’s why regulations must be enforced in this field, but to dismiss it like the argument for gun control (if guns aren’t available then there won’t be guns anymore) is absurd (gun control is a really stupid idea, it’s ok to know who owns the gun, but without gun stores, people will buy guns off the black market if they feel like they need it, that’s why the black market exists). To put to bluntly, coal is what got us to where we are now, coal power, not hydro, and certainly not solar or wind, is what drove the industrial age into the colossus of information that it is now!

The protests are all well and good, but in the end of the day, ‘big coal’ is how we have gotten America and Europe to be the top of the world, so why should we forsake third world countries for ‘environmentalism’? obviously the third world needs coal to develop, so why are you beheading the main reason why humans have advanced as far as we have? What is the moral background? ‘the earth is warming!’. Sadly, we have not had any significant warming since 1998 (a super el nino year), no warming since 2003 and a cooling trend in recent years. CO2, which it’s warming impact is logarithmic in nature (there’s only a certain amount of energy a compound can store), has probably hit the ceiling of it’s effects already since we’ve been seeing a cooling trend. I’m not going to go so far as to say that the sun is the reason (it’s not, the stratosphere has been cooling since 1980s is proof of that), but the idea that global warming is a reason not t invest into third world countries’ futures is just running away from our REAL problems.

Steve,

Walter Block is a libertarian economist. Every libertarian I have ever met holds personal human liberty (this includes private property rights) above any environmental concern, and even some human rights.

An example of this is the extreme bias is found in Walter Block’s ideas about “slave contracts.” Here is what Wikipedia says:

“Block, along with Robert Nozick is one of the leading libertarian defenders of slave contracts, arguing that it ‘is a bona fide contract’ which, if ‘abrogated, theft occurs’ and critiques other libertarians who oppose voluntary slavery as being inconsistent with their shared principles. Block seeks to make ‘a tiny adjustment’ which 'strengthens libertarianism by making it more internally consistent.’ He argues that his position shows ‘that contract, predicated on private property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts.’[6]”

This could be called an extreme viewpoint.

The first paper that you provide a link to appears to be peer-reviewed (although the web site makes this hard to determine). Significantly, it also stops short of denying global warming. The second linked paper that you quote from extensively is almost certainly NOT peer-reviewed. But worse than this, the web site hosting these papers, http://nzclimatescience.net/ , is clearly, and by their own admission, heavily biased. Here is what the web site says:

“The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was formed in April 2006 by a group of New Zealanders, mostly resident here but some overseas, who are concerned at the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and so-called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.”

ExxonMobile has funded one of the authors on both of these papers, Willie Soon, for years. He is an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist, and he is very controversial. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

You still have not provided me with a peer-reviewed paper that denies global warming.

I thought you were quoting Walter Block when you wrote:

“If contrast is one of the concomitants of natural beauty, then the small bits of barren land created by strip miners amidst the lush greenery of the Appalachians actually add to the beauty of the scene.”

This sounds like he is referring to the land disturbed by mountaintop removal (another name for strip-mining) as “small bits” to me. And it is definitely not “small bits.”

I find your comments about aesthetics less than compelling.  I have a Doctor of Musical Arts, summa cum laude, from UT Austin (The Butler School of Music). I have performed all over the US, and I have composed a number of commissioned symphonic works. I have worked for and/or studied with some very well known artists (including composers, musicians, dancers, actors, directors, and choreographers). I assure you that aesthetics is real, that it is happening now, that humans are responsible, and that it makes a difference, but this is not the time or place to go into that parallel universe.

You never seem to mention all the other scientific disciplines that provide support  to the global warming evidence. The majority of the earth's glaciers are shrinking. The Arctic icecap is shrinking. Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing. Many species of birds in the northern hemisphere are shifting their ranges north, some by hundreds of miles. Why? Maybe they haven’t read all the bogus scientific research paid for by the largest corporations that have ever existed in the known universe. Or maybe it’s just getting warmer.

What I am saying is this: the science is conclusive - global climate change is real, it is happening now, and the human release of greenhouse gasses is largely to blame. If we don’t do something significant soon, all humans will suffer, PARTICULARLY the poor in third world countries. America has an obligation to lead. We can do this and come out the better for it. You have provided no evidence to convince me otherwise.

Steven, you don't have any strong points. Let me demonstrate what real strong points look like.

1.) The atmospheric concentration of CO2, the main greenhouse gas contributed by humans, has increased by more than a third over the pre-industrial level due mainly to the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and to large scale deforestation.  CO2 is at its highest level in at least 650,000 years.  Methane, an even stronger greenhouse gas, is up 150% from pre-1800 levels.  Other greenhouse gases that are at elevated levels include nitrous oxide and chloroflourocarbons. 

The major international scientific organization that looks at climate change is the IPCC.  As of 2007, here are their findings:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level."

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temerature (since 1850)."

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.  Discernable human influences extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns."

"Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.  Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.  New data... now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antractica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."

"More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.  Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation has contributed to changes in drought."

"The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapor."

 So, to borrow your quote, "To put to bluntly, coal is what got us to where we are now."  It has put us on a path to serious climate change that could have numerous dire consequences for us.

