All Comments on 'The Truth About Global Warming'

After Reading this story I came to the Conclusion that he does not know what he is taking about.

Global Warming is a Political issue to take more Taxes from Us and not factual as there is no such thing as Global Warming the Ice caps are not melting they are thicker this year than they have been for the 20 years This a natural Occurrance caused by Natural climate changes which have been going on for Millions of years and Long before Man inhabitted this Planet.

Man will not alter that Fact. Our climate is control by the SUN AND SUN'S ACTIVITY AND THE COSMOS.

How did global warming become a political issue anyway? Just a little bit of research will show that ice is melting all over the world.

Glacier National Park has lost several glaciers this year alone, and expect to have far fewer glaciers, perhaps less than half of the 25 remaining glaciers, within 10 years. Why would people make this shit up when you can see it from space?

Everyone knows that polar bears are under major pressure from habitat loss. Their habitat is the ice.

When the polar bears are gone what excuse will the right wingers give?

Why is the topic even being discussed anymore?

ice has been freezing and melting on earth for houndreds of thousands of years. most of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice at one time, then it melted. big deal, we will adapt or die trying

Al, does Tipper know you are writing for a Porno site?

Peeled down, GW is just another Malthusian scam. According to Paul Ehrlich, big warmie, population growth would have global starvation by 1986 - Didn't happen, yet Paul still sits in academic glory, supporting GW . Steve Schneider, another big warmie, was also a big "coming ice age" supporter whose cure for both ice age ad warming was less freedom, more government and fewer people. The polar bear population is rising, as is the elk population the pipeline was supposed to ruin.

China owns us, they polluite more in a day than we do in a month, and we can't do shit. We are broke and still spending at a impossible rate, and when inflation hits, that will finish middle class america. I love polar bears, but what happens to them is out of our hands, we are dickless, we don't control anything.

It's time we told the world that China has weapons of mass destruction, that being, the lead paint they put on the toys that they export. It's time we nuked those little yellow bastards.

Then, once our debt is erased, we can turn our nuclear arsenal on the Koreans and Iran and blow them off the globe. For safety sake, I'd clear all the GI's out of Iraq and Afghanistan and blow their countries to bits, too.

Now, with half the planet wiped out, with less people around to pollute the planet, with the Chinese, half the Koreans, the Iranians, the Iraqis and the Afghans gone, they'd be no more global warming. Okay, okay, yeah, sure, we'd still have to deal with a bit of nuclear fallout, but that would be gone, too, after a few generations and millions of birth defects.

While we're at it, I say we plunder those who have way too much money. Let's face it, no one should be a billionaire. We should go right down Forbes list and take enough money from billionaires to make them millionaires. Gates, Buffet, and the hundreds of others who appear on the list, won't even miss the money. Besides, the United States need their money more to lower the deficent.

Once we collect all the money from all the billionaires, everyone will have free health care, a free new car every 5 years, and a job if they want one.

Hey, I think I'm on to something here. What do you say? Is anyone with me?

Oh, sorry, by the way, Andtheend, this was a great story. Lastly, I think we should round up every Republican and roast them in the way that Hitler roasted the Jews.

I'm a AGW skeptic, and my skepticism has only grown the more I find out, an that was before the lying and data faking were made public.</p>

I know someone who does research and teaches a course in this area so I have an easier time finding data than most. There is more than one question; there are really four questions that need answering:</p>

1) Is the Earth getting warmer? </p>

2) If the answer to that is yes, are people causing/contributing to it?</p>

3) If the answer to THAT is yes, can people mitigate/reverse the process?</p>

4) If the answer to THAT is yes, should we?</p>

At one time I thought (1) was relatively settled, but now I believe that much of the data has been "massaged" at the very least and faked or suppressed at worst. "Global Warming" became "Anthropogenic Global Warming" when people conceded (1) but not (2). Now that (1) is not apparent (the Earth is in the middle of a cooling trend) it has become "Climate Change."</p>

By definition weather and climate are chaotic systems and very very small changes in input can lead to large divergence of output. This means that there has to be a lot of transparency in modeling and assumptions so people can challenge the models and eliminate bad ones. This has not happened. The e-mails released by the CRU whistleblower indicate that this has been due to deliberate fraud, interference with free scientific inquiry, and illegal destruction of public records rather than just wishful thinking and honest misinterpretations.</p>

