Top Story
Fareed Zakaria: Wanted—A New Global Strategy
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Hollywood's No. 1 women: Winfrey and Jolie
 
 
expand
TECHNOLOGY | TRUE OR FALSE

Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year’s Extreme Weather

By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
July 7-14, 2008 issue

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: centerview @ 09/15/2008 2:37:20 PM

    Comment: Talk about ignoring the facts, this summer has been one of the mildest on record. True there have been several powerful storms recently, but where were they last year? No where to be found, 100 year storms? Only Katrina falls into that Catagory and there were several far more powerful in the early 1900's. Globar warming freaks and geeks have become the modern day equlivalent to the "Stop the Nukes" of the 70's. Funny if we had ignored them in the 70's and built the nuclear power plants we wouldn't be relying on fossil fuels for power as much as we are, lessening global warming. Face it, it's your fault you idiots, you bitch and moan about this problem or that problem just because you want to have something to bitch and moan about. Get a life for God's sake.

  • Posted By: bearpitt @ 09/15/2008 1:18:04 PM

    Comment: I don't argue that the earth is getting warmer, I don't agree that we are doing it.

    It was hotter than this before the last ice age so it makes sense that is will be warmer since we are still coming out of it.

    What do you thing? Ice ages just go away in a year or so?

  • Posted By: kakanczu @ 08/11/2008 9:47:30 AM

    Comment: Not intelligent. Obviously just another article where the writer is told to link global warming with, well, anything. The founder of the Weather Channel absolutely refutes the possibility of man-made global warming, and I think I'll sooner believe him than a writer who doesn't even make an attempt at being an unbias reporter. "Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year???s Extreme Weather." Now, I see "a Cause" instead of "THE Cause," yet I see no apparent attempt to mention any other possibility. Good job Begley.

  • Posted By: Galasso @ 07/14/2008 7:52:00 AM

    Comment: It is interesting that in the late 70's and early 80's these same climate genuises were predicting an return to the ice age - a global freeze. Al Gore is making a fortune off this "chicken little - the sky is falling" hysteria - while living large on the Plantation in a house that's lit up like Coney Island. One never hears any counter arguments/explanations to the new cult of global warming - but there is a book - "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" by Horner that offers some relief and counterpoint to the fascist, omnipresent rhetoric from the obsessive greens.

    • Posted By: dtbham @ 07/19/2008 2:46:09 PM

      Comment: First of all Horner has absolutely no scientific background. He is a lawyer. Secondly I could understand your rhetoric if you had interests in Oil Companies, otherwise why would you automatically dismiss all claims. What could it hurt to take a look at the effects of all the CO2 emissions. You are just a sheep who is told that everything will be fine without truly looking at it. If your little republican cronies took a crap in a bag and told you it was a delicious meal you would probably believe them. Just don't get so defensive when you hear the words global warming unless you personally are getting rich from the energy companies.

    • Posted By: Dr_Mic @ 07/16/2008 11:11:32 AM

      Comment: It is not true that in the 70's and 80's any significant fraction of climatologists were predicting imminent global cooling. This persistent meme of reality deniers has been thoroughly debunked.

  • Posted By: wowimohsobored @ 07/13/2008 8:08:11 AM

    Comment: bring on the ice age maybe the second one will kill all the liberals and green theme idiots :))

    • Posted By: dtbham @ 07/19/2008 2:47:36 PM

      Comment: intelligent.

  • Posted By: vclayson@msn.com @ 07/11/2008 4:07:12 PM

    Comment: When you, Newsweek, say it's true, inferring that it's man made, you are pandering to the liberals and also to the less complex persons amongst us. Thinking persons will realize that it's merely another day in your urgency to say something remarkable today, it has no bearing whatsoever on history or fact. You are People magazine times 2, all splash with no substance, your intent is basically to sell crap but there is also some intent to freak us out. Thunderstorms with large hail, 70 mph winds, sounds like you are describing earth's beginnings, will creatures emerge from the oceans and evolve lungs and legs? Man is a puny inhabitant of a huge universe, despite Al Gore's plasphemous entreaties the earth is its own master and while man may foul the environment, the earth will eventually cleanse itself. One or another future philosopher will refer to this period in much the same way we refer to the past, The ice age was but a
    second in earth time, that was no doubt a catastrophe to men of the time but changes and advances were wrought, who is to say there won't be similar results if the globe warms.

  • Posted By: wowimohsobored @ 07/11/2008 8:50:31 AM

    Comment: my suggestion is cut off his electricity take away his food his starbucks coffee and his worlthless million dollar home in the hills wanna cut back on wasted money quit watchin planet greens nazi shows get a real job and donate your money to some one who actually works for it , get off your ass take your lap top shove it up yer ass and grow up if it wasnt all about the money it would be worth listening to has it ever been proven?

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:57:34 PM

    Comment: People want solutions: For all the money we would spend on clean coal or nuclear energy we could develop actual solutions like the multiple renewable forms of energy. The estimated amount of coal in the US is about 250 years. That number was tallied before anyone ever mentioned using coal reserves for gasoline. We use coal mainly for electricity. The use of coal for gasoline would drive up the cost of coal and possible cut the supply for electric use by half. This is not a solution. Instead it is creating a slow moving blood clot that will eventually reach the brain and end in stroke. Nuclear power is not any better. It is another non-renewable energy. Uranium supplies are estimated at around 150 years. The cost will continue to rise just as with coal or oil. Therefore nuclear is not a real solution either. You might ask, ???What are the solutions,??? there have been so many renewable sources of energy. Many are very creative. Like the use of Ocean currents, Ocean wave movement, Tidal movement, Wind, Solar, Biochemical technology and other Biological Engineering concepts show promise or are already in development and production. That is where our money should go. But the real solutions free individuals from being attached to large energy companies. Oh, that is just awful, for them, but liberating for us. Imagine a source of energy that will never go up in price due to the fact that it is renewable. I already have, can you?

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:56:52 PM

    Comment: Cont: If the plankton blooms decline due to pollution and warming oceans a Precambrian Extinction event will acquire. Global Warming is heightened by our reduction of old growth forest CO2 absorption. Even the amount of Oxygen is directly affected by our actions. The increases of Ocean Dead Zones have decreased the ocean???s plant growth, which is responsible for 75 percent of the Earth???s Oxygen. We have a direct effect and relationship with the biosphere and its health or collapse. There is not an eco-system that has not been damaged, depleted, or ill affected by human contact. Global warming is the totality of all our actions upon all the eco-systems that are responsible for the stability of our climate, food supply, and the protection of the sustainability of life on earth. If the Biosphere collapses due to eco-system pollution and degradation, we may become extinct. But the earth will regenerate over millions of years, without us. Steven Hawking, the renowned physics guru has stated that the, ???Worst case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temp. of 250 deg. centigrade and raining sulfuric acid.??? That is, if we continue to destroy the biosphere, thus ourselves. The Earth???s biosphere and the health of our environment controls the weather with a little help from the Sun. When we destroy the eco-systems of the planet we destroy the stability of life and the weather patterns. All our actions via consumption add CO2 and other gases to the atmosphere, but it is all the other factors that are part of consumption that magnify our Green House gas pollution. Global Warming is Carbon pollution plus Eco-System Collapse. GW=C+ESC, Our extinction is when Ignorance and Denial are added to the equation.

    • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/09/2008 9:16:44 PM

      Comment: My suggestion for reducing global warming? How about this guy shuts off his computer for a few days?