You are also wrong about the earth heading away from an ice age.  We are actually reaching the end of an interglacial period (a "hot" age).  We should be getting cooler as we enter an Ice Age.

By they way, the article you picked about El Nino doesn't prove that it is a driving force on climate change.  Its more like the other way around-- climate change affects the intensity of El Nino.  Keep in mind, that El Nino is a localized event compared to climate change.  Here's a link:

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/elninolanina.htm

And finally, here is some info on that hack Willie Soon and his cohorts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper

Are you happy now, Stephen?  you asked for it...

First, Craig, Wikipedia is NOT a good source for biographies. Every year thousands of users hack into bios of political, scientific and even sports personnel and put up unflattering information. So whatever on Wikipedia should only be taken from its sources. (Just for future reference Craig)

Second, you were right that ExxonMobile has funded Willie Soon. But how is that a bad thing? Just because he gets money from a corporation, don’t other scientists get their funding exclusively from governments? The point is that it doesn’t mater where the funding comes from; it’s what the papers say. Therefore I HAVE given you a peer reviewed paper (other peer-reviewed sites like what you rely on are biased the other direction, a.k.a. for human caused global warming. They may not say I, but the sheer volume of pro-CC (Climate Change) peer-reviewers are near 100%

But just to make it clear, what are the necessary qualifications for a peer-reviewed paper that denies global warming? Let me guess at the double standards here. 1, it must not be funded by special interests. 2, it must be from a site where it is completely un-biased. Obviously I’ll be having a hard time with just those two (special interests back ALL science and no website is un-biased ever, but websites can be less biased than others), so while I’m looking, I’ll be sure to try for these two goals.

And finally, about the Aesthetics, Dr. Craig (your age doesn’t show), I apologize, obviously, me being an ‘outsider’ (despite what my sisters do one a photographer and one in a music school) I only see it as unproductive and more luxurious than working hard. But, people value it, so it has a right to exist and be praised at will, even if I have my own opinions on it.

ok Robert, let me educate you for a second. It’s Steven, not 'Stephen'. It’s on my birth certificate and i take offence to the misspelling of my name.

1. Just because 1 and 2 (carbon dioxide and recent warming) seem to be going up at the same time doesn't mean they are directly related. It’s putting the cart before the horse. Sadly it took off before any other proposals could take off. Science has a history of being misrepresented and moving towards a political movement (remember the 1970's new ice age panic?). The point is that anything in science must be fully debated and researched before politics take over. Global warming is one of those science topics that were taken by politics before. Also, you can’t count the 7054 scientists who didn’t answer as automatically on the same lines, you can assume, but assumption can be wrong. Also, according to Rasmussen, the public is increasingly getting evenly slit between the idea that it’s caused by human activity (42%) and planetary trends (40%) yes the trend is going towards human activity in the past 3 months (back and forth before then). That just means that scientists should be encouraged to debate BOTH sides of the issues and not say ‘recent warming [caused by global warming] is making polar bears become stranded on sea ice in the middle of the ocean’ or something to that means. DEBATE is what sways the public, and you need 50% +1 of the house and senate to pass anything budget neutral and 60% to pass blind spending. If you want what you say you want, stop denying there’s a debate and actually debate! I’ not stopping you, in fact I’m asking you to debate me even though I know I’m at a disadvantage (50-1 of people yelling at me is a disadvantage, not to mention the hard time I have finding viable reports, as Robert has so subtly pointed out). (<- holy.. I just sounded like a one of my teachers just now… I need a vacation suddenly) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment/energy_update

2. The scientists of the IPCC have a mission to prove that humans cause global warming. There for it is a political entity, but though that doesn’t stop the science, the question behind the motives is in play, since they would not allow ANY controversial proof be published in their reports, so take the IPCC with a grain of salt. Everyone knows politics is just a game of lies and deceptions, Obama’s doing it [in various ways already, don’t ask me to debate that point, you’ll be swamped and we’ll get off topic], Bush did it, Clinton did it, and every cold-war era president did it. How do we know we can trust politics and politicians with something we care about? (You- the environment, me- scientific fact)

3. See 1. The question is not ‘is there warming’, no one says there hasn’t been warming. Living in NJ and hearing the stories of Washington crossing the Delaware River near Trenton, full of river ice, and looking at the crossing now (in December) and see only thin ice on the banks of the river. Yes there has been warming. The question is whether it is anthropogenic or nature. I believe that: since we’ve been warming since he mid-1700s (up from a little ice age), the trend (on a 20 year mini-cycle of up then flat) means hat humans aren’t he cause. If the cause were humans causing CO2 levels to rise, then we would have had a constant rate of warming. But no, we’ve had a cycle pattern. We’re already 8 years into the current flat (to slightly down) part of the cycle. Climate models say that we should be seeing a constant degree of warming, but they have been repeatedly failing. In fact NO climate model has yet to be exact on the observed temperatures. One would think with the amount of science and ‘consensus’ hat the scientists would get it correct 99% of the time, not 0%.

And lastly, scientists who don’t give opinions aren’t human. But since scientists are humans they have opinions, otherwise every paper would just be a bunch of data on 1-300 pieces of paper. Opinions is how hypothesizes are made, how science is advanced, and how the tests are generated. Scientists use their brains (often just a different form of an opinion) to create their science. Not o mention hat logic in itself ids a n opinion (sorry to go Plato on you guys, but a lie like scientists don’t have opinions gets my brain working harder).

