what a putz. No wonder they kept him locked away during the congressional side of this. Looks like cousin eddie's plate in his head is magnetized again

Nasa says that great big Ice Cube at the top of our only planet is melting, and they have pictures! Here's the cut&paste from the nasa.gov website. Or, you could stick with commentary from policy wonks whenever you decide to moan about the anti-pollution crowd...

Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0918
stephen.e.cole@nasa.gov

Alan Buis
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-354-0474
alan.buis@jpl.nasa.gov

July 7, 2009 RELEASE : 09-155 New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
WASHINGTON -- Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

Having all Obama's policies fail would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the country. At least for the next 3.5 years.

As for Assman and the other 218 traitors who voted for this turd, they need to hanged publicly and left there as a reminder to the others.

Waxman is a dead ringer for Mr. Lou-Who on How the Grnch Stole Christmas!!

3 of the 4 links come to the conclusion that AGW cannot be proven 100%, and their findings/estimates can easily be disputed. The one that does say that AGW is happening is subsidized by guess who? The U.S. Government! Liberals do get one thing right; never bite the hand that feeds you.

If you ask the MSM, all Dumbocrats are brilliant, especially their environmental guru, Al Gore, noted climatologist extraordinaire and winner of the Nobel Prize, which is awarded to the biggest anti-capitalist, anti-American know-it-all of the year.

If you ask your typical mush-brain liberal, "who is the smartest person in the world, Al Gore or Barack Obama?", it would be close, but they would have to choose Obama in the end. "Why??", you may ask. Because Al Gore is a white man from the south; not to mention Obama can read a teleprompter better than anybody (AND he looks good in a suit).

Not sure how much space I have.. but here goes.

Anyone who thinks the Earth is heating up due to Man Made Effects either is brainwashed or doesn't have the capacity to read basic Scientific Data.

It's a LIE.. The Data their using is from 20 years ago, at that time the Sun was in a cycle that produced some of the largest flares ever recorded. They had to create a new scale. Some of the Flares, if aimed at the Earth would have destroyed most if not all of our Satellites and electronics on Earth, if not worse.

The Sun has been unusually quiet, virtually no spots and the Earth is cooling. The sea levels are not lowering, the majority of the Earths glaciers are growing. Some ice is melting because there are over 4000 active volcanos under the ocean. There is one very close to an Anartica ice-sheet.. and on and one.

People need to start calling these bozos on the facts. They all want these bills to break the backs of Americans in order to control more of our lives. It is nothing more complex than that.

Axeman you are AWESOME!!!

Debate Observer, good question, but actually I think you misunderstand our point. We want a real debate on the merits or myths on global warming/climate change BEFORE any action is taken that will bankrupt us.

So far, there hasn't been any. Most of the scientists that claim it is real and we have to do something NOW are indebted to the government for their income so their motivation is suspect. The politicians claim it is real and we have all the scientists who agree, yet we keep finding more and more scientists who don't agree.

We actually want politics taken out of it. Let the scientific community get together and come to a consensus. Is it real and is there anything we can do about it.

This has not been done! Not in an environment that is free of influence.

I want answers from a consensus not orders from politicians who will benefit monetarily from this.

Back from the realms of theories and back to the reality of Rep. Waxman and the fate of his legislation now that it has entered the Senate. Rep. Waxman understands that the bill as passed by the House will be substantially different than the version passed by the Senate, assuming that it even is passed since 2010 is and election year to fill 36 of the 100 Senate seats. The following are the Senators who are running for re-election that will have to make a decision about if they can survive the additional economic impact of Cap & Trade upon their communities: Blanche Lincoln (AR), Roland Burris (IL), Evan Bayh (IN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Byron Dorgan (ND), Alen Specter (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Patty Murray (WA), Michael Bennett (CO) and Harry Reid (NV).

From your own data no less!!!

Paragraph 1 of the INTRODUCTION!!!

"A subjective estimate that climate sensitivity (defined as the globally-averaged equilibrium temperature change in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2) is likely to lie in
the range of 1.5–4.5C was originally proposed in 1979 [NAS, 1979], and this estimate has essentially remained unchallenged ever since [eg Houghton et al., 2001]. Recently, there has been an increasing focus on the potential of observationally-derived constraints to
generate a more objective estimate of climate sensitivity..."


Hmmm - let's look at the words in Copy's "evidence"...