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:56:21 PM

    Comment: Every time we purchase a product we generate waste, depletion of the source material, or an alteration to the eco-system and biosphere. For every tuck load of finished product 32 truckloads of waste are generated (Ray Anderson, Interface Inc.). We never directly witness what it takes to create the products we buy. Consumption equals waste, plus depletion of all resource, multiplied by cost of externalities plus direct cost of products.
    C=W+DR (E+P) we only experience the C in the equation, the consumption. Our addiction to easy access products and our search for a fulfillment of all our emptiness or greed, with material items fuels our addiction to oil and energy. The energy required to make, transport, buy, and use these products is why we are trapped in a system of growth beyond the means that this planet can support via fossil fuels or ancient energy. The creation of a product creates more waste or pollution than does the product itself. Your key chain is responsible for pollution, the depletion of resources, any effect upon eco-systems and biosphere before it ever secured a single key. It is responsible for chemical pollution in the water, air, and soil due to the production process. It takes coal, petroleum, chemicals, and material resources to create the key chain. We have cut most of our old growth forest, turned large swaths of rain forest into unproductive potential desert. Desertification is on the rise especially in Africa and China. A single tree can absorb approximately 57,000 gallons from a large rainfall reducing flooding and soil degradation. Yet, still we cut and clear away our flood and desert prevention protection. We have over fished and depleted our fish stocks by as much as 90% around the entire globe (National Geographic Mag., April 2007) What fish are left to catch are not worth eating due to the levels of chemicals and a variety of heavy metal pollution. If we loose our ocean???s ability to sustain life, we loose life on the land.

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:55:23 PM

    Comment: Cont: They also claim that there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion about climate history. This is a half-truth as well. We have Ice-Core samples that go back approximately 600,000 years, Geologic layers that go back multiple millions or billions of years, tree rings that reach as far as 8,000 years, and decades of satellite data. That is a lot of evidence. It is testable evidence; rather than the conjecture put forth by paid pundits, many of whom, are scientists outside of their field of expertise. When all else fails they like to conjecture that humans could not have a major effect upon the environment. This is not a half-truth; it is a lie. Why do we have an EPA? Why do we have to remove lead paint to protect our children? Would you feed your child fish from known polluted waters? Have we cut down 70 too 80 percent of old growth forest? Unfortunately, yes we have. Have we depleted fish stocks by 75 percent or more? Yes. Have we hunted Buffalo and large predators to near extinction? Yes. Have we altered the face of the Earth with major cities and sprawling suburbs? Yes. Was Chernobyl a direct effect upon the Environment? I would hope logic would bring you to the answer to that.

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:54:59 PM

    Comment: Some of the opponents of Global Warming like to argue that humans have no significant effect upon the environment especially the weather. They use the argument that Global Warming is influenced by CO2 from Volcanic Activity, Solar Cycles, and other unnamed natural cycles. Volcanoes do add CO2 to the atmosphere. Unfortunately this is a half-truth. Volcanoes add much more Particulate Mater into all the levels of the Atmosphere, which block Sun light from reaching the Earth???s surface. This Particulate Mater is a counter to Global Warming, yet it has not stopped or placed a significant dent in the advancement of Global Warming over the past 50 years. Thus Volcanoes may add CO2, but they do not add to warming, they actually add to cooling. The other excuse industry scientists argue is that Global Warming is only the logical result of natural cycles such as Solar Cycles. They point to Solar Cycles as the reason for our decades of Green House Warming. The Sun does play a part in our weather, true. But Solar Cycles are only 22 year sections of time split in two 11 year high and low periods. This does not account for the continual Global Temperature rise over multiple decades. They like to point to CO2 levels on other planets as proof that Global Warming is entirely a natural occurrence. This is a joke due to the fact that these fluctuations are minuscule in comparison to the CO2 levels on earth. They also point to prehistoric examples of Climate Change as proof of Natural Cycles. OK, there are long term, slow, or hundred thousand, even million year changes that have occurred, true. But the past 100 years of modern history does not match those stalwart cycles. Many of the past natural cycles were the result of Comet, Meteor, or Mega Volcano events, and the dissipation or correction of such events. We are experiencing quick or rapid Climate Change that is not the result of traditional long-term cycles or catastrophic events.

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:50:14 PM

    Comment: Global Warming is a real threat. But the greatest threat is Global Ignorance. We are witnessing the effect upon the comities markets outside of energy. Food prices will only continue to rise as drought, shifting climate regions and flooding increase. Oil has peaked even with any new drilling. Thus the price of energy will only continue to rise. The combination of these two factors will stifle consumer spending, drive stock markets down, and increase geo-political conflicts. We will see a perfect storm brew before our eyes, while many of us keep our head in polluted sand. We are affecting our environment much more than Global Warming; we are damaging the very Eco-Systems or Biosphere that supports all the Planet???s economies. As damage increases we will suffer from Eco-Inflation. If we do not remove our collective head from the sand of ignorance there will be a Global collapse of not only our economies, but as well our Biosphere. Life will go on with or without us. I am fearful that the trend will be without. With other factors like lack of education, exploding populations, exponential demand, increase land use, depletion of resources, Eco-system collapse, growing debt, rising inflation, Global Warming and increasing conflicts, the future is grim at best. Is this the future we wish for our children? Why do we as a civilization only seem to live in our own sheltered moments? We must think not 100 years down the road; rather we must think 500 to 1000 years down the road. Yet many of the proposals for dealing with the economy and energy are short term, live in the now mentalities. How about solutions like funding independent solar power for all American homes? How about funding research into Nano-particles, which generate electricity for house paint or car paint? Why not fund Bio-Chemical technology that would generate microbes that could generate photovoltaic or photosynthesized forms of energy? Why not? I feel that there are some who have a lot to loose if I can power my own house with out relying upon an Electric Company. What if you could plug your car into your house that ran on your own private solar technology? What if you could heat your home with out dependence on any outside source? What if the ultimate privatization of energy is not the privatization corporations would like individuals to have? What if Energy Liberty is the next Declaration of Independence, which must be signed by we the people? The answers are all around us, but they are not the answers many are trying to sell us.

  • Posted By: jordan c. fan @ 07/09/2008 3:00:22 PM

    Comment: Our environmental problems, climatic changes and global warming will endanger many wildlife species. Ironically, to saving those species we must destroy and some other the domesticated species we currently have in abundance -- our pets. Except those who are acting, guiding the blinds, guarding, termites and police detection, herding, hunting, catching rodents or other benefitial tasks. Pets, especially dogs in excess have contributed to some of our most serious environmental problems. Todays their wastes especially feces are piling up at our landfills even if they flushed into th toilet will create extra burden for water treatment plants. Waste before being disposed of are stinking up our air and atmosphere. Some of those gaseous waste such as mathane, CO and CO2 are greenhouse gases which will create global warming and climatic changes. Pet droppings on our roads have created driving harzards and polluting our water sheds. Those droppings will also spread diseases such bird flu or other diseases. Road kills may result in Mad Cow Diseases or making street unpleasant for walking. Pets will bite men sometime resulted in rabies. Regardless of whether there are bites, attacks by dogs will create traumas which will require medical or psychological treatment especially to small children. Again, they will deterred pedestrain from travelling on the road in favor of driving which will cause pollution and consumption of gasoline. Pet hit by cars will result in collison damages requiring more resources to build or repair new cars. Harvesting from natural and domesticated food supplies to feed our pet will creat food shortage for men and wildlife. Again, pollution will be their results. Agricultural supplies for pets will resulting in clearing of wilderness for plantation land. Pet at home usually require more space and more resouces to build bigger house. Wandering cat and dogs will kill wildlife. I hope many of you will find my discussion make sense.

    • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/09/2008 6:33:08 PM

      Comment: Don't forget they shed all over the couch. I hate that.

  • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/08/2008 4:49:52 PM

    Comment: This is my early show. I do my more cerebral stuff in my late set.

  • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/08/2008 4:48:59 PM

    Comment: Including Al, Tipper Gore has three boobs.

  • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/08/2008 4:46:30 PM

    Comment: I wish global warming wasn't the nonsense that most of us know that it is. I live a few blocks from the beach. If Al Gore were right, which of course he is not because he is insane, I would have beach front property in a few year. Al Gore is a boob.

  • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/08/2008 4:43:11 PM

    Comment: The fact is, global warming is a bunch of nonsense.

    Dave Floridave, Weather Watcher

  • Posted By: Floridave @ 07/08/2008 4:40:51 PM

    Comment: Global warming is to weather what evolution is to genetics.... a fun little guesstimation of the truth that will be around until a better one comes along. Of all the contributions to greenhouse gases, humans are responsible for about 2%. So if we can curb a miraculous 50% of our damage, we are only fixing 1% of the problem.
    How can anyone think we can afford to let these liberals think for us? Al Gore is a boob.

  • Posted By: Don B @ 07/08/2008 12:07:27 PM

    Comment: The 1993 flooding was after the cooling caused by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. This year's flooding followed a sharp decline in temperatures globally. Graph #4 on the attached shows the satellite measurements of temperatures for the last 30 years or so.

    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003237.html

  • Posted By: wowimohsobored @ 07/07/2008 9:59:26 PM

    Comment: tell me has global warming been proven ? i cant say that ive ever heard it to be proven yet , the great myth of the 21st century brought together bye the government to run our lives a little bit more whats next are they going to tax us for the air we breathe ? if the green house gases are so bad why hasnt it came about 1000 years ago ? or are we just producing so many now its irrelevant to whats happened days past . if all the people who say suvs are so bad want them taken off the road take away there car if they says power plants are bad take away electricity if they say food is bad from genetic improvements take away the super market if they say air is bad smother there asses and get it over with......

  • Posted By: cferns1530 @ 07/07/2008 2:28:56 AM

    Comment: Global warming or not, sometimes nature entertains us with her own reality shows, while were too busy with the made up ones. I do feel for the loss of people but you really cant blame nature. She just has the flu , be it coughing, wheezing,fever or plain runny nose.

  • Posted By: The_epoch_point @ 07/05/2008 10:17:05 PM

    Comment: Wisconsin's unique landmarks once again find themselves in the pages of the latest novel to be presented to readers of history, thrillers and religion in a work that combines all three genres into an adventurous global conspiracy.

    The Epoch Point, just released on May 1 and written by Wisconsin native Spencer Zimmerman, is a fictional novel that includes historical facts, certain to intrigue history buffs who are interested in history from the local to the international level, especially as that history thrillingly plays out into what Zimmerman describes as a worldwide "conflict between God and the devil, good and evil."

    According to the book's synopsis, the lead character, Robert Davis, is "a young Airman fresh out of Air Force basic training," reflective of Zimmerman's own recent service in the Air Force. "After being held captive in China, (Davis) suddenly finds himself unraveling the most immense conspiracy in history...soon uncovering hidden facts suggesting Russian and Iraqi involvement...discovering the diary of Lee Harvey Oswald...As the clues surface, an evil emerges powerful enough to rewrite the entire history of humanity...before long the conspiracy takes on a supernatural form, marked by [natural disasters] and the wrath of God...Nothing [prepares] (Davis) for the final suspenseful twist the story takes, a da Vinci style revelation that reaffirms his belief in Christ."

    Zimmerman, having lived in several locations around Wisconsin, including near Lake Mills and Watertown, incorporated Wisconsin locations and history into his novel, among them a Viking cathedral on Washington Island and the events surrounding Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Also mentioned is a small village outside of Burlington, Wisconsin, founded by a Mormon religious leader who proclaimed himself king, the only monarchy to ever occur in the forty-eight continental states in American history. Among the other Wisconsin landmarks in The Epoch Point, and most notably, the famous national landmark Aztalan is discussed at length.

  • Posted By: The_epoch_point @ 07/05/2008 10:16:53 PM

    Comment: Zimmerman's discussion of Aztalan in his book in part follows what Zimmerman calls the "darker" side of Aztalan, including its cannibalism and religious practices, and the instantaneous disappearance of its thriving population. Zimmerman's writing also seeks to make connections between Aztalan's existence with that of the Minoan civilization from Ancient Greece and Zoroastrian culture of the Middle East. All three peoples had similar beliefs, worshipped fire (one of Aztalan's mounds is believed to have been the abode of an "eternal" flame) and practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism.

    Zimmerman noted all of these "obscure (historical) connections," which ultimately inspired him to take the connections and formulate them into an adventurous plot. Writing his book took roughly two years.

    The book's chapters are titled after the sixty-six books of the Bible, and the plot progresses as Davis reads through each chapter of the Bible, opening the Bible for the first time in chapter one of The Epoch Point. Each chapter follows a "flashback" style in structure, in which the book's characters experience revelations of historical events and experiences from 4000 B.C. to the present, which allow them to observe how those events contributed to the global conspiracy they are presently confronting. Zimmerman states that the book's events begin on New Year's Eve of 2000, and end on Christmas of 2006.

    While writing novels remains at present a hobby for Zimmerman, he already has ideas for a second novel that he anticipates will follow a more scientific fiction path. The Epoch Point is currently available through Amazon.com, and Zimmerman is hoping to get copies of the book into some of Lake Mills's downtown novelty shops.
    -Emily Ann Paape "The Lake Mills Leader"

  • Posted By: Galasso @ 07/05/2008 9:35:43 AM

    Comment: We need to clean up the environment but how do you control the escalating pollution in China, India, and Africa?

    What happened to the Global Freezing scare in the 1970's and 80's when these same "scientists" were telling the world that we were all going to be encrusted in ice. I think this is all about creating a panic that puts more money in Al Gore's pockets. There is no better way to establish government dominance than legislation through the hysterics of enviromentalism.

    --The earth has often been hotter than it is now.

    --Only a tiny portion of greenhouse gases are man-made.

    --Most of Antartica is getting colder.

    --The media only recently abandoned the "global cooling scare".

    --"Global warming" has not made hurrucanes worse.

    RE: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global warming and Enviromentalism" by Christopher C. Horner, Regnery publishing, Washington, DC.

  • Posted By: FOREMAN2 @ 07/05/2008 1:09:27 AM

    Comment: EXCELLENT OBSERVATIONS MR. TREADGOLD! Thank you.

  • Posted By: FOREMAN2 @ 07/05/2008 1:07:35 AM

    Comment: EXCELLENT!

  • Posted By: Richard Treadgold @ 07/04/2008 5:17:57 PM

    Comment: "This pretense has worn thin." With this comment you signal your abandonment of science. Your commentary could only be saved by following that with a factual reference. Unfortunately, it is not provided. The facts are that there has been no increase in either frequency or strength of hurricanes during or since the 20th century, nor an increase in droughts. When you say "it's been easier to connect global warming to rising temperatures" how do we avoid astonishment???for what else is global warming but rising temperatures?