Add to this the relatively extreme measures proposed by various environmental organizations and it becomes more political. While many are truly worried about the environment, many more are using the topic as a way to piggyback rules and laws into effect that allow unprecedented domestic and international control of people's lives by UNELECTED officials. Basically, the effect of the proposals in Kyoto and Copenhagen are so extreme and lopsided that the only way they can pass is by painting the situation as a crisis with a short response window. </p>

Consider your own health: If you have a kidney problem and a doctor suggests a new dietary supplement, you might respond "Why not?" and try it for a few months. If he suggests an extensive surgery that he is convinced will work but it has never actually been tried before and will remove your ability to walk, does he have a right to be offended if you want a second, or even a third opinion? And if you report back the second doctor disagrees with him, should he discuss the medical facts or attack the personal motives of the other doctor? And through all this he insists you pay him NOW because the expensive surgery needs to be scheduled.</p>

It may actually be a case of activists going to great lengths to frame a guilty man, but that is still unethical and makes the case harder to discuss neutrally. These men have done real harm to both science and environmentalism. It doesn't help that the BBC, AP, and NYT have ignored or actively suppressed the story or (in the case of the NYT) made up new ethical rules that "prevent" them from asking the hard questions.</p>

Anecdotes aren't data. Your story may be direct and poetic, but you don't FEEL science, you look at the numbers. And frankly none of the honest numbers paint the picture that many activists still insist on describing. If things are as bad as you believe, it wouldn't be so difficult to show and so subtle to interpret. And researchers wouldn't be trying to hide their source material and personally attack their opponents.

I love the comments, but I had no idea that this story would garner such emotion.

Whatever your vote, I thank you for reading, voting, and commenting on my story.

I enjoyed the story, especially the part about Aurora trying to eat the Senator.

Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is either lying to themselves and/or lying to others. The proof is all around us. Next you fools will be writing that we shouldn't recycle.

Would be quicker and kinder than watching what is going on now, the have nots out number the haves, to bad nobody reads and understands history, a lot of misery could be avoided.

To the last commentor, not all Republicans are bad.

The dead ones are good. No longer can they pick the pockets of the middle class for the sake of their rich, big business buddies.

The Republicans are always there to block anything for the good of the people, such as an unemployment extension, when there are no jobs. They are quick to reverse whatever the Democrats do for the good of the people and/or the environment.

This story has set off the anger that people feel toward one privileged group of Washington insiders, the old, white, Republican men's club.

and man is not responsible for global warming.

I was just going to leave a comment that this was a well-written story, but after reading all the other comments posted, it looks like you've stirred up an anthill here. That just proves my point that its a well-written story and the sign of a good author who can draw out so much emotion from the readers to make them want to leave a comment. Nice job, Andtheend, but I hope this isn't the end of your contributions here.

I stopped reading at that point because it is obvious you are an idiot.

The fact that you gave the reader so much information about global warming and still wove it into a story made it a delight to read. I had a funny feeling that Dave was going to do something to the obnoxious Senator, after helping save that bear.

Good story and good luck in the contest, Hon.

This is pure enviro carp at its best. Totally for one thing to generate large donations for their groups to pay 6 and 7 figure wages to the top officals and to run ads for more donations.

Do some examination of the facts by genetics a polar bear is but a grizzly bear that has adapted with a white fur to hunt better with on the ice and snow. So the enviros are blowing smoke up your leg saying otherwise. And those saying so have absolutely no training in life science beyond one general bio class either in hs or college.

The data has been cleansed of any not supporting the enviros desired conclusions, that's bad and give all science discredit. Its all about money they want to transfer money from nations with some to those without to think different isn't looking closely at their actions.

I thought this was a good entry for the Earth Day Contest. At least you stuck to the theme of the contest and you seem to be a decent author and easy to read. I'll read more of your stories. Good luck.

The author certainly picked a proper venue for this story. This is a fictional site for writers with big imaginations.

"The ice cap is so densely heavy that it provides for stability within the Earth's rotation."

Perhaps it went unnoticed that the ice was much heavier when the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago when the New York City area was covered with ice a mile thick. I suppose the global warming that caused that ice to melt was brought on by all those grizzly bears in their SUV's.

CarBuffStuff will probably think I'm an old, white, rich Republican that thinks the liberal Democrats are all misguided dumb asses. He just might be right.

Keep it up. I enjoy a good laugh.