2nd word - Subjective...
sub⋅jec⋅tive /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
Use subjective in a Sentence
–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.


3rd word - Estimate...
es⋅ti⋅mate /v. ˈɛstəˌmeɪt; n. ˈɛstəmɪt, -ˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. es-tuh-meyt; n. es-tuh-mit, -meyt] Show IPA verb, -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing, noun
Use estimate in a Sentence
–verb (used with object) 1. to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc., of; calculate approximately: to estimate the cost of a college education.
2. to form an opinion of; judge.

Now - I'm not a lawyer or anything - BUT - I would think that if you stood up in court and said, "It is my SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATE that the murder victim didn't die because I shot him, but because he bled to death!" I'm pretty sure you'd end up in the electric chair.

I also am not a PhD climatologist (like you must be) but after reading about 1 page of the introduction of:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf

(your proof)

I would have to conclude that the scientists are saying "We think ABC is happening - but we're really not sure if we're right."

Oh hey Copy - what university did you get your PhD from? Inquiring minds still want to know?

Let's suppose there really is a debate within the scientific community about whether climate change is real, and if so whether it is manmade (in reality, the right wing has had a strategy of creating the illusion of debate where in fact there is little, just like they have tried to do with evolution). But just for fun let's just pretend there is a vigorous debate the splits the scientific community close to 50-50.

OK, then, why do the vast majority of those who are politically passionate line themselves up on one side or the other? That is to say, why do conservatives tend to be "against" the existence of climate change, and liberals are "for" its existence.

As a layperson, you can pretty much understand and take sides on such issues as cultural issues (gay marriage, abortion), maybe to some extent on issues of fiscal policy and the use of military force, or a local zoning dispute. But complex matters of science? Leave that to the experts!

This is a science debate, not an ideological debate!

I see that you've again dodged and/or ignored the issue - exactly the thing same thing you accuse Neal of regularly.

Any of your arguments would hold water if the age old analogy of "pot, kettle, black" didn't apply.

You say "Conservatives have done a great job appealing to their base by positioning concern for the environment as some kind of girly/ pink/ sissy issue." Kind of like how liberals have painted people who don't belive in AGW or socialized medicine or higher taxes... They're stupid, uninformed, don't care about their fellow man, KKK loving, poor hating, bible thumping polluters who want to burn the entire world and kill everything... Sounds about like how you've painted many on this board over the past months.

Here's the problem Copy - you claim to be speaking about simple truths and claim that everybody else here is working off of emotion and misinformation, yet you offer no mathematical, statistical, scientific facts to back up anything you say. But because you heard it somewhere in the media or read it somewhere else on the www, it has to be true, so you spout it as fact. I agree completely with Joe the Drummer - a theory is an idea that looks like it has some evidence to back it up - AGW and evolution are THEORIES - not scientific facts. Until you can reproduce AGW or evolution in a lab, under controlled conditions - it is NOT a scientific fact.

BTW - I'm still waiting on your non-existent, never will come proof about AGW and a copy of your PhD in climatology from earlier today.

Ideal temperature for the earth is what the libs are trying to control. To conform the earth to mankind's liking. Even though we have only been here a very very small fraction of earth's history.

Trust me, when the earth decides it's time to ice over or boil up, there is NOTHING humans can do about it.

CHARLIE PAPA..............

damn open your eyes......it is staring you in the face........

it's bush's fault......

Science should not be politicized.

Conservatives have done a great job appealing to their base by positioning concern for the environment as some kind of girly/ pink/ sissy issue. Macho, masculine "real men" support pollution and destroying things. Kind of like how macho manly men should always support going to war, because only sissies and pinko evil liberals want peace.

Now the dimocraps are waging the "War on Capitalism" now that they have surrendered in the "War on Terror".

Gollee, I love it when libs are proven wrong. Again and again and again.

Except that he's got it backwards: WWII was the struggle of the free peoples of the world rising up to resist and eliminate expansionist totalitarian regimes.

In Al Gore's metaphor, he's on the side of the fascists, and the free people who wish to remain so must again rise up to destroy this threat.

I am, in fact, a PhD Physicist, who has a peer-reviewed publication based, in part, on analysis of environmental data from satellites. And I'll tell you, with all the authority I can muster, not only is the science *NOT* settled, much of the so-called science put forward to support AGW is BOGUS. Human-generated CO2 is a very minor contributor to the thermal balance of earth. The warming of the latter part of the 20th century and the COOLING that has occurred for much of the current decade are quite nicely explained by just a few things: solar behavior and several multi-decade oceanic thermal cycles. I would suggest that you disconnect from the liberal hive-mind and actually explore the subject for yourself.