Steven,

I believe Wikipedia is less unreliable than you state. Anyone can challenge any Wikipedia material, but not anyone can change any material. Changes in material are monitored. The debates are open and documented. The material I posted was unchallenged and documented (did you go there and look it up?). My point is that Walter Block is not a scientist, he has a biased political point of view (libertarian), and he has gotten into some questionable controversy in the past. 

I don't think you understand peer-review. Peer-reviewed publications only publish papers that have been read and approved by a panel of experts in the field. There are not that many of these publications. The only way to be sure of peer-review is the standard of the publication.

This is designed to WEED OUT opinion. Your statements about opinion and science are misleading. The scientist starts out with a hypothesis (which can come from anywhere), and tries show that the hypothesis must be true through experimentation and logic (logic is not an opinion, it is provable, by the way). Sure, scientists have opinions, but a good scientist keeps them out of the peer-reviewed research paper.

Peer-reviewed science tells us that global temperatures are not falling, they are rising. Peer-reviewed science tells us that, when all known cycles that affect temperature and CO2 levels have been compensated for, the relationship between CO2 and temperature shows a direct link that can only be explained by anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC).

Since the web site you obtained your publications from is not peer-reviewed and does not make original publication information easy to find, it is hard to say what is and what isn't peer-reviewed. After a little more research, I don't believe either of those papers is peer-reviewed (there's a slight chance that the first might be, but I do not believe that the second is - it appears to be unpublished except by the web site).

With peer-review, it doesn't matter who the paper is funded by, the panel usually doesn't even know that information, or the authors, for that matter. If it's good science, they print it. If not, it gets rejected. Period.

My only criteria are peer-review and rejecting AGCC. So far, you haven't done it.

For over 10 years, ExxonMobile has spent over $100 million to fund research that contradicts AGCC. They will help get this material published (or publish it themselves), and they don't care if it's peer-reviewed or not (it never is), because the general public doesn't understand the concept or know the difference. The scientific world generally looks down on this, but that's not why ExxonMobile is doing it - they just want to give the voting public the impression that there is a scientific debate, while in reality, there is none. Because of this, peer-review is much less biased than ExxonMobile-sponsored research, and anyone funded by ExxonMobile is highly suspect.

You have fallen for this ruse. You have allowed information directly or indirectly influenced by the largest corporation that ever existed in the known universe, with huge vested interests to oppose action againsy AGCC, to support your arguments.

Your statement "The scientists of the IPCC have a mission to prove that humans cause global warming" is false. If you want anyone to believe that, you better have documentation. The IPCC is a large, international, science-based organization that has arrived at its conclusions independently. Were politics involved? Yes, because humans are involved. But the IPCC is much more unbiased than any of your web references, and supported by more good scientists from around the world.

Craig,

For the Wikipedia reliability issue, yes, the changes are monitored, but the article could still be new and relatively unknown making it less likely to be challenged. The point is unless it’s an opinion part of the Wikipedia article, don’t take from Wikipedia, take it directly from the sources to ensure facts are correct.

Also on Walter block you alleged that he has a biased point of view. Well of course he does, anyone’s point of view is biased towards any of the following: Libertarianism, Conservatism (I myself am a combination of the two), Liberalism (which hasn’t been much liberating in the past 30 years), and Authoritarianism (by the state, for the state). Walter Block simply put out his point of view. That doesn’t disqualify him from speaking. In fact, it makes him perfectly qualified to speaking out. He’s an Austrian Economist (that means he’s a free-market type) and a senior fellow at the Ludwig Von Meisis Institute. Just because he’s different from you (like I am) and isn’t here to defend himself, don’t disqualify him so quickly.

There are problems with the Peer-review process. Because all humans have opinions, strong opinions often match up with each other on the peer-review panels, making the bias all more powerful. You can look that Allegation on your favorite quotable website, Wikipedia (as I said, opinions are true, but not always facts). But since you’re so keen on peer-reviewing, why don’t you give me a couple of sites that are peer-review publishing sites, just to make it fair.

Logic, though can be proven, is still an opinion. For example: how can you prove I even exist? Well when you pull out the logic, you can’t. The only thing one can really prove is that they themselves exist ‘I think therefore I am’. Beyond that, it is hard to prove anything else exists since it could just all be a figment of your imagination. See? I exist because you think I exist. But let’s keep philosophy out of further conversations, please.

And lastly, I have yet to see that a. Exxon is the biggest corporation out there, obviously there are larger corporations and one can even view governments as corporations in some ways. However, if you say Exxon is the biggest OIL and gas company that would be more accurate. Again, Exxon is just one source for scientific revenues, and each source has it’s own agendas and such, but that DOES NOT MEAN the scientific facts in the article are false, it does not mean that the intentions are good or bad, it’s the resulting information that matters. And because Exxon funds research, there is a debate that otherwise would not exist because at the heart, AGCC is a political movement.

