The funniest thing in that FAQ, Laura...

Just try to imagine $3 a gallon gas.

"imagine $3 a gallon gas" unpalatable indeed, bought a few of those after the hurricane.

What are you guys paying now? I got one tankfull at $1.99 a gallon, which I burned like they were going to quit making it, and then the prices went right back up! Yesterday it was 2.40 at my local Wallyworld.

"Assuming that every person emits 120 watts of heat and that it would be uncomfortable if the average temperature at the Earth's surface rose too much, the researchers declared the Earth could sustain 1.3 million billion people without overheating."

I'd be as happy as anyone to see the theory of global warming destroyed, but I don't think many people think the issue is how much heat human beings radiate from the surface of their body.

Yes, yes- the FAQ is dated by that $3 gal. gas.

But having to explain to people that cold is worse than hot is kind of funny.

Are there still Sizzlers anywhere? I haven't seen one since some wuss in Milwaukee died because of some germ he ate there...

Same here, toby. For a week immediately following the Congressional hearings the price dipped to $1.95/gallon. Since then, it has increased about $.07/week.

It is getting very annoying the excuses used for the increases. We have a hurricane, prices go up. Another hurricane, another increase in prices. Big travel season with Thanksgiving and Christmas shopping , the prices go up.

The lamest excuse, by far, is the increase is due to the head Joo having a stroke. "They" say it causes uncertainty in the Middle East.

True enough. But WTF? How does it translate into an immediate, and I mean immediate, increase at the pumps? Sharon had a stroke and the very next day, prices rose ten to fifteen cents. That is bullshit.

And what the f is going on with Sharon, anyway? Is he conscious or not? Replace him with Ben Netanyahu and move on, already.

I haven't seen one since some wuss in Milwaukee died because of some germ he ate there

Hey, I'm as crude as the next person around here, but that 'wuss' was a 3 year old little girl. Not cool, Sinner.

You bitches have totally ignored the Reagan death squads!

Sorry enviromental wacko weenies but the earth IS NOT FRAGILE

Can I make that into a bumper sticker, spurwing?

"Assuming that every person emits 120 watts of heat and that it would be uncomfortable if the average temperature at the Earth's surface rose too much, the researchers declared the Earth could sustain 1.3 million billion people without overheating."

Um... is this supposed to be a joke?

We assure you that it is not! You would be a fool to ignore us!

I just assumed it was the reporter misunderstanding something...will check into it later today and issue apology if its wildly inaccurate.

This is a riot. The "Deccan Herald" is now your paper of record? LOL And the Science and Environmental Policy Project? Pfft! In case the title isn't a give away, this is an global warming apologist site. Item 2 of thier mission statement/hypothesis even says so!
"2)to conduct a survey of scientists affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the extent of what was, even then, being touted as scientific "consensus" on global warming."

Just the way this is worded (i.e. using the word "touted" in a hypothesis is usually considered poor form) shows that these folks aren't really scientists. Do the words "peer review" mean anything to you? If they don't, STFU, you don't knbow what u are talking about.

Yep, global warming isn't a problem, just like Intelligent Design is science. Claims that there is no consensus on GW are as out to lunch as the ones that there is no consensus on evolution. Good luck with that one, hope ur kids get into Harvard, and then find a cure to cancer with ur new scientific method. ROFLMAO.

You guys are so bad at science (or, at least, understanding the basic principles of the western scientific method), I'm beginning to wonder if you are all girls.

"

Guess we should just ignore the downing polar bears then. Probably doesn't mean anything. And the increase in the number of hurricanes per year to strike the southern US. And the rising sea levels.

short-sighted: not thinking enough about how an action will affect the future:
(LOL, here's the sentence the dictionary offered for this word, I couldn't make this shit up!) "It's very short-sighted of the government not to invest in technological research."

Larry the Urbanite

Drowning polar bears=global warming

I'm in awe of your scientific mind.

Larry the Urbanite

Increased hurricane activity=man adversely affecting weather patterns.

I'm in awe of your grasp of causality.

Actually, I am a girl, and you are quite correct, not a scientist by any stretch.

But that doesn't change the fact that the climate models that are used to 'prove' global warming CAN''T PREDICT SHIT.

And that global warming and cooling periods are a natural feature of Earth, and do not require the presence of us super-powerful humans to cause them.