This is from yesterday but maybe copygirl didn't get a chance to check it out. 650 scientists who disagree with this global warming crap or who state there is nothing we can do about it. That's just one list, I think there were more.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

as bn would say "haw you sum bitch"

"It's laughable, of course. But really, it's more sad. Anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact, just like evolution. Deny them all you want, but don't expect anyone with credentials to pay any attention to your ignorant raving."
Under the scientific method, a theory is just that--a theory. An overwhelming amount of evidence supports the theory of evolution, and therefore it is widely accepted (including by me), but if a data point is found that conflicts with the theory, then the theory must be modified or discarded. BTW, the theory of evolution has been so modified numerous times.
The theory of anthropogenic warming seems to me to be mostly supported by supposition and assumption. I do not have an opinion about the validity of this theory, and I probably spend more time than I should researching the data. The theory rests on two huge assumptions with little supporting data:
a) That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily due to man's activities, and
b) that the increase in CO2 is the principle cause of the warming observed over the last hundred years.

It is an interesting theory, but I can generate an equally plausible theory that the warming started first and resulted in increased natural generation of CO2 through accelerated decomposition--which btw fits the meterological and ice core data better. In any event, to declare anthropogenic warming 'a proven fact' demonstrates a profound ignorance of science. It is hysterical when those who want to test the theory are accused of being anti-science, when the GW alarmists are the ones that claim a supposed consensus (which doesn't exist) establishes a proven fact. You can't get much more anti-science than that.

Copy, I suggest you read “Climate of Extremes” by Patrick J. Michaels. He is a Phd climatologist at The University of Virginia. You may be surprised to hear he disagrees with you, and finds TOO much group think in the “Global warming/ Climate change” arena, especially if it comes from that great repository of High intellectual thought the United Nations who are looking to grab money from the West to fund their dreams. The UN’s model does not even show the variation in temperature form the “Little Ice Age”. You would spin around on your pointy little head while you smoked your joint at all of the data he provides. His data points to the fact that there is nothing normal about temperatures (it always changes). There have been discoveries of trees buried in the mud plain of northern Norway (above the arctic circle where the global warming apologists think they shouldn’t be) Solar activity, volcanic ash (say Krakatoa if you dare), sand storms and suspended pollution affect the temperatures. So as you say READ THE INFO.
Cap & tax is nuts. It’s another taxpayer funded bail out/profit enhancement device of GE (GE AES GHGS Green House Gas Services carbon credit trading company)Duke Power , Owl gores trading company ad- infinitum. It’s a transfer of cash from the taxpayers to the energy supplier then to the government. That way we can keep a pledge of not raising (income) taxes on the non-evil-rich. I can hardly wait to hear you squeal when the energy police come to inspect you’re lean to and tell you to make upgrades because it doesn’t meet code!

stop the politicians outgassing of co2........

that's a good start.....

Copyleft - you state "Anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact, just like evolution."
So, using the scientific method that we all learned about in the 5th grade (read that as "real science") scientists have created an enclosed, controlled environment and studied that environment varying only one thing - CO2 levels. And they have OBSERVED climate change based on that one variable?

Data please. I want to see the study from the funding request, through the published results.

Of course, I'm too stupid to understand because I don't have a PhD in Climatology as you seem to think I have to have based on your argument. While you're at it - please post a copy of your degree as well. Buy, even with this handicap - I'm quite sure that I would be able to read through the study and determine for myself if their methods were sound. So, just go ahead and publish the link to the study please.

Let le clarify one other thing - I don't want something done by the Sierra Club, or Al Gore - they have just as much agenda as the oil and gas CEO's that you give no credibility to, and - according to your own statements - they don't have a PhD in climatology - so their studies should only be used as toilet paper.

Please Copy - I would so dearly love to have the data from you. I'm waiting in breathless anticipation for the data that will NEVER be posted. I guess I'm stealing the joke from Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire with regard to the "run by fruiting" - I just think that you're a "drive by thinker"... You have a random thought - type it out really fast and have nothing to show but some worthless junk at the end of the day.