Thanks for your fictional account. The comments are about as fun as those in the LW section for JPB.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist (small e). At first I was greatly alarmed by all the studies for GW. Now I am saddened by it.

We have had climate-gate, glacier-gate, false data-gate, etc., etc. We are told that it is proven even though a 1000's of scientists disagree. The alarming "hockey-stick" graph turned out to be a fraud. We now know that proponents have hidden data, manipulated it, broken disclosure laws (and got away with it b/c the statute of limitations just passed) and personally attacked other scientists who questioned their conclusions.

Well, the polar bears must now be happy because the ice pack is back.

When I first started tracing this, methane was being blamed. But when Al Gore suggested a diaper for cows, that got laughed out. So, CO2 is now blamed. But it is a trace element. Its increase has been so small (as a percentage of the whole) that it cannot have caused any so-called increase.

So, why are so many still insistent about it? Follow the money. More is now spent trying to document GW than to fight AIDS or cancer. If we dismissed it, thousands would lose their funding.

Why does this sadden me? Because legitimate environmental issues are being overlooked. - Ttom

Wow! I never expected so many comments.

For those people who are siding with the Republicans or who don't believe in global warming or who think that all of this environmental stuff and recylcing is just crap, it's just a story.

I apologize for upsetting so many people (lol), but all I did was to write a story for the Earth Day contest. For those who think that this is anything but a story, chill out, take a breath, and relax.

Thank you again for reading, voting, and commenting on my story.

TheBullet is such a fucking idiot that he doesnt even frame the question correctly. Of course the climate / globe is warming. NO one .. NO one disputes that.

No one.

the issue is how much if any of that is caused by Human activities?

in Jan 2009 Environmentalists lawyer and super activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a huge press conference in Washington, DC where he declared that global warming had gotten so bad that his kids -- or any of us for that matter --would EVER see any more major snowstorms in the Washington, DC area .

And as you all know this past winter there are 3 catastrophic crippling damaging snowstorms in the Washington, DC Baltimore metro areas which dropped 20 to 30 inches of snow... And of course the entire metro area of saw all new record snowfall for the winter season.

The entire premise of the GW folks when this all started out in the early & Mid 1990s was that this warming was UNIQUE and it never happened before. of course the " warmers" knew better but for political puproses they tried to assert that this warming... WHICH IS REAL....

has NEVER happened before.

That my friends is just bullshit.

You see if warming and cooling cycles have ocurred BEFORE industrialization then how do we KNOW if THIS current warming is caused by Human activity?

The evidence is over whelming that the warming has occurred before... and there have been many cases of signfiicant global cooling in the last 500 years.

Cutting Down on CO2 omissions IS a good idea. crash development in alternative fuels and energy sources is GREAT idea. I APPLAUD President Obama for pushing this. Raising Cafe standards for cars GREAT thing to do.

But NOT everything is "proof" of GW. The super active and deadly hurricane seaosn of 2005 was cuased or enahnced by GW.

OK... but the next several Hurricane season 2006 2007 2008 2009 ALL had below or Much Below Normal actvity. Sue enough some of GW folks were saying THAT this too was also caused by AGW.

After the 2005 hurricane season one of the world's leading hurricane research experts asserted that the devastating hurricane season was just the beginning of a trend. That the warming of the global would cause an increase the hurricane intensity and wind speed.

Last month new research showed that the actual warming of the globe is going to cause increased wind shear over the hurricane regions which in turn were actually reduce the likelihood of seeing super intense hurricanes.

The point of all this is that research changes. Signs changes. It's supposed to... Depending what the evidence and the data shows.

While there are an awful lot of GW denies out there... That are usually ignorant and very conservative... These supposedly educated more enlightened GW folks are just as dogmatic in the refusal to admit that sometimes theories have to change and the data has to be updated.

After reading so many moronic comments on the feedback portal, one of my favorite parts of this site, I had to see what all the angst was about, so I read this STORY, The Truth About Global Warming.

Listen you bunch of nitwits, instead of bashing some writer's story, namely Andtheend, why don't you just write you own fucking story. If you people have so much fodder to expouse, write a fucking story.

Truth be told, you bunch of doddering old men prefer pissing on the legs of others, instead of putting yourself out there by writing your own story for fear that someone may take undo offense at what you wrote as a STORY and pee on you.

Morons!

If it means anything, Andtheend, I gave you a five vote. It was a good story. I loved the part about the polar bear, Aurora. Only, you should have had the bear eat the Republican Senator. That would have been a better ending.