Your ideas that the IPCC is an international science-based organization is wrong, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is a multi-GOVERNMENT organization, it’s even in the name! Politics IS at the heart of the movement you are so proudly part of but the idea that it is unbiased is completely false. Governments are dictated by politics, not science, and they cherry pick information. In fact there hasn’t been ONE idea that the IPCC has put forward that CC is not caused by man, but by nature. That’s not because there isn’t any, it’s because it conflicts with the goals of the IPCC. How can one quote this organization knowing that governments are behind it?

Steven,

It is very easy to look up the Walter Block Wikipedia link yourself – I did, and I followed the links, and the facts seem accurate. Do you dispute that? If you just Google Walter Block’s name, you will find controversy. The very name of the book you quoted – the complete name, that is: Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue's gallery of American society, was designed to stir controversy. Do you dispute the fact that he is controversial?

Wikipedia is what it is – sometimes it is very good. Despite your false assumptions, it is not my “favorite quotable website.”

I give Walter Block’s opinions little regard in this instance because you quoted him concerning topics that are not remotely in his area of expertise, like environmentalism, mining, and aesthetics. Block supported Ron Paul, whose attitudes about the environment I find totally political and largely ignorant of science (the League of Conservation Voters gave him a 5% rating on environmental issues – that is extremely low). Block comes from an extreme political viewpoint that assumes that the most basic rights are property rights. That's why he defends voluntary slavery, pimps, prostitutes, and etc.

But the point we are talking about is science.

Since peer-review takes extra time and care (which equals money) and uses real experts in the field, and since the results are therefore more highly valued (at least in the scientific world), peer-reviewed publications frequently do not post their articles on the web for free – you have to subscribe to the magazine or the website. Almost all university libraries and other research libraries subscribe, and materials can be reviewed at these institutions free of charge. Sometimes government research grants come with the caveat that articles must be posted on government websites. Sometimes peer-review organizations are sponsored by governments (like the IPCC), and their research is available online.

I still do not believe you understand peer-review. The whole process is designed to minimize opinion, and it is the best system yet devised to do this with scientific research. It is not perfect, but peer-review research is the reason all our advanced technology works. It is the system behind advances in medicine, forensics (DNA identification), nuclear science, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc., etc…  Have you ever questioned any of these advances, or do you find fault with peer-review only when it is perceived as making your life inconvenient, or interfering with you "rights?"

All human science requires that we trust our senses to make observations. If you want to question that requirement, then further meaningful conversation about science is impossible, because reliable observation becomes impossible. If not, then you must accept some basic assumptions, and one of those is logic.

In 2007, Exxon Mobil was valued at $500 billion. That’s half a trillion dollars. Do you know of anything bigger?

You state, “Again, Exxon is just one source for scientific revenues, and each source has it’s own agendas and such, but that DOES NOT MEAN the scientific facts in the article are false, it does not mean that the intentions are good or bad, it’s the resulting information that matters.”

Wow. The only thing that could possibly make this statement true is the peer-review process. Otherwise, Exxon Mobil just tells the scientists what results they want, Exxon Mobil pays them the money, and Exxon Mobil gets the results published. This is what Exxon Mobil has done for years. What else would make the research honest – remember, Exxon Mobil has $500 billion to lose if the world quits using carbon-based fuels. Talk about a vested interest!

I really do not think you understand peer-review.

You also say: “AGCC [anthropogenic global climate change] is a political movement.” Why? Just because you say so? AGCC is not a political movement. It is an established scientific theory supported by peer-reviewed research. Next, you’ll want to repeal the law of gravity.

Your statements about the IPCC make no sense at all. Multi-government means international, but that’s a minor point. Here is the opening paragraph of the IPCC mission statement from their website:

“The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.”

Please note, the above says “clear scientific view.” (The IPCC operates on peer-review, by the way.) It does not say "politically view." You obviously trust Exxon Mobil to fund good science, and you do not trust governments to fund good science. Most world governments are at least making an attempt to represent their citizens. Multi-national (interchangeable with international) corporations, like Exxon Mobil, do not even PRETEND to represent anyone other than their shareholders, and they exist solely to earn profits.

The IPCC statement continues:

“Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.”

According to your statements, the above just makes the IPCC’s thousands of some of the world’s best climate scientists a pack of liars. Why? Because you don’t like their science. Based on…?

It’s that big river in Africa again – it’s called DENIAL.

Craig,

No I don’t deny that Walter Block is controversial, in fact I like the fact that he is, it makes every argument more fun because of it. Being a thinker of the Austrian school of economics, he is bound to be a macro-economist that looks from above, but that’s not the point. The ‘extreme’ viewpoint is that despite what you may think of him, he’s right that property rights (mainly the right to your own body, as in free speech, freedom of religion [or no religion] and basic freedom of choice) are the fundamental human right. Of course some things must not be allowed but the basic idea is correct. Walter Block, despite your accusations, is a good thinker. Yes he’s a little extreme, but hey! You need extreme views to make sure you’re on the right path. Just like how your views are extreme (environmentally) Walter Block’s Views are extreme on the free-market side, not always conflicting but they do rub against each other.