I'd LOVE to have Al Gore show me some research that isn't based on a computer model (which could never have a bug in the code by the way) and that is actually based on a real, working, physical model.

Come on Copy - let's have the data. Or have you left for the day already because "I showed those slack-jawed, knuckle dragging, sloping forehead idiot who has the biggest brain!" and couln't possibly back up what you're saying with real, tangible, hard evidence.

I humbly await your response that will never come.

I love it when liberals get mad- because if they can't attack you on the issues, they attack you personally. For this issue, it means people are waking up to this enviro fraud and speaking out, and libs are getting desperate.
I still have hope it will fail.

So we're supposed to use renewable Comrade Gore, and once we do you'll end your kidnapping of American liberty? Should be find something renewable like trees? You know, those things environmentalists weep over when cut down and impose all sorts of rules, regulations, and judgmental guilt trips when used? (Have you see how high ads for bamboo alternatives to wood pile it on?) Or are we supposed to use something renewable like hydroelectric, you know, that form of power generation that environmentalits hate? Perhaps we should use something environmentalists like! Something like renewable ethanol that pollutes the Gulf, starves the 3rd world, damages our trade deficit, and requires as much petroleum-based energy to produce as the ethanol provides!

Yes Neal, I've heard you say that you don't hate anyone but I do. I hate environmentalists. Those scientifically illiterate, gullible puppets won't be satisfied until they abolish liberty from the world.

If we really want to save the planet then we need to make those people extinct.

If Churchhill were alive to hear that speech he'd tell Owl Gore that he's a tard and to never speak in public again.
Then he'd smoke his big cigar and ask Gore how many carbon credits it's worth.

The climate change folks are the ones acting like Nazis. Yes, the 4th Reich may be here.

You're a real brain surgeon, aren't you!

NYC just experienced it's coolest (that's the opposite of hottest) June on record. Please explain the equivalent changes in temperature on Mars, Venus and Jupiter if man is the reason for these so-called changes....

...Then isn't it reasonable to conclude that they are committing treason and should be tried and hung?

I wish these idiots would cut the rhetoric. I am rooting against a Socialistic America too, because the Free Market America with prudent government oversight worked much better. I will always be against Socialism, because it does not work-period. That doesn't make me, or Neal, or Rush, or Conservatives Anti-American. It proves quite the opposite. We want to save America.

Climate change is always a "Red" Herring (pun intended).We pitiful humans and all of our God-like complexes cannot change the environment more than that star that fills the daytime sky above your head. Anything we do to attempt to alter the climate is equal to a fart creating a strong breeze. We are the sun's beotch.

Don't destroy my prosperity because of your God Complex Mr. Waxman. Even assuming you could make it so, a pristine Earth where I can't eek out a living is no place to live either.

Please present your PhDs in climatology, everyone--or quit claiming to know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about global warming.

Because, really... you don't. You know what you'd PREFER to believe, what you've been TOLD to believe, and what you WISH were true for purely political reasons...

But you don't know squat about the science itself. Instead, you prefer to think that the entire scientific community is part of a global-liberal conspiracy, and only the righteous talk-radio nuts and gas-company executives have the courage to speak the truth about how the climate REALLY works.

It's laughable, of course. But really, it's more sad. Anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact, just like evolution. Deny them all you want, but don't expect anyone with credentials to pay any attention to your ignorant raving.

You had your chance with an anti-science administration, and you blew it. Science isn't going to be subverted for your political agenda any more. You're out of the game. Get over it.

Man Made Global Warming is a fraud. Pure and simple. Man is not powerful enough to radically change the earth's climate.

Where was this belief when Bush was in the white house? Oh yea, when Bush was in the white house, opposing the president was patriotic.

So if Republicans (of which I am not, but you're forcing me to defend one of their own) do not support Barack Obama's agenda or policies, they are "rooting against" America...? You and your ilk sure were singing a different tune when George W. Bush was in office...

Godwin's law's a bitch, isn't it, AlGore?

Waxman is painting the Repubs as obstructionists that "want our country to fail", yet far left radicals at the Daily Kos claim the Repubs just can't say no (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/750714/-The-Party-That-Pretends-to-Say-No).

Well, which is it?

Either way, Repubs (and anyone else) voting against this atrocity should be commended for knowing BS when they see it. Like Neil, says - it has nothing to do with saving the earth, it's all about power and control.

It's a little known fact that Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon used Henry Waxman's nose for a model.