Lastly, maybe you can write a sequel to this story where all of these moronic comments are drifting out to sea on the ice, since they are so opposed to the true fact that global warming exists because their mothers all drive big ass SUV's (lol).

I have noticed that conservatives feel either there is no global warming, or if there, it is not man made. Fox News hates the suggestion of global warming. Liberals feel there is global warming and it is man made. It seems to me that there must not be conclusive evidence either way, since there is still an argument. I am not qualified to voice a strong opinion on this subject. The earth does not measure time in days or years, but in eons. Can the last few hundred years be a barometer of a change in climate, if it has in fact changed, or just a hiccup for mother nature? I have come up with a term for those that fear global warming and insist everyone conserve, even while they are heating numerous homes and driving SUV's themselves. I call this syndrome..ready??.... AlGoreaphobia!

However, even the IPCC admits that over the last 11 years, the Earth has cooled, not warmed. Thus the change in terms from global warming to climate change. This was an attempt to control the conversation in that no matter what happened in the climate, any and all occurrences outside of the norms could be blamed on climate change. If it rained too little, it was climate change, if it rained too much, it was climate change, too hot, climate change, too cold, climate change, too many hurricanes, climate change, too few hurricanes, climate change. This whole thing was about money and still is. Cap and trade gives the government more control over businesses. Research grants for research aimed at proving global warming was thousands of dollars to one dollar for research aimed at disproving it. Why the disparity? The richest people and biggest banks in the world are lined up and ready to service the cap and trade laws. For those that don't know, that is expected to make them twice what the oil companies make. When I was a child, we were told that pollution was causing the onset of a new ice age. Well I for one grew up in the 60s and 70s and I remember how much more pollution we had. I remember how so many rivers and even some of the Great Lakes were not safe to swim in and the fish were not safe to eat because of the pollution. Simple fact is the world is far less polluted than it once was. Can we do more, yes and we should. pollution is still the problem,,,primarily our waterways. But global warming has been debunked by the very people that were trying to scam us with it over nothing more than money. Did the Earth warm for a while, yes, but it also warmed the same amount on Mars. I suppose that was also man made? No, the fact is the warming was due to solar activity. The Earth is now cooling again and has been doing so for 11 years. Phil Jone's own emails stated they needed to find a way to hide the decline. They were doing a pretty good job of it until their emails got leaked. They even went so far as to say that they would redefine what constitutes a peer reviewed paper to keep one damaging report out of larger report. Sorry folks, this was about money and power, pure and simple. But bashing others for their views gets you nowhere. It just shows that you are an ass. As for Fox News, they are about as right of center as CNN is left of center so to really get fair and balanced, you have to watch both...but MSNBC is pure BS. That's not opinion, that's the findings of the PEW Research Center, a non-partisan group also used by the likes of CNN and other mainstream media when they like the results of a study. And what might surprise some of you LibTards and Wingnuts alike, Fox News actually had more positive stories on Obama during the campaign than they did of McCain. McCain had more neutral stories and they had an equal amount of negative stories. Overall, it was a pretty close mix of all three types of stories for both candidates. Some of you are just so far left, you wouldn't know fair and balanced if it hits you in the face. personally I am in independent so I don't get to vote in primaries, but the truth is, I hate both you Wingnuts and you LibTards. I watch both Fox and CNN. I refuse to watch MSNBC. They are not a legitimate news source. If you think they are, you are a LibTard.

Countries are fighting over shipping lanes that do not even exists now. Corporations and Countries have been making plans, including Pentagon under Bush. No matter what cause it we will be impacted. Even if I am wrong, is not saving fresh water a good thing. Besides the oceans becoming unstable, desert expansion is growing and seas are drying up (although damming plays a big part here). The thinking is that the red states will be impacted the most (Plus California). This should not be political. Conservation will go a long way to saving lives - even it global warming does not happen. The world (not just US) is constantly damaging the supply of fresh water. Now that Glaciers are melting away in US, Europe and else where we have that mush less water. I also remember Fox news saying don't worry about bad loans. If people are stupid enough to take them out they deserve to lose their home. They also said the economy was stable. Then came the whole financial meltdown. while I trust no news organization, I trust them the least to look out for the average folk.

we don't know the why, or exactly what - or even exactly how bad it is.