Also, I like Ron Paul, he wants to at least audit the federal reserve, which I believe is needed to fix our economy in the long term. The past credit bubble (I think it’s a triple bubble recession, oil speculation, credit bubble and housing are the three) was caused by easy money policies by Former Fed chairman Allen Greenspan since the 1990s. and since the Federal reserve has more influence (right now) than the executive branch in the economy, we need to limit that, especially since the fed is not elected by the people but elected by banks (self-regulation does not always work if the regulation gives them free money). But for more of my thoughts on that let’s keep it off this comment board.

On my assertion of Exxon NOT being the biggest corporation, the Fortune 500 top 25 biggest companies as had Wal-Mart as the largest for the past 2 years, with ExxonMobile coming AFTER Wal-mart in 2007, in fact, the oil group’s profits have been stagnating as the price of oil and the price of refinement continue to grow (even when it hit a record net income). And this year (since earnings season is almost done) the European oil company Shell is above Exxon as the largest corporation. So in the past 3 years (from business year 2006 to 2008) Exxon has only been the second largest company, not the first.

You are right that I do not understand peer-reviewing, and you are right that Exxon does have vested interest in what studies they invest in, I’m saying what the problem with that is. The governments (in my view is always seeking more power) has vested interests in not only climate change but in healthcare reform, regulations, and other avenues of growth.

On the issue of the IPCC, what do they define climate change as? Is it AGCC? Or is it any change in climate (like the name suggests). Well, I looked and looked and haven’t found a good source yet, but for argument’s sake let’s use the first one since never once has the IPCC ever published anything that offered cause other than AGCC.

I trust both of them to fund ‘good science’ since anything published has to be good (otherwise they wouldn’t bother publishing it), however both sides cherry pick the information and never consider the opposing side, and of course i've heard sceintists (who have good points) talk about how the science is dispued and perhaps false (i haven't bothered to look further but i'm sure  can get you a transcript if you asked). All I’ve been trying to argue is that despite what you and most people who read this, there is very much a debate still going on it may be 3-1 (or by pew’s account 4-1 which I have problems with) in favor of AGCC-ers but in any account there is still debate (the have a saying where ‘we like it when we’re surrounded because hey can’t get away’). Consensus is not the reason to think that the science is sound, nor is it any way to measure whether scientists are all on one side or not, after all it’s hard to get EVERY single scientists to answer, so even if it’s statistically relevant, it’s not precise enough to actually be absolutely correct.

So far I have not debated you on what causes the climate changing but tended to dance around the issue, but if you’d start with the private messages or invite me to a forum or other place where we can debate without anyone saying that we can’t argue, I’d be happy to start to debate weather it’s AGCC or if it’s NGCC. The idea of getting sound proof taken off the comment board is kind of scarry

"ok Robert, let me educate you for a second. It’s Steven, not 'Stephen'. It’s on my birth certificate and i take offence to the misspelling of my name."

I find that sentence ironic seeing how you misspelled the word offense.

"Just because 1 and 2 (carbon dioxide and recent warming) seem to be going up at the same time doesn't mean they are directly related."

It certainly would suggest a correlation, and that is worth investigating.  Truth is, scientists know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  So CO2 contributes to the warming of the environment.  If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth's temperature would be 0 degrees F.

"Also, you can’t count the 7054 scientists who didn’t answer as automatically on the same lines, you can assume, but assumption can be wrong."

Then I guess those assumptions made by the Census Bureau are wrong to, since they basically get their figures by sampling the population.  If you want to go and personally ask all 10,000 plus scientits what they think, be my guest.  But going by the Oregon paper you gave us, the charts seem to suggest a universal agreement among scientits.

"If you want what you say you want, stop denying there’s a debate and actually debate!"

There is no debate!  At least not in the scientific community.  And, I'm sorry, but politicians don't count.  They certainly don't have any special insight into atmospheric physics or climatology.

By the way, this is off your Rasmussan report-- "A survey of American adults in May found that 75% think finding new sources of energy to reduce dependence on oil and gas is more important than requiring automakers to produce more fuel efficient cars."

The scientists of the IPCC have a mission to prove that humans cause global warming. There for it is a political entity, but though that doesn’t stop the science, the question behind the motives is in play, since they would not allow ANY controversial proof be published in their reports, so take the IPCC with a grain of salt.

Sorry... my previous comment got cut off.  Now, where was I?

"The scientists of the IPCC have a mission to prove that humans cause global warming. There for it is a political entity, but though that doesn’t stop the science, the question behind the motives is in play, since they would not allow ANY controversial proof be published in their reports, so take the IPCC with a grain of salt."

The IPCC is the authoritarian scientific panel dedicated to study on climate change.  As scientists, they have to take an objective view, to remain relevant.  So, for purposes of credibility, the IPCC sticks to information achieved from research of countless data.  As an international entity, I find it hard to believe that they have any political affiliation, whatsoever.  Politics may have something to do with being a game of lies, but the scientific community does not play politics with their research.  Rather, it is the politicians who sometimes try to subvert scientific findings.

"The question is not ‘is there warming’, no one says there hasn’t been warming."

No, there are still people who deny any climate change whatsoever.

