The poor are always the first to suffer(they're suffering now), and that's scientific proof or increases the urgency regarding global warming how?

Clever joke SRB, I'm going to borrow it. Should I credit you?

How pompous the notion man could create or alter this situation, should time prove it accurate. A few decades ago we were headed into an ice age. That must explain the last two weeks of weather locally. And what of the mini ice age which recently ended in the early nineteeneth century?

If you'd like something that is going to be truly devastating, and may, along with the hotter period the sun has been going through, have something to do with global warming, wait 'til the earth's electromagnetic field resets. Hawaii could suddenly become the north or south pole. Are ya scared yet? Science says we're due fer a reset! What's anybody going to do about that? Do ya suppose it's time to crank up off-earth living accomodations?

Global warming may be occurring, but is man really the primary problem? Doubtful. This is pure politics folks. This is part and parcel of neo-feudalism as proposed by the UN beginning in the 1960's when eminent ice age was the theme. Which is also when and where this whole enviromental hysteria began. It's a machination designed to be so all-encompassing that humanity, including Americans, will cede their freedoms(that the earth might be saved) in exchange fer a dubious safety. I know most of ya can't fathom that, but there ya have it my friends.

Anyhow, do note the 4 paragraphs before the final paragraph in the article below.

peaceably

ps Just because Dale, in this instance, holds the minority view on DBIS, doesn't make him wrong. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the majority is just an 'ignorant mob' being lead about by consensus fearmongering.

"A commonly cited proof for human-caused global warming claims there is a scientific consensus. This claim is based mainly on a flawed essay by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, which appeared in the journal Science in December 2004. But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or Einstein. "

~~~ from a friend: The problem in science is separating epistemology from evidence. When evidence is selected according to one's beliefs, the resulting essay may have the footnote structure of science, but is unreliable. Certain elements of logic control selection of explanations for natural phenomena. The most prominent logical element is that no fact may be ignored. The Global Warming hysteria simply ignores a substantial body of data that cannot be crammed into the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Unless and until the persons who parade themselves as scientists in this issue explain the facts which negate their conclusions, they do not deserve to be credited. That does not make me a DENIER. It means that the proponents have failed to make their case. There is a huge difference.

Global warming or global cooling? SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well- intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/ 1034077.cms