the feds have removed 80% of the temperature stations around the US. the 20% left have often been moved to a place more computer accessible - which means closer to buildings - which means next to thing like air conditioner vents, black top, reflected wall heat, and ext. since 80% of stations are gone, the feds have used the nearest stations - some 100s of miles away, usually in a "heat island" like a city instead of the country/wilderness where there is no computer access. that is just bogus.

and the satillites - well their sensors have to be set to normal from the ground - which is back to the old missing/corrupted data set from the bogus temp situation - so how can they be valid for temp? so that is bogus.

so we don't know what is happening - or how bad. and what will the effects be? well about 10,000 yrs ago it was warmer - there was even rain and lakes in the sahara in libya! so will it all be bad - we don't know.

and what causes this poorly understood thing happening? because if it happened 10k yrs ago, it was natural - either from sun changes (it does) or from orbit changes or maybe gasses in the atmosphere. so how much of what is happening is human caused?

it frustrates me that we know so little, and that the gov't has reduced our ability to find out - but it is spending $$ for doing things.

I'm glad that I was able to begin a dialogue with my story but, now that I mention it, what about my story? Hello? Duh?

Everyone is commenting about global warming and this and that, but no one is voting. Surely, I deserve some 5 votes for opening up the communication (lol).

The way you guys are continuing on about the government's roll in global warming, if there is, indeed, global warming, I'm waiting for someone to say that they never landed on the moon, that the whole thing was a hoax done on a Hollywood movie set.

Now that you mention it, Susan, the United States never did land on the moon. They contracted Lucas to make a movie of a moon landing on his Hollywood set (lol).

There, that should open up some more dialogue for you and maybe someone will give you a vote for your story. I did. I really liked it, especially the part about the polar bear, very creative.

Good luck in the Earth Day contest.

The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading System

The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.

According to a recent report, "the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme... The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe." (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)

The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay's, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading.

( FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)

The legitimacy of the carbon trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global Warming Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the environment. And for Wall Street the carbon trading system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of conglomerates.

1. The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

2. So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

3. And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. Phil Jones and Michael Mann were two of the leading scientists in charge and here are some of their damaging emails.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999 "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made and were willing to commit academic fraud to keep the reports out.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009 "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming skeptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003 “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008 "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004 "Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work

None of this has anything to do with the fact that InTheEnd wrote a fun story, you are a talented writer InTheEnd. Keep up the good work.

Also, none of this has anything to do with being responsible citizens of the world. We should all recycle..I do and when in doubt, it goes in the recycle bin. Let the sorters at the recycling facility make the final determination. I also believe we must keep a watchful eye on corporations and call them out when they break the rules and pollute the waterways as is happening on the Mississippi near New Orleans. We must preserve some of our territories for nature and allow man to be a gentle trespasser in those lands for those of us who appreciate nature's beauty. We must protect endagered species and if possible, use science to rescue extinct species and bring them back...in moderation of course...not so sure we need a bunch of T-Rex beasties running around. We were put here to be caretakers of the great garden which is Earth. While global warming is not true, it doesn't mean there are no worthy concerns that we should be directing our efforts toward.

Thanks Rustyhotdippednail, but you made a long winded comment without even voting for my story. Since I gave you the space for your bully pulpit, how about you giving me a 5 vote (lol). It is a contest story after all. Thanks Rusty, you're a doll.

Oh, and for the guy who sent me an e-mail that said he wished Dave and his entire family are killed and eaten by a polar bear...get a life. This is just a story. Hello? It's not real. The only polar bear I've ever seen is in a zoon and it had old yellowed pee stains on his fur.

I've never even been to Alaska and I couldn't tell a glacier from a mountain. Not to mention, I'd never step foot in a rainforest, too many bugs, and it would ruin my hair. I'm too much of a diva to get all hot and sweaty.

Thank you in advance for voting for my story. Now, if you don't mind, please vote for my story (think 5).

Ooops. Sorry, my bad. You are now fived. :D

...Not one person knows the truth.

And that IS a fact.

MGM

It is part of a report I had to do for College last semester. It took a lot out of me because just days before the report was due, the whole Climate Gate thing hit and redirected my research. I had to stay up late many nights to get it done. In the end, I got an A for the report and an A for the class, so it was worth it. As those of you know who have gone to college, when you make a statement, you have to prove it. I did that and the entire department, professors and Dean agreed. Everyone of them including the Dean asked for copies of all my research and said it was the most thorough they had seen in a long time. They also appreciated that at the end, I gave a similar speech that while global warming isn't true, we are still charged with taking care of this world and we should do so diligently. My last statement was that we only have one world at the present so we better take care of it and that starts with directing our attention toward things that actually matter, even if it doesn't make the super banks even wealthier in the process.

