I have never believed in global warming but I wonder why there are still people who believe this bull crap.All around the nation we are having record low tempetures followed by record amounts of snow.Even places like New york city are getting 2-4 inches of snow.Here in Seattle we are getting snow and alot of it.We normally get 1/4" maybe once or twice a year.We have already gotten several feet and it isn't even January.It seems like it is more like global cooling to me Mr.Gore.

I also remember when I was in high school back in 1990's the scientest told us that in 10 years we could not go out in the daytime because of the hole in the O zone layer.They said we would have to wear a one of those silver suits like they have in the steel mills if we wanted to go out in the daytime.This crap will pass just like that one.

You my friend are possibly one of the stupidist people I have ever had the misfortune to read A blog from, just in case nobody told you, (dumb ass) global warming is an extreme in temperatures not just cold weather, so really bad winters as well as really bad summers is what global warming is all about.
Now if you are going to post a blog, just maybe you should know what you are talking about.

Tee Hee.

I concur.

Dude, where do you get this? It may be cold where you are...it's cold where I am right now, but in Saskatchewan, when I was a kid, it used to go to minus thirty and stay minus thirty all year...nowadays, winter is commonly not as cold. Sure there are friggin' cold days every winter everywhere. At least here, however, it can be minus thirty one day, and plus one the next.

When I was a kid, almost without fail, it would snow by late-September, often as early as September 1st. I can't remember the last time that happened. It rarely snows before November these days. This year, we had first snow in December.

It's as simple as this: Air pollution---and make no mistake about it, there is heavy air pollution---equals damage to the ozone. As the ozone thins in some places, we absorb more dangerous radiation. Why do you think there is a higher occurrence of skin cancer as opposed to a century ago?

As for the wrong scientist: attempts to predict exactly when something momentous fails are almost always failures. Your scientist was just off by a few years or decades or whatever.

poor thing...it has to be the lack of oxygen as well....
notice the change in mental capacity as the extremes become more evident....as the species squirms....


gotta love Mother Nature!

Keep drinking the cool aid people.Al gore needs your support.

What the **** is juice!?


Purple drank son.

You know someone calling me alot of names just tells me the intelligence from the poster.I can tell that debating you would be like debating a piece of concrete.As for you theory...it's called global warming not global cooling.Winters are supposed to get warmer not cooler.If you think you are smarter than me try finding me a single article that says colder winters are due to global warming.

Thomas dont be so silly.

Global warming is not just an increase in temperature; it is a conglomerate of correlated physical, ecological and social changes caused by decades of unsustainable use of the earth’s resources. This is fuelled by the dominant neo-liberal economic model of unrestrained growth, exacerbated by globalisation, which has resulted in the over exploitation of both environmental resources and people, impoverishing billions in historically the most resource-rich countries of the Third World. There are increasingly vocal demands for corporate responsibility and accountability. But those who wish to really make poverty history must address the causes at the very source: the dominant model that is responsible for both climate change and poverty.

wow that was a mouthful !! lol good job!

There's something called the Global Warming Petition Project that has 31,072 actual scientists, including 9021 PhD's (sorry, no rock stars, actors, or lawyers), who have signed this document saying that global warming is a myth. The data touted by idiots like Al Gore and others is wrong, that there is no consensus as Al Gore says, and the science is not settled as Al Gore says.


Articles for the 2008 year

So what about the weather? I know specific weather events do not make climate, even though global warming alarmists do use this to their advantage when it comes to floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados and the like (see Hoaxers Using Weather Inaccurately to Promote Cause). Let’s take a look back at some weather events from the last year. But before we do that, have a look at this Reuters article that claimed 2008 would be in the top 10 warmest years: 2008 to be in top 10 warmest years say forecasters and, conversely, an article that says just the opposite: Scientists Expect a Cooler 2008. And, by year’s end, Australia had the coldest August in 35 years, A town in South Africa had the coldest September night - ever, Denver set two record lows, Charlotte had the coldest November in 32 years and record cold hit Montana. And that’s just from the last page of my cold weather posts. How about more weather posts?

