New Kid on the Blog

".... these were the same people who said we were heading into another ice age in 1979."

There were actually very few people who said we were heading into another ice age in 1979. Searches of the literature at that time proves this is the case. What bothers me most is people that make statements but don't check the evidence that supports the statement.

We've had 5 ice ages in the past blah blah blah. So what? Are you saying all climate changes are due to exactly the same factors? There just isn't any evidence to support such a statement.

Science is based on evidence, not belief.

no dman - they are not the same people.

.... these were the same people who said we were heading into another ice age in 1979. Remember the sun revolved around the earth until Copernicus

read the reports from the US National Academy of Science. You can google them. They have gone over all the data and have prepared reports in language anyone can understand. No politics.

irrelevant because it doesn't support your view?... Bottom line is that all science is built on skepticism isn't it? You are missing the forest for the trees. If you listen to the people whose hands were caught in the cookie jar it was not wanting to work with the deniers. However if their view is that indisputable why work against the opposition? It is science and supposedly a fact. Actively working to inimidate people and publications to ignore and suppress alternative hypotheses is not simply "not wanting to cooperate". You say that temperature measurement is not speculation is correct. But what are they comparing it to? We only have 125 to 150 yrs of records. What was the average mean temp of 2012, 1712, 1012, 112, 5000 yrs ago etc. Evidence exists of several heating and cooling periods over the millenia. Because their view says one thing does not mean it is law it is hypotheses and hence speculation. These were the same people saying we were heading to another ice age i

dman - the temperature measurements are not speculation and they aren't in doubt (by scientists). The fact that some of the scientists working on this didn't feel they needed to cooperate with the deniers is not the same thing as suppressing data. and no one in the field is questioning their data.

If there is a question it is whether the change is due human behavior and the evidence is pretty strong now that it is due to human behavior.

Anyhow - it would help if you got the key facts straight. All that stuff about earlier ice ages and warming spells is totally irrelevant.

Once again I must say sorry again phahn50... I never said the science is wrong. However, it is suspect when those promoting the agenda are caught trying to suppress opposing view points. If they are so correct why bother? Further more I point to the coming ice age we were warned about in 1979... I guess that's when the "hockey stick" started turning up... Last I checked temperature records have been kept for the past 125 to 150 years, beyond that everything is based on hypotheses, that is to say speculation... Could it be hotter now than in the past? Most definitely, but that being said weather has shown to go in cycles in the short term and this opens the possiblity it does it in the long term. As Blogster has pointed out there is evidence to show numerous hot periods as well as ice ages. Don't recall any fossils showing T. Rexs with tricked out Escalades. My point is that liberals use self guilt as a lure to draw in more adherents...

Going back a whole 65 years is not really very relevant. Go back 500,000 years (still just a fraction of time in reality) and you will find five ice ages and five warming trends. The previous four were all warmer than we are now. I wonder what the early mammals were burning to cause all those problems? But, whatever source a conservative comes up with there will always be a liberal to call it an "urban legend".

dman and others. I mean no disrespect, but if you look at the temperature measurements over the past hundred years, there is a big rise post world war two - the "hockey stick graph". This is not really debatable, and anyone, including you, can look at it (them really, because the temperature has been measured many times by many groups in many different ways). This does not take any special knowledge - just taking the time to look at the data objectively. But why don't you? (you collectively)

To say "That the supposed "scientists" were caught manipulating their data and actively suppressing opposing viewpoints.." is wrong - it is an urban legend in the conservative world. Again, why not look at the facts objectively?

Sorry phanh50...Just because there is an opposing viewpoint does not mean people are "anti-science". I seem to recall that a little over 30 years ago we were entering another ice age, now we're "burning up... The point is that given the fact that the loudest voice in this debate has a vested financial interest,when he produces a larger carbon foot print that all of use combined makes me wonder ... That the supposed "scientists" were caught manipulating their data and actively suppressing opposing viewpoints... If their science was so ironclad why is this necessary?... The point is, and continually ignored, that the liberal ideology claims to be "all inclusive" and embracing of all, except when those viewpoints are the opposite of theirs... then it becomes a denigration fest...

Why would anyone rail against corporations making money and not even "peep" about Al Gore making 200 million off his "The sky is falling" routine?

It got your attention, you commented on it didn`t you?

Oh great! Another caught up in the world of mimetic repetition dedicating their blog to the wisdom of the past. Just what we needed.

I hope you explain why you conservatives are anti-science. In the case of "global warming" its simple temperature measurements. Im not sure why this is a belief thing.

Mimi - Rick stated that he doesn't believe in global warming, he did not state it was a fact. The feeling I get from this, his first blog, is that he is simply giving us a general idea of what is to come. I hope he's got a thick skin because going against liberal environmentalists sometimes brings out the best in them. This should be interesting and I'm looking forward to more...

Correction...Don't make a mockery of the blog. Sorry.

BM-this is and should be a serious discussion. I would hope that your global warming stance is based on more than your dislike of Al Gore. That type of statement negates your opinion and gives liberals the ability to point out that there is no credible or informed basis for you opinion. Listen to Rick....he wrote "...... I will always try to back up my information with reputable sources.". Do make a mockery of this blog.

Couldn't agree with you more, Rick! I was born and raised in S.L. myself, now live in Camas, WA. The Constitution of the United States is sacrosanct and not subject to judicial activism, it MUST be taken at face value as written. As for global warming, if Al Gore believes it, then it de facto is a lie.......I proudly stand about three steps to the right of the Tea Party and Attila the Hun.....looking forward to seeing more here!