This is my theory on the whole global waming. God is melting all of the ice so all the people on the earth can spread out a little more. We can't live on ice, but we can live on land. Everything is too crowded the way it is. We need more drinking water and that ice will melt and land in newly formed resevoirs. We are also going to need more room for cemeteries to bury these sick fuck college graduates who think they know everything.

Oh, and this was a good story. The stupid comments made it longer. Good luck in the contest.

Except my engine oil cos of the birds. I tip that down the sink. Andtheend if you's a chick can you post a photo of yor cunt on the bio page and if you ain't don't. 5 stars.

To the commenter below, eww for dumping your trash on the beach and double eww for you being so rudely crass. I bet you must get the chicks with that line, huh? Weirdo.

It is sad to see that "scientists" (generally funded by governmental grants) have become so fixated that they are blind to contrary and ever-changing facts. The AGW models have not predicted the cooler temperatures of the 21st Century, have consciously disregarded key factors including sunspot activity, and are dependent on temperature monitors many of which are located near heat sources.

Of course the earth's climate is changing, and perhaps warming. But the Northern Hemisphere's cover of ice melted without any human involvement. European temperatures were higher during the Middle Ages than it is now. So, why should we assume man is causing a change?

We simply do not know enough to compel Western countries to lower their standards of living (China and India have already rejected any signicant role) to make a difference of less than 0.2 degree--even accepting the most optimistic assumptions of the AGW believers.

So a 7000 year old aborigional European is found sitting on a rock ledge in the alps, where he's been covered with snow for 7000 years. Did he crawl under a snow bank and die - or did he get covered by INCREASING snow for the next few thousand years?

The antartic ice cap receded to it's smallest point since the 1920's. Hmmm, does that mean we have been under a cold spell for 80 years?

Please, examine the evidence, not the lies. Look at the long picture, ask yourselves "what exactly IS the evidence, and what is the one pushing this PIECE of evidence trying to prove?"

I'm not saying there is or isn't global warming, I'm just saying, look at the FACTS, not someone repeating what someone else says that someone else said. Look at the total picture; those that show one thing, and those that counteract that one thing and think.

....it's amazing how poorly informed the vast majority of people are about the most important issue of not just now but any fucking time folks.This is your HOST, dummies. All you fucking under informed people, ALL of you, piss me the fuck off. This includes some of my favorite authors who commented here. On both sides of the fence. And it goes beyond being under informed. Outright fucking lying,-some asshole claiming the IPCC finding an overall planetary cooling lately??? Wrong! All you have to know is two facts. One, it's "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE", not "Warming"! End of that argument. And TWO. Remember the Ozone hole assholes????? Do you know what happened to it and why????? Dumb fucking people killing MY planet.Piss me off. I need more ammo.

I'm Canadian and I can assure you that there are no

shortage of polar bears.

<laughs ...>

Feel free to watch episodes of Ice Road Truckers and

Ice Pilots if you need convincing as to the weather

conditions in the North ... -50 F is not uncommon.

Since polar bears are one of the nastiest predators

on Earth I'm intrigued by the number of people

that seem to think that they're warm and cuddly.

<laughs ...>

Feel free to come up and adopt one .. you would

likely make a very quick snack ... <laughs ...>

You're welcome to peddle the Global Warming

groupthink though ... in less than 10 years left

wing loons will likely be peddling Global Cooling

or another 'the sky is falling' theory.

Even Phil Jones of the CRU admitted there had

been no real warming over the last 15 years but

the true believers aren't listening ...

Duh ... keep believing .. Obama wants more

of your tax dollars ... this is just another

way of fleecing the sheep.

Cha .. ching ....

....after heavy sedation from my psychiatrist, Dr. Jameson, I would like to add that it is specious at best to imply that if a scientist,( in this case we'll use Social Scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich as an example)-makes a prediction which fails to live up to it's time frame or magnitude, this therefore negates any validity the prediction might have. This crafty overemphasis on quantity, not quality is so often used by conservatives to avoid the kind of serious discussion of an issue which usually results in their brains melting.(This melting phenomena was best identified in Bush II, where of course the elected leader was forced to let a surrogate supposed "underling" assume the critical decision-making role). Of course the real tragedy in all this is the lack of a counterweight to this conservative "Legerdemain" , the opposing political party long having abandoned all pretext of backbone or principle. And thus, we hill people of western Maine, arm ourselves to the hilt!