"I believe that: since we’ve been warming since he mid-1700s (up from a little ice age), the trend (on a 20 year mini-cycle of up then flat) means hat humans aren’t he cause. If the cause were humans causing CO2 levels to rise, then we would have had a constant rate of warming. But no, we’ve had a cycle pattern. We’re already 8 years into the current flat (to slightly down) part of the cycle. Climate models say that we should be seeing a constant degree of warming, but they have been repeatedly failing. In fact NO climate model has yet to be exact on the observed temperatures. One would think with the amount of science and ‘consensus’ hat the scientists would get it correct 99% of the time, not 0%."

What models are you looking at?  Certainly not the ones I have seen, which show a definite spike starting in the 1800s.  And scientists got most of the important figures right.  Which is a good bit more than 0%.  The Little Ice Age was exactly that... little.  It wasn't a real ice age, it was more of a minor blip, compared to the very real and much more profound climate changes going on now.

"And lastly, scientists who don’t give opinions aren’t human. But since scientists are humans they have opinions, otherwise every paper would just be a bunch of data on 1-300 pieces of paper."

This statement is actually the one that got me to respond, because it really tells me that you know little about scientists and the Scientific Method.  Yes, scientists have opinions.  Their opinions do not go into their work.  Scientists are paid to be objective.  So, what scientists do is conduct experiments and do research on a particular problem to generate a hypothesis.  Once they have a hypothesis, they continue to do research and if the hypothesis holds for most of the experiments, it becomes a Theory. In the science community, a Theory is something that is almost 100% certain, or at the very least, it hasn't been disproved yet.  The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Natural Selection, the Theory of Thermodynamics, all of these things have not been disproved. 

Scientists don't speculate on anything.  A real scientist will not tell you if he's shoes are tied unless he looked first.  If he says, "well, its my opinion that my shoes are tied," then he isn't a good scientist.  Scientists, being human, will have opinions, but the only time you will ever hear them is when scientists go "off the record," which is rare.

Steven,

The concept of property rights creates most of the friction between environmentalism and capitalism. Every person I have ever talked to about this believes there are limits to property rights. Even you said: ”Of course, some things must not be allowed…” The question is, what are those limits? The problem of setting these limits globally for humanity is exactly what makes anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) so inconvenient to free enterprise, and consequently, to those who want to make a quick buck.

The amount of damage done to the earth’s ecosystems by human activity has a value (for more about this, watch “The 11th Hour”). Ecosystems clean our water, clean our air, ultimately dispose of our waste, provide us with all of our food, and provide us with aesthetic stimulation. The problem is that, particularly with AGCC, the cost of this damage is almost never figure into economic balance sheets. This is why AGCC deniers always say, “we can’t afford this!” To begin to include this cost of damage requires a major paradigm shift in modern human culture. It is simply easier to deny the existence of AGCC than it is to subtract this damage from the balance sheet. But that damage, the cause of that damage, and some idea of the potential extent of that damage, has now begun to be explained to us by science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. It has to do with physics, chemistry and biology. But it does have an economic value, and that value is almost incomprehensibly large.

Steven, I enjoy your youthful energy for debate. But I also find breathtaking the fact that you would say: “You are right that I do not understand peer-reviewing” and then proceed to make an argument about the scientific process, the complete fallacy of which rests on the fact that you do not understand the peer-review process, which is essential to the whole scientific process.

The mission statement of the IPCC states:

“The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.”

I am sure that “climate change” means all observable climate change. There are a number of climate cycles that have been observed. When these are taken into account, there is still evidence of major climate change unaccounted for by these cycles. The IPCC has arrived at the conclusion that AGCC fits the observable evidence of this unaccounted climate change. Scientists have been working on this since the 1970’s, so many of the papers that explain these other cycles are older.  You would probably need to go to a university library to obtain access to this research.

Good science is most often published (in its original form) in peer-reviewed publications. Peer-review and the debate and research stimulated by peer-review publication exists to remove all “cherry-picking” of information. The IPCC document is a peer-reviewed compilation (yet another level of “review”) of the best peer-reviewed research. The exact wording of the final report reflected some of the politics on this issue, but as to data, research, and basic findings, the process insured that there was very, very little “cherry-picking” involved.

Consensus of the best experts is a part of how science is done, and from my own personal observations, the process works quite well. I am the vice-president of a non-profit organization that funds a narrow range of scientific research. We have just recently begun to publish peer-reviewed research in our own journal. I have watched the establishment of a peer-review panel. I have sat through weeks of conferences at which peer-reviewed papers were delivered. I have watched the politics, the debates, and the debates of the debates down in the bar after dinner into the wee hours of the morning. I remain extremely impressed by this way of establishing scientific thought.

Steven, you do not understand the peer-review process. Until you understand the process, how can you hope to understand the meaning of the results? Unfortunately, this almost certainly applies to many people who are nevertheless going to express their opinions at the polling place. So the political debate continues. But the scientific debate IS OVER.

sorry Marilyn, i already checked the site, Heartland (which hosted in 2008 the first ICCC [international conference on climate change] was AFTER Exxon stopped funding heartland institute) is a reliable source for me. their science is sound and has not been debunked (probably no one even tries to pay attention to them, but still it has yet to be debunked)

Also, how are the deniers going to get funding if the government and IPCC aren't going to fund them unless they say global warming is caused by anthropogenic means? the only source available, private businesses. it isn't dirty money, dirty money is that with a political agenda.