Latest Storm Gives Kansas Foot of Snow

Big Winter Storm Pummels Northeast

2007 One of Coldest Years in Decades, and yet the alarmists call it one of the warmest.

Record Snowfall in Denver on Christmas, and Denver had record cold this December. Remarkable!

New Hampshire Breaks 131 Year-Old December Snow Record. I think I’m starting to see a trend.

Snow in Florida? Would I Kid You? Weather does not equate to climate, folks.

Southern Farmers Fret As Cold Sets In But it certainly helps when the weather is freezing everywhere.

Snow Flurries Reported in Daytona Beach

California Mountains Under 5 Feet of Snow

A First! Snow Falls in Baghdad

Up To A Foot of Snow in Boston

China Issues Red Alert for Snowstorms

Jerusalem blanketed with heavy snow

January Cooler than Average

Madison Wisconsin to have Snowiest Winter on Record

Winter carnival activities canceled (too much snow!!)

Cool Summer in Sydney

Record Snow Buries Columbus

Quebec children get holiday as snow piles on roofs

Technically It’s Spring, But Huge Snowstorm Coming

It’s a record year for snowfall

March 52nd Coolest on Record

Cold Temperatures Freeze Gardening

Storm Sets More Records as Mercury Plunges to Eight Below

Idaho Extends Ski Season into May

Anchorage digs out after record snowfall

May blizzard shuts down parts of South Dakota

April Coolest in 11 Years

Memorial Day: Time for Hot Dogs, BBQ and … Snow?

One of the Coolest U.S. Springs on Record

Charlotte Hits 123 Year Low Temperature

Iowans Won’t Have Sweet Corn for Fourth (spring too cold and wet!)

Alaska Experiences Normal Summer

Chicago Experiences Coolest Decade of Summers…Since 1930

Patchy Frost Forecast for Minnesota, Wisconsin This Weekend (in August)

More Frost Warnings: Oregon and California (in August)

New Zealand Temperatures 0.2 Degrees Cooler in August

Australia Coldest August in 35 Years

August Temperatures Dip Slightly

2008 Coolest in Five Years

Durban, South Africa Experiences Coldest September Night…Ever

Ireland Experiences Coldest September in 14 Years

Wyoming in for Winter Storm - in Early Autumn

Q: Does carbon dioxide cause global warming?
A: Increases in carbon dioxide have been proven to follow temperature increases, not lead them. Even the graph presented in Al Gore’s fictional film, An Inconvenient Truth, show that temperatures spike ahead of carbon dioxide.

Q: Why isn’t the sun taken into consideration as a factor in the planet’s climate?
A: The sun should be taken into consideration. Solar Cycle 24 is off to a very slow start, resulting in almost no sunspots. The Earth has shown a dramatic cooling during this same period, which could easily be attributed to the lack of solar activity even while greenhouse gases continue to mount.

Q: If all global warming deniers are shills for big oil, aren’t scientists that find man to be the cause of global warming just shills for the government?
A: Many scientists do receive their funding from the government. Continued research that determines anthropogenic global warming allows those scientists to continue receiving their grants, and keeps them in a job.

Q: If the threat of global warming is so dire, why can the rich always buy themselves out of adhering to the “green” lifestyle rather than having to sacrifice like everyone else? A total reduction in carbon emissions, rather than a cap-and-trade system, would take care of the problem quicker.
A: The rich shouldn’t be able to buy themselves out of reducing carbon. This is a total scam to allow those with lots of available capital to make the reduction of carbon someone else’s problem.

Q: The Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than today with no carbon emissions from humans. How do you explain that?
A: It can’t be explained, at least in terms of anthropogenic origins. While the period of warmth was large enough to not be an anomaly, science just doesn’t know how global warming happened during that period of time. It certainly wasn’t at the hands of man.

Q: In light of evidence that carbon dioxide isn’t prevalent enough in our atmosphere to truly cause any harm, that the sun plays a large part in contributing to our climate and that the planet hasn’t warmed since 1998, why won’t Al Gore debate the issue instead of ducking questions?
A: Because he knows he’s wrong and global warming is nothing but a tax and power grab.

Its NOT only referring to an increase in global temperature. That is occuring in some parts of the world but not everywhere.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global warming

Of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is the most abundant, and there is good evidence linking the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the earth’s temperature.

