This video was the funniest thing I have seen in 2008.

LMAO !!! ha ahahahahaha The Polar Bear !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, hooray for GW, we’ll all be smarter!!!

Chuck.

[snip]

Reply: Attacking the moderator is not a productive use of either of our times.

In case you don’t realize it, moderation involves careful balancing of subjective decisions, some of which may disagree with, and you may even be correct at times. However, we do the best job we can ~ charles (chuck) the moderator.

Just wanted to let you know that

Science doesn’t deal in proofs. However, AGW is regarded as the explanation that is best supported by the evidence…

[snip] You jump from an unproven assumption (CO2 impacts global surface temps, no shred of CAUSAL evidence exists), to the poorly collected, statistically manipulated temperature records, which I assume are what you call “evidence”, and then tie it all together with the [snip] statement above.

Just wanted to point out that you are wrong on all counts, [snip].

And to the Global Warming alarmists, I say Mission Accomplished. This is your target audience, and you’ve convinced him [snip].

Touche…

Reply: Edited to remove harsh personal attack. It is quite possible to make one’s point without resorting to such tactics. I would remind ALL posters to remember this or posts will be deleted in their entirety. ~ charles the moderator

Animals have a very strong instinct to live. They would not give up and kill themselves just because they’re having trouble adapting to change. That is an act solely reserved for the over-indulged, socially inept, sons and daughters of hippie fruitcakes, that brought you this video.

Secondly, we are only given a passing glimpse of the reality these animals are facing. A quick flash of a small iceberg, dry tree limbs, and a dry desert plain, basically reinforcing the same simpleton imagery that is used to convey the doom and gloom message of global warming. We’re supposed to be conditioned to immediately associate these factually inaccurate outcomes of Global Warming and understand that we are seeing a world where man’s love of material things has literally scorched the earth. And apparently we are not expected to display and more intellect than the animals, and attempt to reason that any other scenario may have transpired. Just as we’re supposed to assume that animal instinct wouldn’t drive the animals to migrate and adapt. No no. We’re only supposed to assume that that happens when we’re discussing evolution vs. creation, apparently.

What’s hilarious is that the people behind such propaganda believe it will have some profound impact on people that will move them to do something about it. In reality, this is such an insult to people’s intelligence that I think it will drive people who were inclined to believe in MMGW to reconsider. Factual science after all needs no PR campaign. On the flip side, propaganda was a favorite tool of Hitler and Saddam Hussein. That and blackmail, spying and fleecing.

How long will it be before these videos start featuring guest appearances by Osama Bin Laden…?

Appreciate your sense of humor. You may have a brighter future in comedy writing than in science. Merry Christmas!

Brendan H (22:21:22) :
For example, my own attitude to Al-Gore (Blessed be His Holy Emissions) is essentially agnostic.

Your whole argument is agnostic, used in the literal sense. Etymology: from Greek agnôstos -’Without Knowledge’ .
How else could you dream so much garbage up.

No, but None Dare Call It Conspiracy is a classic of the genre and shows that fertile minds can accommodate a number of conflicting attitudes, which was my original point.

As a general comment, since this is the season of goodwill, I offer the thought that it’s a shame that the AGW debate often descends to incivility, on both sides.

With the example before us of Christmas 1914 on the Western Front, when the common soldiers on both sides laid down their arms to greet each other in no-man’s land, I urge all AGW participants to call a truce and embrace the enemy, if only for 24 hours.

So in that spirit: Happy Festivus!

Looks like some kind of religion to me.”

That’s a rather tenuous connection to global warming, and generalisations from particular cases are not necessarily valid.

On a personal note, I do not believe that AGW is a religion. For example, my own attitude to Al-Gore (Blessed be His Holy Emissions) is essentially agnostic. My reverence for His Greatness in no way influences my response to His Message, and my rational faculties are always fully engaged (May His Enemies Suffer Eternal Torment).

I grant that some AGWers take a less than critical view of His Magnificence. In fact, some abase themselves in the most abject and servile manner. However, it must be emphasised that Al-Gore (O Mighty Eco-Warrior) has never demanded that level of obeisance from his congregation.

There is no difference. (Please grant a pardon from Godwin’s Law for some actual history…) The Nazi Party was the National State Socialist Party, yet it still had lots of capitalists in it. The notion that somehow socialism and capitalism are in conflict is simply wrong. Socialism just exploits capitalism in a different manner, with more governmental control.

Most of the world economies today would be most accurately described as Lang Type Socialism. Even the U.S. where we now own the major financial institutions and shortly the auto companies as a public enterprise…

The antithesis of capitalism is communism, not socialism. Socialism loves the ability of capitalist subsets to concentrate lots of money that can then be redirected. In the end, for all three economic systems, the power elite get richer (gain control) and the masses get poorer (have less control) so in all of the systems it is both a ‘get rich’ and a ‘get poor’ scheme.

Capitalism is just better at making the pie bigger faster, but poorer at distributing it as the entrenched portion of the power elite would like (i.e. more room for creative destruction).

There is insufficient data to answer this question. Is said navel an innie or an outie? ;-)

I think you left one off your list of beneficiaries. The Big Oil Companies.

There were against the AGW thesis until two things were made clear to them. 1) It would suppress coal, their competitor. 2) Mandatory CO2 sequestration at coal fired power plants would result in somebody else paying for the massive amount of liquid CO2 they needed for enhanced oil recovery from old oil fields. (It’s a better stripping liquid than steam in many cases…)

I find it funny when AGW folks toss rocks at the evil big oil as the funder of the anti-AGW side, since they apparently have not got the memo that big oil is licking it’s chops over the prospect of massive subsidies of their CO2 oil stripping operations…

http://www.tcares.com/exproj.htm has Exxon in the first entry…

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_28/b3942043_mz011.htm

About 125 miles away, in Shute Creek, Wyo., Exxon operates a natural gas processing plant that vents tons of CO2 annually. Some of it is now arriving at Salt Creek through a new $45 million pipeline. By 2008 all of Exxon’s CO2, and then some, will be pumped down into the earth, permanently disposing of 2 million tons a year of greenhouse gas while unlocking acres of black gold for Anadarko.

Similar schemes are already working in the Southwest. “We have 1,000 miles of CO2 pipeline feeding enhanced-recovery oil wells,” says David J. Borns, manager of geotechnology research at Sandia National Laboratories. Some 25 million tons a year of CO2 have helped boost the region’s oil production by about 500,000 barrels a day.

I generally try to live by the rule “Never attribute to Malice that which adequately explained by Stupidity”… but… For the AGW fanatics to still be lampooning Exxon when it’s so clearly on their side … ;-)

Who was it said ‘Follow the money’…

Um this ought to be calculable from readily available numbers. We have public data for coal, oil, natural gas, et. al. production.

Trees, farms, cow farts, sewage output, paper in landfills, etc. are all from biological origin so can change where the carbon is in the biosphere / atmosphere, but not add to it (and IMHO ought to be ignored in any total Guilt Budget).

Has anyone done the sanity check of just taking global production of fossil fuels, assume it all gets burned to CO2, and compare the magnitude of the number to the NASA human CO2 ‘budget’? It ought to be close to the total of everything we could reasonably be “guilty” of adding to the system.

Are you suggesting I subscribe to that nonsense you posted a link to?