Also, just to be on topic, i have not seen anything significant (note SIGNIFICANT) where anti-coal activists have been attacked, mostly just threatened (yes the example above was bad, but threats are just threats untill they are carried out) and just one slap/punch (it's kind of blury there). If a pro-coal activist movement walked through a town and was dispersed through violent means i'm not sure what this site would do, perhaps most would say 'they had it coming to them' or something on that line. Activism in general is going to have a bump or two in the road. it comes with the territory

Here is an interesting bit of info I've found on Heartland:

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[8] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [9]

Heartland Institute is a libertarian/conservative free market think tank.  I tend to take a very skeptical view on libertarians.  Last I checked, our current economic crisis was partly due to lack of regulations and oversight, which is a very "free market" approach.  Heartland seems to specialize in misinformations and making statements without proof.  I doubt they even have any legitimate scientists on their roster.

Thanks Marilyn, glad you stopped by.

Rather than calling people who disagree "deniers" (which is sounds very undemocratic and anti-free speech) and saying opposing points of view and people who think deifferently are not welcome,

why not let people who have different points of view post as long as they can back up what they say by peer reviewed papers and publications including references to the papers?

Hm.

Well, since a) I don't work for the government and b) there are many, all too many venues for people to discuss their fringe views on global warming, free speech will live to see another dawn no matter what the editorial policies are around here.  

Konstantin,

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

"deny implies a firm refusal to accept as true, to grant or concede, or to acknowledge the existence or claims of"

Emily is using the term "denier" in the proper English usage. So now, not only would you have us deny science, but you would have us ignore proper English usage? Are you telling us that we should change accepted definitions of words because you feel it is "undemocratic and anti-free speech?" The proper use of English words IS free speech!

You have used the term "debunk global warming" many times on posts here. The Merriam-Webster definition of debunk is:

"to expose the sham or falseness of"

Notice how the term "debunk" assumes the concepts to be debunked are already false, as opposed to the term "deny," which does not. Yet you have used the term "debunk" on this blog over and over again, and no one has tried to get you to quit using it. Why do you have such a double standard about how opposite sides of this debate should be treated? 

I think you are letting your emotions and some political concepts you have bought into for emotional reasons blind you to a very inconvenient scientific truth: anthropogenic global climate change.

It is my opinion that all the ostriches had best get their heads out of the sand on this one, and quick, or there is going to be an awful lot of ostrich rump roast to go around as the world heats up. 

Craig "denier" is a label for discrimination meant to classify and associate "global warming deniers" with "holocaust deniers".

I'm not saying that Emily or anyone here uses it that way or is aware of it but that's how I think it was meant when people started using it.

"Free speech" is a concept in popular culture and calling it anti free speech gets the point across to people better.

Regarding your question about the debate, I think the science is pretty bad on both sides and is not yet developed enough to make policy decisions on.

Noticed how fear is used to get people to accept some policy but the bills passed don't help the mitigation efforts of global warmign. they basically hand out an early Cristmas present to the fossil fuel industry. People are made to give up their rational thinking by fear mongoring and what happens is they accept a flawed bill cause they would accept anything since in their minds "it's at least something". The fossil fuel industry ends up with what they want.

Konstantin,

You are really stretching credibility here. No one has said ANYTHING (except you) about the holocaust!

How do you know "what was meant when people started using it?" Deny is the correct English word to use in this case. The definition fits. Have you gotten so sensitive that one specific use of an English word taints it forever for any other use? 

You still did not address the double standard I pointed out concerning the use of word connotations (debunk versus deny) that you hyper-sensitively hold to others but which you do not hold for yourself. Until you do, expect little sympathy from me.

You may "think the science is pretty bad" concerning anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC), but the majority of scientists don't, which is the point of this entire post. Why would a reader take your arguments over the arguments of the overwhelming majority (95%+) of the real experts (those actively researching and publishing peer-reviewed articles)?

People weren't "made" to do anything on the ACES Bill. What happened was that the dirty energy corporations, by spending over a hundred million dollars over the past ten-plus years for misinformation about AGCC, have managed to confuse the issue so much to the general public (but NOT, of course, to the scientists) that enough people did not call their federal representatives demanding a fair, or indeed, ANY kind of bill. After dirty energy saw (despite all of their efforts) that they could not prevent the ACES Bill from being passed, they invested their still considerable resources into a bill that would grossly favor them.

So what was your part in all of this? If you truly do not believe that global warming is happening, then you would be a hypocrite if you did anything other than tell your representative to vote NO on the ACES Bill, if indeed you did anything at all.

You have been on this Change.org for months arguing against action on AGCC. In an earlier Change.org debate, before the ACES Bill passed, you stated:

"This cap-n-trade bill is a gift to special interest groups that will make those well connected richer and destroy what's left of manufacturing in the US."

Well, talk about fear-mongering!

So when a bad bill is finally passed for lack of better public support, you try to blame (through "fear-mongering") those of us who have fought long and hard for real action on AGCC for a bad bill.

How cynical. How absolutely cynical. Did you really think no one would notice?

The reason that the fossil fuel industry ended up with what they wanted was because of a massive misinformation campaign that you have, unwittingly or not, been a part of.