But the AGW models are considered scientific, and not just social science "predictions." The fact that their temperature projections are inconsistent with the actual readings shows that their model is either lacking critical components or is completely wrong. In either case, real scientists would re-evaluate their hypotheses and models. The fact that the AGW true believers do not do this disproves their commitment to science.

I would also suggest, respectfully, that Mr. PPPete refrain from personal, ad hominem attacks as they are beneath such an intellectual as he is. Instead, try to counter the arguments and facts of others with logical arguments and facts.

Seems like your readers are so busy keeping themselves entertained trying to outdo each other with their knowledge of global warming they forgot about your story. Regardless, good read, well written and yes I voted. Good luck. ML

but your IPCC themselves admitted in their own emails that thought would never be seen by the general public admit that there has been no warming for over a decade. I know it hurts to give some credit to the other side that they were right and you were wrong but that's how it is and it was all over money....lots and lots of money. Money the oil companies can only dream of.

And yes, it's now climate change. Convenient. If it is too cold, it's climate change, if it is too hot it's climate change. Simple fact is we live on what has been termed a raging planet because one thing it does consistently is change. But trying to coin the term global climate change was a con in order to be able to claim any weather extreme as evidence of climate change...just long enough to get the cap and trade system going. Once it is going, if we get great weather, they then claim that cap and trade has saved us. That's the idea, once it is set and in place to the point that it becomes an institution, you will never get rid of it. Just one more large money input to the super wealthy and one more way to exercise power of the people. Keep in mind that any and all businesses would have to have this cap and trade thing but it's a shell game. they promise that the little guy will benefit. BS. eventually, they'll claim that even the electricity your local barber shop uses is too much and he'll be adding taxes into those super banks also. Heck, even a small daycare will. It will get to the point that all there is is cap...no trade. Which means everybody will pay.

And the ultra rich will be able o use it to make it near impossible for anyone not on their most favored list to open a business. Those that are on their most favored list will magically get special considerations. Sorry pal but I like freedom which is why I refuse to be a slave to any one party like you. I want the freedom to actually open a business.

And for you idgiots who think that socialism is fair...it's not. It's not fair because just as I went back to college...I am sacrificing a lot to do so. And while there, i sacrifice a lot to do well while others concentrate on partying. So equal results, which socialism likes punishes me for trying to do better. Thus it takes away any incentive for people to do more. In fact, my economics professor first became a professor in Czechoslovakia and then came here and earned a Phd when the wall came down. He clearly states that socialist economies encourage people to become criminals to have more. It's human nature to want more and in fact, that is what even allows us to be able to afford any social programs at all. Why do you think we..the great evil capitalists had more money to give to Haiti than all other countries combined? because people wanting more go out there and create a surplus. Take away their ability have more and they stop creating more. Simple economics. Like it or not, Capitalism works and socialism doesn't.

Cap and Trade is just another way to restrict free people from operating a free market.

In short Pistolpete stop being a LibTard and join us reasonable people in the center. Like the old saying goes, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

BTW, those of us who are in the center elect presidents, not those who vote party line. Your votes are already cast. We in the middle decide when we decide which way to lean each voting cycle. I can tell you one thing, we are not leaning left for a long time after all the idiocy and corruption we saw in such a short time from the Dems.

Again, I'd like to thank all those who made comments to my story. Some of you have even joined on the day my story was posted, just so that you can make multiple comments (lol).

Yet, you all seem to forget that this is a work of fiction. Dave is not a real character. I've never been to Alaska. It's too cold and I'm too much of a diva to have to wear down coats and flannel.

As this is a contest story, for those who forgot to vote or who haven't voted, for those who are enjoying the back and forth dialogue about such a hot issue, as is global warming, please take a second to vote 5 for my story. I sure can use the vote of confidence.

Thanks,

Susan,

Andtheend

Now I realize that no site is safe from political rants. Yes, the good old Earth has been warming for about 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age. I'm sorry that Dave misses the cold and snow, but if he will just stay around long enough it will return. Funny thing is there seem to be more polar bears around now than there were fifty years ago. Must be more Senators to feed on, but not that I have noticed in the news?

