I take that back. It’s not funny. It’s rather sad.

Because I can see you’re hell-bent on repeating a question and acting like it’s not been answered when it has already been answered numerous times, I’m closing this thread, because I’m simply not in the mood for your silly game-playing.

How could it be any more plain—it’s there in writing—that president Bush accepts the basic principles of man-made global warming, thinks that it’s a problem and that something should be done about it. Nobody here, not you, Severian, or anyone, has offered an explanation for this remarkable coincidence of Gore and Bush agreeing on the basic principles, when all of you are still in refusing to admit it. It’s actually kind of funny.

If I wanted a ride on a merry-go-round, I’d have gone to the state fair.

Because of this, I’m done with this conversation with you, Bob, and don’t have the slightest interest in anything else you say have to about it.

And, you know, it seems to me, given the preponderance of the scientific evidence that supports man-made GW, that a person is perfectly within reason to take that side in the debate. We may disagree about which bits of evidence, or which side in the debate, has the most credibility. But I think it really is silly and unfair to accuse people of being “cultists” when the vast majority of data and a far greater part of the scientific community are on their side.

And save the bit about how you try to view both sides of the debate openly. You’ve made it very clear what you think here of people who don’t agree with what you say on gw, whether or not you classify them as “deniers” or not is immaterial to your position.

since 1998 the global temperature has gone down — only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science — “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.”

I think that there are two separate issues here: One is answering the scientific question about the nature and extent of GW—is it really happening, are humans a major contributor, etc. The other issue is what (if anything) to do about it. The most hard-line GW skeptics reject the idea that GW is a real phenomenon, and they also argue that since it’s not a real phenomenon, then nothing needs to be done about it. I think it’s very significant, though, that the Bush administration appears to acknowledge the first part, which seems to put them at odds with a significant bloc of the skeptic crowd (most of the posters around here, for example). In making that acknowledgement, they do seem to agree with the gist of Gore’s position—i.e. that global warming is a significant threat, and that humans are unquestionably one of the causes of it. Moreover, the administration seems to be proposing that we need to do something about it, which is indicated by the statement about how America needs to be set “on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” Sure, the administration doesn’t endorse Kyoto, but I wasn’t trying to imply that they did.

So I think my question is fair. How does the president’s position differ in principle from what Gore is saying, aside from the specific part about Kyoto? Given that they both appear to agree that GW is a problem and that something needs to be done about it, why is one called a fanatic by people who find no fault with the other?

The two are not mutually exclusive Sister…

gw alarmists think if we sign on and adhere to the Kyoto treaty, that we can have a big impact on global warming, and supporters of it have criticized the admin often for not wanting anything to do with it. The President is obviously concerned about global warming, but not to the degree that the gw crowd is, so for you to try to morally equate the President’s position as anything remotely close to Gore’s, and other gw fanatics is either dishonest on your part or shows that you are extremely gullible in wanting to believe anything you think fits your world view. Which is it?

Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem. Consider the following statements by the President:

“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” – June 11, 2001

“My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation’s greenhouse gas intensity…by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” – February 14, 2002

“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil….they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” – January 23, 2007

Roy, you say that those who support the theory of man-made global warming are part of a “cult” of “fanatics.” Do you then think that the president is also part of this cult? You say that climatologists who support this theory have “violated every tenant” (did you mean tenet?) of the scientific method, and imply that they have somehow not formulated and tested any hypotheses or published in peer reviewed journals. In fact, there are hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed papers that support this theory, with many testable hypotheses. How can you seriously make such claims? Care to back up your assertions with some proof?

In their rush to preach the global warming theory, proponents have violated every tenant of this method, and worst of all, the subjective acceptance of this so called theory with out careful independent evaluation.

The fact is that the theory as we now have it has been derived from hastily programmed computer models using spurious data from satellite that can be effected by moisture, reflective surfaces, solar activity, the earths natural magnetic field etc, weather balloons subject to temperature changes aloft, air currents, humidity, and drift, and historical records that are subject to non-calibrated instruments placed in unknown locations such as shade or on the shady side of a wall. One can see the supposed accuracy of these computer models in predicting the current weather on any news channel much less trust them to accurately delineate temperature trends over decades.

Have we traded religion for a cult in trusting these environmental fanatics that pose as scientists? I am not a skeptic because I have not been presented with a properly researched hypothesis. Until then I will continue to rely on my subjective insight and say it is colder this year than last.

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity

It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.•

For what shall it Profit Algore … ?