Calm down Craig. You seem hyper emotional on this thread. If you people deny global warming you would tell them they are denying global warming. Calling them a name  like "deniers" is a label meant to berate the person.

In answer to your question "Why would a reader take your arguments over the arguments of the overwhelming majority",

I didn't ask anyone to take my argument to any point of view against global warming nor did I argue against global warming. You must have me confused with one of the people you label "deniers".

For the sake of argument, neglecting the constituents of congressmen and congresswomen, the politicians voting for a bad bill just so they can get something passed cause they fear not passing anything will do more harm in the long run cause there's no more pressure to do something. You're stuck with fossil fuel industries continuing business as usual.

If you want to see what I think is a solution everyone can agree on, whether they believe AGCC or not, then watch this video and tell me your opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

Konstantin,

You did not address many of my points, you just changed the subject to the technologies that you are, for some reason, constantly pushing.

The liquid-flouride thorium reactor runs at very high temperatures. In other discussions, you never addressed the problems associated with releasing large amounts of heat into the environment, or the amount of water required to do this.

Unless your willing to address those, you won't get me to agree on it.

No water is required. Heat is not released into the atmosphere but is used to drive a gas turbine. The energy from the heat is converted to mechanical energy and the generator converts the mechasnical energy to electrical energy. All 300 more effiecient than conventional nuclear power and lasting for millions of years.

Even if heat from nuclear power is released to the atmosphere can you show me peer-reviewed scientific papers showing/proving that it contributes to global warming?

correction: All 300 times more effiecient than conventional nuclear power and lasting for millions of years.

The heat released from nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming. The heat released from nuclear reactors does damage to aquatic ecosystems that have evolved to function at a lower heat level, and there always is some radiation leakage into the coolant. I also do not believe that a reactor that runs as hot as a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor will not need some kind of cooling system for operation - no device ever invented converts ALL of its energy to electricity. It's the problem of entropy.

Once again, I am not totally opposed to nuclear energy - I just want a clean, healthy planet, and so far, humans have done a miserable job with their energy technology. Show me the science. Show me a specific design. Let's have a fair and honest debate, without the vested interests injecting millions of dollars to skew the results in their favor. We can and must do better.

Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that the heated water from "conventional" nuclear power plants damages the aquatic ecosystems? The sun also heats up the water in those systems.

The LiFTR reactors do not require water. There are designed that way. I didn't say that "all" the heat is converted to electrical energy. They have a 50% heat efficiency using a gas turbine generator. The remaining heat can be used for other extra purposes like desalinating water.

If you really want technical information the

http://www.energyfromthorium.com site

documentation and much more info than I can understand

They also have a discussion forum at

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum

They discuss highly technical details since they are nuclear professionals, scientists, ...

One of the things about peer-review is that it makes the information in the research more valuable, because it has been checked by experts. The magazines that publish peer-reviewed articles usually want you to buy the magazine, so they usually do not post their articles for free on the internet. Governmental groups (like the IPCC) are different.

Here are some articles, but you may have to pay for access. Or you can just google "Heated water release from nuclear power plants" and search for yourself, or go to your local research library:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a773345314

http://www.begellhouse.com/journals/7dd4467e7de5b7ef,66c1f550000ceacd,7c686e534e9ce0a3.html

Here are some articles about the damage done by heated water release. They are not all peer-reviewed, but they are from what I find to be scientifically reliable sources:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/green-river-05-27-2009.html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1296225

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Brrr+...+Manatees+catch+cold-a0112411551

Good information is not always easy to come by. However, I have personally seen the damage done by heated water released from nuclear (and other types of) power plants.

Thanks. Those papers either require you to be a member or buy a copy of the paper.

I'm not dismissing your account of what you've seen but of course you well know there's a reason why it's better to see peer reviewed papers on the subject. Anectdotal descriptions might be a case for further investigations and research but they don't show or prove the cause or what's actually occuring.

I'll check google on the matter when I have time. All this is very time consuming.

Yes, good research is ALWAYS time consuming. That's why good research is so valuable, and that's why it is not to be dismissed lightly.

while the mountain top removal is in dispute, but many of you forget the obvious benefits.

1. coal despite being dirty, is an important source of energy, and we can't just flash over to solar and wind because of placement problems and of course construction.

2. And the strip mining (which is the technique of mountain top miners) actually saves lives and is more efficient than other types of mining (as in in the ground). the deep mining is quite deadly and often cause collapses that kills dozens of workers at once. Strip mining is almost completely safe and does not have dangerous side effects like deep mining has on your lungs. it is more safe but less environmentally friendly. that no one can refute. but what would you rather have, a couple of mountains crumbling (which would happen over time anyways) or hundreds of lives lost every year

1.  Since global warming is real (I know you don't accept that fact, Stephen, but since I believe its real I will go ahead and say this), coal is an energy souce we should decrease our dependency on.  And carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas, which is emmitted when you burn coal.  So that make coal, not as beneficial as one would think. 

2.  Strip mining is environmentally destructive and as for safety, how about asking the people who live near these mines how safe they feel.  By the way, mountains do crumble but it takes many, many human lifetimes for it to occur naturally. 

Renewables are the energy sources of the future.  Hell, even Pickens sees the benefits of a wind farm.