First, this from George Monbiot, the man whose last name is said to have inspired the term:

It wasn’t meant to happen like this. The climate scientists told us that our winters would become wetter and our summers drier. So I can’t claim that these floods were caused by climate change, or are even consistent with the models.

So the British floods were not caused by Global Warming, or predicted by its models.

But not so fast….so’s your mother, says the UK Telegraph’s “Environment Editor”:

both the Bush Administration and the leaders of China and India, whose combined emissions already eclipse America’s, still appear to calculate that they have more to gain from industrial growth than they have to lose from climate change.

For the rest of us, though, this is not so much an argument about GDP as whether we get flooded out of our homes more often.

Watching these people when they’re out of power is actually entertaining. The problems start when they get the power to enact their fantasies.

Michael R. Fox Phd. on ‘warming’ realities:

The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.

The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred.

The mid 1700s were at the very depths of the Little Ice Age, which we have learned was the coldest climate over the last 5000 years. Obviously, other warming forces were at work before humans had anything to do with it.

oh man? Another nut job who WANTS to hurt mother nature and I’m sure he’s getting paid by the oil companies… I don’t care what the substance is of his words… they have to be false.
/end liberal reaction

If you are going to use statistics to lie, it helps to be able to choose the statistics to quote.

And you can handle either extreme pretty well if you have a lot of cheap energy and a technical infrastructure. Hot or cold, enough energy lets you cope. The way to get ready for either extreme is not to hamstring your energy infrastructure by finding reasons to not build more power plants, nuclear or coal fired. And that’s doubly true for the developing, or third, world where they don’t have enough of anything.

That is due to A/C and heating systems, transportation advances, computing and refrigeration advances as well as medical and environmental breakthroughs. All of which couldn’t have been accomplished without our standard of living and prosperity.

You’re probably right. Sev is definitely right when he says the human impact is minimal. i don’t doubt some degree of global warming is happening. But given that, the right questions to ask are these:

(1) Is this caused by man? (the scientific question)
(2) Is it a bad thing? (the non-scientific question)

Your average global warming alarmist will scream YES to both without giving either one much thought (hiya, Tommy, wherever you are). The real answers are (1) maybe a small amount, and (2) almost certainly no.

Almost all the Global Warming devotees argue that the warming is caused by modern conveniences that have changed our lifestyle – the SUV’s, readily available air transportation, higher energy use in our homes and offices, etc. What they do not consider is that all the technology advances that make these changes possible have added immeasurably to our standard of living.

Consider what the standard of living was like in 1907 – life expectancy, abundance of food, quality of homes, etc. Measure it by constant dollars of average income or any other way you want…conservatively, we probably have a 300% increase in the quality of life. In that same period of time, the average temperature has increased about half a degree.

Even if you assume man is 100% responsible for the 0.5 degree increase – and I don’t – is it worth it for the benefits gained?

0.5 degrees warmer in exchange for 300% better lifestyle? I’ll take that deal any day.

To bring it back to this topic, it’s the same thing with nature and climate. I do not think based on science that we are causing irreversible damage to earth. I do think we have an impact. Additionally, understanding economics, I don’t believe the leftists solutions will help matters but will actually cause more problems as I’ve said in other posts. I’m solutions oriented believe it or not so it gets extremely frustrating talking to a lefty who can’t reason or logic out a solution and must keep on bashing instead of working towards the solution.

There is a LOT being done with respect to climate change and the environment. For instance this administration has $3 billion per YEAR spent on climate change and that is more than any other nation yet all we hear from leftists and the press is negativity. The private companies and public investment into energy research in this country dwarf other countries. So much progress has been made with engine efficiencies just about doubling along with power ratings in the last 2 decades. On top of that particulates out of engines have gotten close to 0.

It is through prosperity that we are able to do so much. Putting a hurt on our economy would dampen our ability to do anything for the environment. This is a failure that Bush administration critics fail to see when they give his administration an “F” when the actual facts and results are BETTER than before he took office. They rate what they think his intentions are and they don’t even know his intentions… they are just negative.

The wrong tongue too I bet!

Had to clear it with her friends? Now there’s a rock solid individual with a firm grasp of what she wants in life. NOT!

I’ve had many-a-date with Bush haters. I actually met one who had to “clear it” with her friends that she was going out with a conservative. At one point I actually asked her, “Are you happy? Do you ever have fun? Or do you just rant about politics all the time?”

Needless to say it didn’t last very long.

I also told her I think she’s a great woman who deserves a great guy but we aren’t a good match I said. No, I’m not opposed to other view points – but I did a lot of tongue biting…

Oh yeah.

Since I’m not the sun, a cloud, wind, or rain, I cannot comment on the climate.

[How'd I do? Was I just like Tommy or what? - No I haven't started smoking Mary Jane]