And that all the emissions and particulates released by human activity through all time greatly exceeded by that released by a single good sized volcanic eruption.

And that global warming theory is still so inchoate that nobody can agree from day to day if it will cause the Earth to fry, or freeze.

But other than that, yeah, clearly the Kyoto folks have the unbiased high ground of pristine science behind them.

I question the timing.

Wait, you guys are taking seriously the notion that you can "disprove" global warming by making up some massive number of human bodies and saying that only then would the heat they generate make the planet "uncomfortable"? Is this a Jack Chick cartoon?

downing polar bears then.

That was debunked in the Downing Street Polar Bear memos.

scar, check the update.

You guys caught me skimming and not reading- that number and the rationale is pretty silly-sounding, I agree.

Lauraw: Just kidding about the girl crack. Seriously, u said "And that all the emissions and particulates released by human activity through all time greatly exceeded by that released by a single good sized volcanic eruption."

Ironic u should use this example, as a "good sized volcanic eruption" is also theorized to be a potential cause of massive die-offs in the planet's history. So, maybe we're not there yet, and are getting there slower than a volcanic eruption, but are we heading there ?

I disagree with your statement that the global warming theory consensus is inchohate. You are buying the talking points again. Generally, there a) is a consensus amongst scientists that it is real, b) a consensus that it is/will cause damage and c) a consensus that it is caused by man's activities.

Generally, the folks who deny it are NOT objective scientists but front men for businesses who don't want to invest in CO2 mitigating technology. Hence my comment about "peer review". Show me a scientific journal/grroup that does peer review (where the results are reviewed and vetted by a group of collegues who have the proven grasp of the subject matter) that agrees that GW isn't an issue, then I'll pay attention. Everything else just ain't science, it's pontification

The Deccan Herald and SEPP. Wow, really going for the known, respected sources there, ain't he? Can't wait for the definitive study from the Republican Businessmen's Global Warning is a Bunch of Hooey Commission report.

Consensus = Bullshit

You may not like the source, but you can hardly fault his logic.

Lauraw:

1) Chrictons a science fiction novelist, fer chrissakes! If I want reasoned, detailed analysis of, say political events, I don't go to a political charicaturists, do I? 'nuff said.

2) Chricton also is not immune from Godwin's law. "But in another context, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends." He loses the argument by comparing the end result of one to the end result of Naziism.

3) Chricton glosses over Lomberg by saying he was peer reviewed. By 3 scientists in the field of earth studies. Oh, well, in that case.... 3 is not what I would call a representative sampling of the leading minds of a particular field of study. AND, since Lomberg's book involved several different disciplines, it should have been MORE widely peer reviewed, not less (e.g. statistical analysis would have been a good one).

4) Chricton is actually making a point for me, that public policy and science should be separate issues, and calls for the establishment of an uber-council on scientific questions that arise in public policy. I agree. Until that day, we're stuck with consensus, a flawed tool, but the only one we have. Doing nothing when he sees the headlights is how a rabbit get's run over.

5) Finally, let's say u r right, let's say it's all stuff and nonsense. Several of the scientists said, well the science may be bad (which I don't necessaril agree with, but...), but the psychology is good in response to nuclear winter. Analogously, maybe there are unforseen or unforseeable consequences to global warming, so maybe it would be a good idea to limit it. I thought the GOP was the party of the status quo? What could be bad about attempting to stop CO2 buildup?

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

I thought the GOP was the party of the status quo? What could be bad about attempting to stop CO2 buildup?

Well, the economy might well take it in the shorts, but hey! Let's reduce our CO2 emissions by 1.5% over the next 100 years anyway! It's for the children, and having a job is overrated anyway.

Hey Larry,

The very first effect of Global Warming is supposed to be rising sea levels. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, the chipped mark (highlighted in one pic) in the stone below marked mean sea level in 1841 on 'The Isle of the Dead' in Tasmania. Note 2004 'high tide' mark is below the _mean_ sea level mark. The Captain took extensive notes accounting for lunar tidal effects as well.
http://john-daly.com/photomrk.htm

We discard relevant anecdotal evidence on the one hand, and measure tree-rings from inside urban heat islands on the other. Excellent.

Al, the guy thinks a consensus on bad science trumps the truth if the psychology is 'good.'

There's no place you can go from that position.

He shut the hell up didn't he?