    You mention "attribution studies"; graphs from climate models show that the distinctive, tropical, lower atmospheric warming predicted for anthropogenic forcing has not occurred, which means greenhouse gases are definitely off the hook. You assert global warming has shifted the jet stream without saying how; it would be interesting to hear your explanation of that. It is not true that higher temperatures will lead to stronger storms; the opposite is true, since wind speed is a function of the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which reduces with warming, since the poles warm faster.

    You claim sea temperatures are rising; the fact is they have fallen slightly since 2001.

    Finally, the dire predictions you repeat here are based solely on computer models which remain unverified. They are guesses, not evidence of any kind.

    Your article conspires with similar alarmist burblings to drive us, in contradiction of good science, to our ruin.

    Richard Treadgold, Convenor, Climate Conversation Group.

  • Posted By: Richard Treadgold @ 07/04/2008 5:12:19 PM

    Comment: "This pretense has worn thin." With this comment you signal your abandonment of science. Your commentary could only be saved by following that with a factual reference. Unfortunately, it is not provided. The facts are that there has been no increase in either frequency or strength of hurricanes during or since the 20th century, nor an increase in droughts. When you say "it's been easier to connect global warming to rising temperatures" how do we avoid astonishment???for what else is global warming but rising temperatures?

    You mention "attribution studies"; graphs from climate models show that the distinctive tropical, lower atmospheric warming predicted for anthropogenic forcing has not occurred, so greenhouse gases are definitely off the hook. You assert global warming has shifted the jetstream without saying how; it would be interesting to hear your explanation of that. It is not true that higher temperatures will lead to stronger storms; the opposite is true, since wind speed is a function of the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which reduces with warming, since the poles warm faster.

    You claim sea temperatures are rising; the facts are they have fallen slightly since 2001.

    Finally, the dire predictions you repeat here are based solely on computer models which remain unverified. They are guesses, not evidence.

    Richard Treadgold, Convenor, Climate Conversation Group.

  • Posted By: Karenn1 @ 07/04/2008 10:04:32 AM

    Comment: Yeah,blame global warming on man. The cause is ice caps are melting,duh.

  • Posted By: Vlad Patryshev @ 07/04/2008 3:14:39 AM

    Comment: So, seems like the science can explain all kinds of bad weather with global warming. Can they predict something? That's what science is for. I remember Gore was predicting more Katrinas coming in 2006, 2007, 2008... what happened?

  • Posted By: Vlad Patryshev @ 07/04/2008 3:14:13 AM

    Comment: So, seems like the science can explain all kinds of bad weather with global warming. Can they predict something? That's what science is for. I remember Gore was predicting more Katrinas coming in 2006, 2007, 2008... what happened?

  • Posted By: Vlad Patryshev @ 07/04/2008 3:12:48 AM

    Comment: So, hmm, since you know the causes of events - can you predict something? Like Gore has been predicting Katrina-like hurricanes for a couple of years now... can you?

  • Posted By: Vlad Patryshev @ 07/04/2008 3:12:13 AM

    Comment: So, hmm, since you know the causes of events - can you predict something? Like Gore has been predicting Katrina-like hurricanes for a couple of years now... can you?

  • Posted By: burbank @ 07/04/2008 1:48:29 AM

    Comment: To: Isis Skye
    Fm: burbank
    Madam, here is the information you requested: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-o1.html

    This is proably one of the most comprehensive essays refuting the myth of global warming I have found. It should explain things quite nicely for you. Good luck with your research.

  • Posted By: valhalla phil @ 07/03/2008 6:33:30 PM

    Comment: I am so happy that most here are skeptical of the left wing propaganda. You hear so many lies on the leftist news programs that it sometimes get discouraged that everyone has drunk the Cool Aid. If you want real doom and gloom, consider that the liberals now concrol congress, most colleges, most high schools, most grade schools most courts and may, this January, control the white house as well. I actually had a liberal friend of mine tell me that McCain should lie more. That speaks volumes about the typical liberal mind set.

    Don't get me wrong, there are liberal true believers that walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They have been duped by their leaders since they march in lock step with the party line. But the upper eschelons know the real truth. Why else would A Gore pollute like a mad man? Why else would all these 'do gooders' fly around in private jefs, injecting CO2 directly into the jet stream? The republicans could so easily slam dunk this but appears that most, if not all have a yellow streak a mile wide down their backs. It's so nonsensical that a conservative like Ron Reagan said exactly what he was going to do, was quite open about it and ended up being one of the most successful and beloved presidents of our time yet most republicans, instead of learning from that, don't want to rock the boat and lean on polls that are almost always skewed to the left. At least McCain was smart enough to make a hard right. Whether he is sincere or not is another story.

    i predict that if Obama wins, they will enact some draconian green policy to redistribute wealth, then declare the problem solved by briing out the real facts about the environment that they should be quoting now. Of course if they did that, they'd risk loosing the base that they so artfully duped.

  • Posted By: FOREMAN2 @ 07/03/2008 6:31:30 PM

    Comment: 2008 HEADLINES:
    Aspen opens for late spring skiing;6-11-08
    Hikers caught in SUMMER SNOWSTORM on Washington's Rainier(6-10-08)
    Driessen: Climate-change politics about power;by PAUL DRIESSEN;5-6-08
    West's snowy winter eases drought;4-23-08
    Plentiful snowfall prompts ski centers to extend season;ASPEN;3-30-08
    3-22-08;CHICAGO SNOW;HAPPY EASTER
    GLOBAL WARMING: FEAR MONGERING AT BEST.;by Tim Ball;3-3-08
    Record-setting system buries Columbus, then hits areas east;3-9-08
    Blizzard warning in Ohio; foot of snow in Arkansas;3-8-08
    Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back;2-19-08
    Icy storm hinders travel:2008;
    Bitter cold spreads into Northeast;2008;
    Snowstorm grounds flights, snarls traffic;2-7-2008;
    China battles 'coldest winter in 100 years'(2008);
    Winter blast for the South(1-19-08);
    Winter storms on both sides of country make for miserable travel(2008);
    Central U.S. gets deadly winter wallop; Texas;1-31-08;
    Freeze ices Midwest, Northeast:West;Fourth storm approaches;1-30-08;
    Calif. is straining under nearly a week of snow and rain;Jan. 26, 2008;
    Climate change and hurricanes stir debate among weather experts at meeting in New Orleans;JAN.2008;
    Freeze after snow in South, Gulf Coast[1-20-08];
    New England gets still more snow;Jan. 14, 2008;Commuting nightmare in N.H., around Boston; hundreds of schools closed:
    California braces for powerful storm; 85-mph winds and heavy snow;
    Heavy snow blasts eastern Europe;Jan. 3, 2008;Bitterly cold winter storm;
    Global Warming Hysteria;BY Walter E. Williams;9-27-07;

    ....and if there is still any doubt;
    http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html

    Yes, the debate is over:
    Naturally occurring Climate Change=26+ (and still counting);
    The Man-made Global warming/Climate change Pseudo-science of Al Gore and his minions=0 (he does get a technical ???1??? for his movie and propaganda machine);

    Ms.Begley must have bought a set of the ???Emperor???s New Clothes??? from Mr. Gore.