As recorded in ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica, the temperature near the South Pole has varied by more than 20 F (9.4 C) during the last 350 000 years. There have been peaks of warmth approximately every 100 000 years. The temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration closely track each other. The same close correlation occurs between temperature and methane concentration. Note that the temperatures at any one location, especially at the poles, will tend to go up and down much more than the average temperature of the earth.

Since the 1900s, the global average temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have increased dramatically, and the two curves again closely coincide. The rapid rise in both surface temperature and carbon dioxide is one of the indications that humans are responsible for at least some of this unusual warming: the excessive use of fossil fuels, cement manufacture, chopping down forests, intensive agriculture, industrialization and massive species extinctions.

To see if the effects on climate change due to human activities can be distinguished from those naturally occurring before humans beings had substantial impact, one of the best available computer models was rerun with inputs from both natural causes such as the change in luminosity of the sun, volcanic eruptions that send lots of dust and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and slight changes in the earth’s orbit. The model with combined natural and human activities does track the warming trend in the past 100 years rather closely

However, when human activities are left out, the model failed to capture the trend in actual data showing an increase in temperature especially since the 1950s. It clearly demonstrates that human activities have contributed significantly to global warming. It also suggests, by the same token, that our species can make a difference by changing our activities.






Figure 1. Climate model fit observations only when human activities are included. Upper graph emissions from human activities included, lower graph, emissions from human activities excluded
Nature of scientific evidence

There is really nothing special about scientific evidence as opposed to any other evidence. One has to use critical judgment and good common sense to find coherence in the observations. It is like solving a murder mystery; we can piece the evidence together to get at what really happened.

Good science, in my book, is reliable knowledge of nature that enables us to live sustainably with her; it is not contrary to good common sense. The dominant science that glorifies competition, in contrast, has failed to satisfy the criteria of good science, and has failed the reality test in the word, as it has in science.

Science dispels common prejudice not common sense

Prof. Lewis Wolpert at University College London has done great damage to science by claiming science is against common sense. Science is not against common sense; it is against common prejudice. Science is systematic investigation and analysis that enables people to dispel common prejudice and restore good common sense. A lot of scepticism on climate change is linked to vested economic interests in business as usual, so we should be immediately sceptical about what the climate change sceptics say.

At a deeper level, however, it is a mistaken belief in Darwinian competition, in the ‘fittest’ growing ever bigger at the expense of all others. Richard Dawkins at Oxford University and other apologists of neo-Darwinism are flourishing at the London School of Economics, together with the mainstream neo-liberal economists, who too, believe in unsustainable growth by unfettered competition in the so-called free-market. That’s common prejudice for you. The real natural world, including most human societies, does not operate on the survival of the fittest as much as mutualism and reciprocity, and when we put that into practice, we may just be able to beat climate change

Krimsa and Thomas will be married one day.

rotflmao

Seriously though, it appears to me that it's only an excuse to proliferate your "be fruitful and multiply" crap to the tune of over 6 billion humans on earth. You have been sold a bill of goods that you can take dominion over this planet because once you die you will be going to a better place and leaving it behind. No worry about anyone else of course. Thats irrelevant to you.

I remember back in the 70's there was talk about a coming ice age. Then in the late 90's I found the National Geographic magazine that had an article about it. This planet has gone through massive envionmental changes since its beginning. And will continue to do so. Man's activities have had some impact, but I do not believe as much as claimed in the media.
Myself, I am still waiting for the Avian Flu to wipe out millions, remember 'Bird Flu'??

Yeah, you are probably right. And who really needs penguins and polar bears anyway. Screw it. Its all just a bunch of whiny, crybaby liberals mumbo jumbo scientific talk.

Massive die offs and extinctions are part of it too. This is a natural process. Otherwise we would still have wooly mammoths and dinosaurs.
Do I believe we need to change our total impact on the envionment, yes. Do I think the end of the world is in 50 yrs, no.

Im not sure who set a definite time line or date of occurance for human extinction on a massive level. Thats sounds a little wacky. I understand you are taking the middle road here yet the repercussions that humans have had on the global economy and environment are as plain as day. I was refuting the OPs post as being absolutely ridiculous.