    • Posted By: valhalla phil @ 07/03/2008 6:43:49 PM

      Comment: You hit the nail on the head. I moved up to Washington from California for a more moderate climate. But now that we are up here the weather has gotten colder every year! There are so many stories of harsh cold it's amazing that no one has connected the dots and raised questions about the propaganda being spewed over the networks, and other new outlets. I wonder how long it will take before a scientific 'tipping point' is reached and reason returns to the debate. WIth the propaganda machine in full gear, it may be a long time. What gives me hope is all the people here who, despite the lies, still aren;'t buying it.

      • Posted By: Objectivisor @ 07/03/2008 9:30:00 PM

        Comment: An El Nino / La Nina cycle oscilates back and forth every 3-5 years. Currently we are in a La Nina, which has the effect of pushing the jet stream further south. What makes this La Nina different is that it is the most intense in recorded history. This results in colder winters in the north and warmer summers in the south. Record flooding was inevitable and predicted months ago.

        The question is: Why are we experiencing the most intense La Nina in recorded history?

        This is why the term "Global Warming" is confusing for poorly educted people. "Climate Change" is more appropriate. The planet is not heating up evenly and consistantly; but rather, the retained heat is wildly disrupting regular weather patterns.

        • Posted By: FOREMAN2 @ 07/08/2008 6:27:26 PM

          Comment: It appears, Objectivisior, that you also have bought a set of the Emporer,s New Clothes from Mr. Gore. It also appears that you have included yourself as one of the POORLY EDUCATED people, being as the La Nina pushes the jet stream farther north, not south which accounts for the colder weather, and severe storms up north. Also, La Niña is defined as COOLER than normal sea-surface temperatures, not hotter, in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that impact global weather patterns. La Niña conditions recur every few years and can persist for as long as two years. Are those clothes feeling a little DRAFTY about now?

  • Posted By: FOREMAN2 @ 07/03/2008 6:24:28 PM

    Comment: 2008 HEADLINES:
    Aspen opens for late spring skiing;6-11-08
    Hikers caught in SUMMER SNOWSTORM on Washington's Rainier(6-10-08)
    Driessen: Climate-change politics about power;by PAUL DRIESSEN;5-6-08
    West's snowy winter eases drought;4-23-08
    Plentiful snowfall prompts ski centers to extend season;ASPEN;3-30-08
    3-22-08;CHICAGO SNOW;HAPPY EASTER
    GLOBAL WARMING: FEAR MONGERING AT BEST.;by Tim Ball;3-3-08
    Record-setting system buries Columbus, then hits areas east;3-9-08
    Blizzard warning in Ohio; foot of snow in Arkansas;3-8-08
    Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back;2-19-08
    Icy storm hinders travel:2008;
    Bitter cold spreads into Northeast;2008;
    Snowstorm grounds flights, snarls traffic;2-7-2008;
    China battles 'coldest winter in 100 years'(2008);
    Winter blast for the South(1-19-08);
    Winter storms on both sides of country make for miserable travel(2008);
    Central U.S. gets deadly winter wallop; Texas;1-31-08;
    Freeze ices Midwest, Northeast:West;Fourth storm approaches;1-30-08;
    Calif. is straining under nearly a week of snow and rain;Jan. 26, 2008;
    Climate change and hurricanes stir debate among weather experts at meeting in New Orleans;JAN.2008;
    Freeze after snow in South, Gulf Coast[1-20-08];
    New England gets still more snow;Jan. 14, 2008;Commuting nightmare in N.H., around Boston; hundreds of schools closed:
    California braces for powerful storm; 85-mph winds and heavy snow;
    Heavy snow blasts eastern Europe;Jan. 3, 2008;Bitterly cold winter storm;
    Global Warming Hysteria;BY Walter E. Williams;9-27-07;

    ....and if there is still any doubt;
    http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html

    Yes, the debate is over:
    Naturally occurring Climate Change=26+ (and still counting);
    The Man-made Global warming/Climate change Pseudo-science of Al Gore and his minions=0 (he does get a technical ???1??? for his movie and propaganda machine);

    I guess Ms. Begley bought a set of the "Emperor's New Clothes" from Mr. Gore.

  • Posted By: edjunk47 @ 07/03/2008 6:03:25 PM

    Comment: so how can more water in the atmosphere cause more droughts? and how can a monkey move to the Missippi valley at a time when the tempeture was raising at the same rate as now be if it is just us people causing it? And how did swizterland get to be so green when it has been discribed as haveing been very dry in the past if this is all new? It is all Scare and control tactics. Too many scientific studies contradict this but those are ingored.

  • Posted By: edjunk47 @ 07/03/2008 5:41:17 PM

    Comment: I like how the environmentist are seltive in their information they use. how can this be anthing but natural when scientist say tah a certine monkey move to the Missippi valley in a time when the earth was warming at the same rate and had similar temps as it does today. Or how could Switzerland have been a desert and today a paridise. how does more water in the air translate into more droughts. this is nothing but scare and control tactics. and we fall for it!!!

  • Posted By: liquidmental@msn.com @ 07/03/2008 4:25:27 PM

    Comment: did any one here ever fill a glass full of ice.. and then fill it to the brim with water... then wait for the ice to melt? did your glass over flow? no? why not and if not how will melting ice caps rase the oceans water lever? ..... for all the physics majors out there yes i know the real answer but i dont think many of these people do... well in the aspect of melting ice being the cause of raising sea levels..

    • Posted By: couchbomb @ 07/03/2008 6:06:58 PM

      Comment: Antarctica is land covered in ice.

    • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 07/03/2008 5:31:11 PM

      Comment: The ice that is in the ocean is not a concern. However, the ice on top of the glaciers miles thick is the problem. If this ice were to melt and release into the ocean it could raise ocean levels considerably.

    • Posted By: austinbob @ 07/03/2008 5:17:30 PM

      Comment: The earth is not a glass of water

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 3:58:23 PM

    Comment: Bravo

  • Posted By: Liquidity @ 07/03/2008 3:46:35 PM

    Comment: For those ignorant of geology and climate (seemingly most of those that rant and rave about global warming), Long Island is the terminal moraine scoured out and pushed up at its present location most recently during the last ice age. The North American glacial sheet associated with this ice age (the Wisconsinian Glacier) began its advance about 85,000 years ago and commenced its melt-driven retreat (leaving behind among other visible features, Long Island) about 21,000 years ago. A mere blink in the past, modern Homo Sapiens was laying the groundwork for the first "advanced" eurasian cultures still visible today. And sea level was 300' (THATS 300 FEET!!!!!) lower than today. About this same point in time, ancestors of the American Indian WALKED from Asia to North America across a landscape most closely traversed today only by submarine.

    So it is certainly a fact that global warming has occured which has melted glaciers, caused the sea to rise, land to be inundated, climate to change, and, in the process, pushed around human life for the better and the worse while extincting many less adapable species. The "myth" of Atlantis and flood of Noah are most certainly derivative of "real" cultural memory. Now, if we want to tie global warming and melting glaciers to post industrial man, it should be noted that Plymouth Rock is still sticking out of the water and that at most post industrial rise in sea level is a matter of a couple of inches. For those that may be "alarmed" by the idea that man is causing all of this , I suggest you divide 300 feet (3600 inches) by 21,000 years. Anyone that does so might reasonably conclude that buying beach front property a couple of feet above present day high tide is an unlikely legacy for generations.

    But it is presently getting warmer and, as he has for the past 40,000 + years, man is going to have to adapt.

    Now, if you believe man is the cause of global warming and this is a problem to be solved rather than adapted to, I suggest you will find a most effective solution being eliminating a significant percentage of man, not per capita green house emissions. We already know how to do this and have the necessary technology. As Spock might say, any other approach is illogical. If we were to follow such a path, I would suggest that we also have some understanding of evolution and use this as an opportunity to improve the species while reducing it to sustainable levels. Here, it should be apparent that rationality and intelligence are those species attributes that would be of greatest future benefit in adapting to a changing world. Perhaps "self-defense' is why those that have us freeze in winter, roast in summer, be once again geographically restricted by Shank's mare, advocate such solutions.

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 3:19:18 PM

    Comment: Many phenomena are not investigated yet and be not clear, it is known that being inside what or systems it is very difficult to estimate its(her) abilities, to measure characteristics and to expect an opportunity of succession of events. The theory helps to look at things under different corners of sight, but for that to study the base both technical and conscious is necessary for that to penetrate into essence of the occuring phenomena.

  • Posted By: liquidmental@msn.com @ 07/03/2008 3:17:40 PM

    Comment: It is well known that the USA and the USSR concluded an agreement at the end of the 1970's. Pursuant to the agreement, scientific developments in the field of geophysics for military purposes were banned. The projects in this field became classified.

    But de facto such developments, in spite of concluded agreement continued either under the guise of scientific studies, or development of dual purpose technologies, and the content and the purposes of such developments were wrapped in a fog of reservations, scientific speculations and even mysticism.

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 3:05:48 PM

    Comment: The matter is that process at which cells in a circuit of a life it (he) not ?????????????? are liberated and any intervention the compassion good feeling but that was then with these africans you have thought, and then they had wars of revolution and famine before to rescue whom or you should think of that that will further instead of to rescue and leave blindly to the mercy of fate as blind children which for famine and what absence or resources each other cut threatens.

  • Posted By: focusonheaven @ 07/03/2008 3:05:26 PM

    Comment: An interesting concept that most people want to avoid is the fact that nature responds to God's voice. Whenever God speaks nature responds. Sounds crazy, but for any Bible believer scriptures state that nature responds to God and sure enough waves, winds, and mountains respond to God's voice. God spoke the world into existence and when Christ died and said it is finished, the earth quaked. For a book on what is happening in the heavens please go to focusonheaven dot.com

  • Posted By: focusonheaven @ 07/03/2008 3:04:43 PM

    Comment: An interesting concept that most people want to avoid is the fact that nature responds to God's voice. Whenever God speaks nature responds. Sounds crazy, but for any Bible believer scriptures state that nature responds to God and sure enough waves, winds, and mountains respond to God's voice. God spoke the world into existence and when Christ died and said it is finished, the earth quaked. For a book on what is happening in the heavens please go to focusonheaven dot.com

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/04/2008 10:22:28 AM

      Comment: THERE IS .........................NO GOD!

    • Posted By: couchbomb @ 07/03/2008 6:09:37 PM

      Comment: Where is the evidence to support that?

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 2:57:05 PM

    Comment: The matter is that process at which cells in a circuit of a life it(he) not ?????????????? are liberated and any intervention ???????????????? ?????????????????????? good feeling but that was then with these africans you have thought, and then they had wars of revolution and famine before to rescue whom or you should think of that that will further instead of to rescue and leave blindly to the mercy of fate as blind ?????????? which for famine and what absence or resources each other cut.

  • Posted By: Fuddman @ 07/03/2008 2:06:13 PM

    Comment: In my opinion this just seems to be another liberally slanted article where you start with a conclusion and then write a story to support that conclusion. Once again we receive a story chocked full of doom and attempts to point out the stupidity of any human that doesn't agree with the enlightened authors magical words. Is this a news piece or an editorial? Please explain to the reading public what your message is supposed to be. Is it a story supported with facts or is it an opinion piece supported by quotes from people giving their opinion as well.

    Where is the opposing opinion? Where are the opposing facts? Are you telling us that no one believes what your saying is wrong or that it might not be factually sustainable scientifically? Where is the other half of this story? Why can't you at least present both sides? Are we to shallow to come to the conclusion you desire? Or is it possible that someone might actually disagree with enough evidence that your desired conclusion isn't theoretically sound?

    Why do we have to be spoon fed one-sided information when there is so much more to the story? This is such a common tactic to prevent readers from coming to a conclusion based on all the facts. This is no different than having a murder trial and telling the defense or prosecutor, sorry but none of your evidence is admissible. Who is going to win based on a one sided presentation to the jury?

    There are many educated guesses that have caused mankind dearly. What about our great decision to stop using certain "dangerous" pesticides to eradicate malaria carrying mosquitoes. Millions of Africans paid with their lives while we tested and retested only to determine the chemical threat was much less or almost non-existent compared to the death sentence for many malaria victims.

    When will we stop making rash decisions and climbing on political band wagons to impress our friends and colleagues. When will we take the time to view both sides of the story before crying, "The Sky is Falling?" When will we trust honesty and forego pride and vanity?

    • Posted By: DoYourPart @ 07/03/2008 3:23:48 PM

      Comment: Your comment on pesticides and malaria is most interesting and telling. By your argument we shouldn't do anything about Global Warming until we know THE answer (as if there is a magic pill/solution we can take to make all our problems go away). You never die from global warming, you die from dehydration, starvation, conflict over scarce resources, and yes malaria outbreaks. All of these already exsist so no matter how bad it gets you will have people in denial.
      Why does the right, oversimplify this issue down to a 5 second Fox sound bites making it sound like evironmentally concious folks are asking every family on the planet to sacrifice their 1st born child?
      Being realistic and trying to get back on a more sustainable path isn't some commie plot to deprive you of your luxuries. Would you not turn your AC off if you could prove that that simply act would allow an african family to live? Somehow I think you have less concern for the poor sods who got unlucky enough to be born on that continent versus north america than you do for simply trying to trash the people and science behind the movement of combatting Global Warming.

      • Posted By: newsweekkate @ 10/02/2008 11:32:49 PM

        Comment: You imply that by using modern conveniences with unintended ecological results that one is committing a crime. But every time you exhale, you release cO2 into the air. There are trade-offs to living a privileged, modern life because the very act of living has an impact on the environment. However, this lifestyle is preferable to the time before carbon emissions and even other nations in the present.

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 1:59:47 PM

    Comment: CEWJ
    You are right the theory of Darwin works and survive the strongest and those who is able to adapt,
    But meaningly to saw a branch on which you sit not reasonably.
    Unique minus that the person in loneliness realizes it much faster, than consciousness of group in size in six billions.

  • Posted By: geocajun @ 07/03/2008 1:50:07 PM

    Comment: In effect, yes, it has been going on for millions of years. All orgainic matter dies, when it dies it releases C02 and methane as biproduction of decomposion. This is what forms our oil reserves, this is also why a pile of dead grass smells bad, and why dead animals smell bad. Think of all of the matter on earth that is constantly dying and imaging how much that adds up to, a substantial proportion. When volcanoes erupt, they put out massive amounts of CO2, that has been going on for millions of years. Also, the Earth has been much hotter in the past, so to assume that the optimal temperature for the Earth is what we know is foolhardy. Many scientists actually believe that temperature variations LEAD to CO2 (and other) variations. But what do they know, listen to Al Gore.

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 1:43:59 PM

    Comment: It is not necessary to search for the reason in what that one, as well as panacea from all troubles.

  • Posted By: CEWJ @ 07/03/2008 1:42:13 PM

    Comment: Man has always blamed himself for changes in the climate and weather in order to feel in control (if we are to blame, then we can do something about it!). Primitive man blamed himself for not giving enough offerings to his gods, so he made more offerings and atonement. Christian man blamed himself by saying his own sinfulness was being punished by God, so he repented and tried to sin less. So modern man blames his technology for provoking the wrath of nature, and he changes a light bulb or buys a phony carbon offset. The climate and weather on earth have constantly changed over time in both short and long-term cycles (due to the changes in solar output and wobbles in the Earth's rotation - hence alternating ice ages and warming spells). And there were even more drastic climate changes long ago that make today's worries look like child's play. Global warming is nothing new and neither is man's attempt to blame himself for it or any other type of climate change. Instead of wasting our time and effort on trying to change what we don't control (even though many would like to think we do), we should be concentrating on what man has always done in the face of climate change: adapt or die. Use modern technology to be able to survive climate change, not futilely attempt to stop it.

    • Posted By: austinbob @ 07/03/2008 2:44:47 PM

      Comment: You miss a couple of very important points:
      1. There are many more reasons for climate change other than sun output and wobbles in the earth's rotation. Human introduction of stored CO2 into the atmosphere is one of them.
      2. Yes. There have been huge climate changes in the past. Almost all of them were accompanied with mass extinction of the dominant life form.

  • Posted By: CEWJ @ 07/03/2008 1:40:57 PM

    Comment: Man has always blamed himself for changes in the climate and weather in order to feel in control (if we are to blame, then we can do something about it!). Primitive man blamed himself for not giving enough offerings to his gods, so he made more offerings and atonement. Christian man blamed himself by saying his own sinfulness was being punished by God, so he repented and tried to sin less. So modern man blames his technology for provoking the wrath of nature, and he changes a light bulb or buys a phony carbon offset. The climate and weather on earth have constantly changed over time in both short and long-term cycles (due to the changes in solar output and wobbles in the Earth's rotation - hence alternating ice ages and warming spells). And there were even more drastic climate changes long ago that make today's worries look like child's play. Global warming is nothing new and neither is man's attempt to blame himself for it or any other type of climate change. Instead of wasting our time and effort on trying to change what we don't control (even though many would like to think we do), we should be concentrating on what man has always done in the face of climate change: adapt or die. Use modern technology to be able to survive climate change, not futilely attempt to stop it.

  • Posted By: mrlsthrm @ 07/03/2008 1:30:05 PM

    Comment: In the past 100 years how much gasoline and coal did we burn? How many gallons of CO2 does this convert too? Is there data available for this? That much amount of carbon was buried deep underground for millions of years. What is the estimated percentage of the total atmosphere does this CO2 amount to? What happens to this CO2 when it enters the atmosphere? It remains there forever. Should/Would there be a change in the atmosphere due to this release of CO2 into atmosphere? Has there been an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Would this change have an effect on our climate? Is this emission of CO2 part of the natural cycle going on for millions of years?

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 1:25:50 PM

    Comment: And you do not exclude an opportunity of that that the abnormal weather phenomena are influenced with radiowaves proceeding from different sources on the ground, similarly to their influence on whales or effect of microwaves in the furnace?:-) Mat

  • Posted By: geocajun @ 07/03/2008 1:23:50 PM

    Comment: Thank you WeatherSense. That is exactly what I was thinking. As a geologist I think I know more than the average passerby what is going on with the Earth, some of these cycles might be on 1,000; 10,000 or even 100,000 year cycles. The Milankovitch Cycle is the main global heating and cooling cycle for the last half million years and it operated on a 100,000 year cycle. While these idiots are blabbering about how the rapture is upon us because there have been more dissaters in the last hunderd years, gimmie a break. Also your point about population density is right on the money, it is only a natural disaster is people or infrastructure is affected.

  • Posted By: WeatherSense @ 07/03/2008 1:21:40 PM

    Comment: It's unfortunate that this has become such a trendy topic, especially when many of the people (including politicians) hold a firm belief in global warming. I am a Meteorologist, so atleast I can bring some rationale to this article and allow people to decide for themselves. First of all, "accurate" temperature statistics have only been available since the late 1800's and all the statistical analysis that I've read points to ~1 degree F increase over the past 120 years. BUT, the margin of error between older instruments and current is about 1 degree F.....Another thing to look at is simple Geography-more people are living in areas susceptible to severe weather, i.e. the coasts for Hurricanes, midwest for tornadoes. 50 to 100 years back, many of these areas were sparsely populated compared to now.

    Why aren't any of these "geniuses" discussing the relationship to an increase in solar flares over the past few years to weather occurances, instead of pointing the finger to global warming? Or, why doesn't the media question the government about their H.A.R.P. program where they are pumping over a billion watts of microwave energy into the Earth's Ionosphere?

    Remember the 1970's where pollution was causing "Global Cooling"? Amazing what happens in 30+ years, and it just goes to show you that people can spend Billions of dollars to reduce "Global Warming" instead of using their common sense and having to surrender to natural Earth cycles.

  • Posted By: vclayson@msn.com @ 07/03/2008 1:16:40 PM

    Comment: So we can judge her expertise for ourselves, what are Sharon Begley's qualification for opining on the subject of global warming? Being a wordsmith for Newsweek under the tutelage of a Jon Meacham means you write on any subject that meets his agenda, there's no need to have any particular expertise. or even proof, it's not like presenting your thesis to a discerning university committee. Regardless of what the so-called experts say, the earth is its own master, that's an old quote, author unknown to me, but surely true. The age of the globe is indeterminable and our particular brief epoch of concern is as nothing in comparison, despite the protestations of the likes of Al Gore. Al Gore, today's Michael Moore, fat, happy, rich and celebrated. It's not just today's newspapers that are tomorrow's fishwrap, it's also magazines that pretend sophistication but must rely on grandiose speculation to sell. The earth will do what it does, man will have to adapt, if the earth warms, man must devise means to stay cool, if the earth cools, man must devise means to stay warm. That;s not new, cavemen warmed with fire in his cave until he saw the wisdom of moving to a warmer clime, or vice versa, moved to a cooler clime when it became too warm. The government and the media use scare tactics, in 1970 we were to run out of oil and freeze in the dark, today we are awash with oil but freezing in the dark is still a possibility, with the option to avoid that by paying usurious rates for oil.

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 1:08:04 PM

    Comment: Newbabygirl2006
    Concerning the pair can be and so, but in it (him) is not present heavy metals and huge quantity (amount) of other harmful impurity.

  • Posted By: WeatherSense @ 07/03/2008 1:06:59 PM

    Comment: It's unfortunate that this has become such a trendy topic, especially when many of the people (including politicians) hold a firm belief in global warming. I am a Meteorologist, so atleast I can bring some rationale to this article and allow people to decide for themselves. First of all, "accurate" temperature statistics have only been available since the late 1800's and all the statistical analysis that I've read points to ~1 degree F increase over the past 120 years. BUT, the margin of error between older instruments and current is about 1 degree F.....Another thing to look at is simple Geography-more people are living in areas susceptible to severe weather, i.e. the coasts for Hurricanes, midwest for tornadoes. 50 to 100 years back, many of these areas were sparsely populated compared to now.

    Why aren't any of these "geniuses" discussing the relationship to an increase in solar flares over the past few years to weather occurances, instead of pointing the finger to global warming? Or, why doesn't the media question the government about their H.A.R.P. program where they are pumping over a billion watts of microwave energy into the Earth's Ionosphere?

    Remember the 1970's where pollution was causing "Global Cooling"? Amazing what happens in 30+ years, and it just goes to show you that people can spend Billions of dollars to reduce "Global Warming" instead of using their common sense and having to surrender to natural Earth cycles.

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 1:02:33 PM

    Comment: Newbabygirl2006
    Concerning the pair can be and so, but in it(him) is not present heavy ?????????????? and huge quantity(amount) of other harmful impurity.

  • Posted By: HedHunter01 @ 07/03/2008 12:57:44 PM

    Comment: austinbob...where are you getting your information? Cows emit methane which is 23% more harmful to the environment than CO2 is! Cows in just the US are more 'harmful' to the environments than all the SUV's worldwide! Could it be that most environmentalists are also PETA supporters and they don't want a conflict of interest? FACT: Now I'm not in support of eliminating cows. I like steak way too much. But at least it shows you how ludicrous this whole global warming issue is.

  • Posted By: brucegil @ 07/03/2008 12:55:49 PM

    Comment: The statement, "and tornadoes with a force of F2 or greater have been on the rise since the 1970s, occurring about 8 percent more often every decade," is not universally correct. I did a study of tornadoes in the southeast. The number of F2-F5 tornadoes peaked in the 1970s. While the total number of tornadoes is higher since 1990, the number of F2-F5 tornadoes in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisana, and Arkansas has descreased signficantly. Only Tennessee did not show any decrease. Oklahoma had an increase in the 1990s but a decrease from that in this decade. The larger number of total tornadoes, mostly F0 and F1, are due possibly to better detection devices such as Doppler radar and not to any real increase. For most of the states I looked at, the 1970s was the worst for severe (F2-F5) tornadoes.

  • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/03/2008 12:55:17 PM

    Comment: WANTING CHANGE AND BEING ABLE TO EFFECT THAT(AS FAR AS WEATHER IS CONCERNED) ARE SO DIAMETRICALLY OPOSSED THAT IT IS HARD TO BELEIVE THAT YOU CONSIDER THEM CONNECTED!


    I GUESS THAT YOU HAVE SEE THE WIZARD OF OZ TOO MANY TIMES! DID YOU CLICK YOUR HEELS TOGETHER?

    EVEN THOUGH I AM AN OBAMA SUPPORTER, I HAVEN'T BOUGHT INTO THIS IDEA OF " WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO STOP ALL THE FACTORS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING, BUT LETS ALL PUT ALL OUR MONEY IN A PILE AND IT WILL BE ALL CATAPULTED AT THIS PROBLEM!"

    A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT ARE MOST TROUBLING.

    #1) AL GORE! WINNER OF THE "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" PEACE AWARD!
    HE TAKES APPROXIMATELY 20(PROBABLY MUCH MORE) PRIVATE JET FLIGHT PER YEAR (ROUGHLY THE EQUIVALENT OF 30 AVERAGE AMERICAN LIFE TIMES THE AIR FLIGHT CARBON
    FOOT PRINT! ***************IN ONE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

    THOUGH WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE HIS BIZARRE "INNCOVENIENT TRUTH" WE ARE STILL SUPPOSED TO REBUILD NEW ORLEANS????????????????(WOULD BE 20FT UNDER WATER)

    #2) THE CLIMATOLOGIST: THE INFORMATION THAT IS LEADING PROPONENTS OF THIS "WAR ON WARMING" IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM OUR WEATHER EXPERTS............WHO, SEEM TO BE WRONG WHEN STATING "THIS IS GOING TO BE A RECORD HURRICAIN SEASON" , AT LEAST 50% OF THE TIME!!!

    NOT SURE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM , BUT I AM NOT BUYING THAT THOSE WHO CAN'T ACCURATELY PREDICT THIS YEARS WEATHER CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT THE NEXT 20 DECADES!! FAR LESS A PERSCRIPTION TO FIX THE "CHICKEN LITTLE " PREDICTION!

    I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AWAY FROM ANY KIND OF COMBUSTION AS QUICKLY AS IS REASONABLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE.

    REMEMBERING OF COURSE THAT WE (AMERICANS) ACTUALLY OWN MOST OF THE OIL THAT IS BEING PUMPED BY THE OIL COMPANIES, AND THAT IT WOULD BE NICE TO USE THAT "NATURAL RESOURE" TO OUR MUTUAL BENIFIT!

    OUR OIL, OUR COAL, OUR TIMBER AND OUR GASES ARE WAYS THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AS CHARITABLE AS THIS COUNTRY IS AND HAS BEEN, IF IT IS ILLEGAL TO BURN ANYTHING THEN WE HAVE FLUSHED MUCH OF OUR INHERANT NET WORTH, AND WILL HAVE TO BUDGET SOMEWHERE AND MY VOTE GOES AGAINST IT BEING HERE!!

    REMEMBER: THE WAR IN IRAQ, THE WAR ON DRUGS, THE WAR ON IGNORANCE(NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND), ALL HAVE COST US COUNTLESS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND ARE ALL MORALISTIC STANCES THAT HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN PART OF LEADING US INTO OUR LATEST ECONOMY CRISIS!


    THE BUDGET MUST REFLECT OUR MONETARY LIMITATIONS AND ALL OTHER MORAL IMPERATIVES MUST BE SIDELINED OR FORGOTTEN.....AS IN "WE CAN'T DO IT ALL, TAKE YOUR PICK ON WHICH"!

    IN OTHER WORDS..............OUR STANDARD OF LIVING MUST BEGIN TO RISE OR THE PEOPLE WILL RISE UP!

    OBAMA '08!

  • Posted By: Ed Yost @ 07/03/2008 12:49:08 PM

    Comment: I want to answer Turbull the matter is that in Russia the science cannot recover after 1991 yet, and in this problem there practically are not engaged.
    Very much many scientists have left on the West, I live in Russia

  • Posted By: Turbull @ 07/03/2008 12:42:29 PM

    Comment: Good words, ShellyB, and timely spoken, indeed. I can only assume that its not aboit attention anymore. It can be the beginning of, let's say, a judgement,.What do people of CA think, however?

  • Posted By: joey25@aim.com @ 07/03/2008 12:42:01 PM

    Comment: Yes, it's funny how they won't believe in a science that can be simply put. Carbon dioxide clogs atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has no where to go. carbon dioxide causes greenhouse effect.
    What is so hard believing that?
    There's actually a youtube video that proves we should do everything we can to stop global warming. "The most terrifying video you will ever see". It's no science, just logic that everyone can agree with. It's not longand it's very interesting, so I'd suggest taking a look at it.

    • Posted By: nktracker @ 07/03/2008 12:55:47 PM

      Comment: If you use YOU TUBE as your confirming resource, you are sorely being misguided. BTW, what do plants do? Can you find that on YOU TUBE?

      • Posted By: electrojoerandom @ 07/03/2008 2:25:47 PM

        Comment: Heck if you see it on YouTube it's more than likely wrong.

  • Posted By: djdirtybird @ 07/03/2008 12:35:57 PM

    Comment: First let me start off by saying that I'm not a frisbee-chuckin', granola-munchin' hippie, but it looks as though we are the fleas on mother earth and she is now trying to shake us off violently. The thing that I don't understand is that all of the people trying to