It amazes me how much self centered and self rightceous pride can muddle a right wing conservative's thinking. As King Solomon (1000 B.C. - 922 B.C.) once said: pride goes before the fall and pride is before a crash (Proverbs 16: 18) (and he just happened to be the second smartest man who ever lived): 1 Kings 3: 1 - 28, 2 Chronicles 1: 1 - 12).

It's really pretty simple: if you take carbon out of the ground (through an un-natural man-made process) and you put it into the air (at an ever increasing pace) and you deforest (when you cut down more trees and destroy more vegitation) and desertify more areas so that nature cannot take up the EXTRA carbon and other pollutants that mankind is putting in at an ever increasing rate, then this extra carbon and other pollutants is going to affect the both the environment and the atmosphere which in turn affects both temperature and climate.

Only a right wing conservative would wrongly believe that adding more carbon and other pollutants into both the environment and the atmosphere and deforesting and desertifying more areas (so that there is less vegitation to take in this extra carbon and other pollutants) would have no effect on the environment.

DENY! If that is the best that a conservative's thinking can produce, that I suggest that they had better get used to President Barak HUSSEIN OBAMA II until January 20, 2017. BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA (from Kenya of all places), as a Liberal - Socialist I like the sound of that! May Jehovah God (Allah) bless him.

The reason why right wing conservatives fail is their inability to solve society's large social problems. It is us Liberal - Socialists who gave women and minorities the right to vote and to treat them as equal members in society, it is us Liberal-Socialists who are addressing the educational, welfare, and health care needs of society through social education, social welfare, and social health care, and it is us Liberal - Socialists that are addressing the environmental problems that society is producing (all this is done through collectivism). Right wing conservatives won't touch these problems due to their individualist Cain mentality ("Am I my brother's keeper?" "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die!"): Genesis 4: 1 - 26 (1 - 17, 8 - 15, 9), JST Genesis 5: 1 - 45 (1 - 26, 17 - 25, 19), Moses 5: 1 - 59 (14 - 41, 32 - 40, 34), 1 Corinthians 15: 29 - 34 (32)

Hey!

To the last poster, below.

Put a sock in it!

It's just a story. Do you understand what a story is? It's fiction. It's not real. Hello.

If you whacko people have so much to say and so much to write about there being or there not being global warming or someone bashing Republicans, Democrats, liberals, right wingers, whatever, write you own story.

This is just an Earth Day contest story and all you people are nuts.

Go stand on someone else's corner. This is my story. Go and write your own story.

For the fact that I've encouraged so much Earth Day global warming dialogue, you'd think my score would represent that, but what you people do is to bash my story, just because you are lunatics.

Thanks for reading, voting, and commenting on my story, now get lost (lol).

My pappy told me you can't change anyone's mind by arguing with them. He also told me opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Good story, ty for writing.

The earths axis has not changed in billions of years. This because angular momentum is conserved. Over the course of millions of years the poles have been both ice free and and ice covered down almost to the equator. Still no axis change. I don't think the author is too strong in Science. There is strong evidence that the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years while C02 has been increasing. If this is true(and I believe it is) someone needs to come up with an explanation before spending billions on something that's not going to work.

To the poster below, we are not at the science academy. This is Literotica. I did not write a scientific paper. I did research my story, however, and used the available opinions of those who are informed in the scientific community. Please send me your e-mail address and before I attempt another story (lol), I will check with you first.

Now, if you aren't going to give me a 5 vote, then get off my story thread (lol).

Hey, this is a ficional story. If you want science, go to the library or the laboratory.

Oh, my God! Does this ever end?

Wait until they read my new story posting tomorrow (lol), 40 facts about Earth Day. They'll have a field day with that. Yeah, maybe some of you professors should save some of your comments for my story tomorrow.

Thanks for reading, voting (I hope you did), and commenting on my STORY.

or essay. Be careful and don't confuse the two.

A bit too wordy. You need to take the time and trim out the chaff. Trim it back to about 750 to 800 words and you might have a good story here.

....came with a whimper as they ignored the blatant evidence in favor of their wallets.Good story, you're right, they're wrong(mostly) but with these anonymous wimps how do you continue a conversation.One guy takes what I said about a social science prediction and accuses me of muddling a climate debate.Huh??? Then you get the idiots who usurped the term "global warming", a term NEVER GENERALLY ACCEPTED OR USED by climatologists, then cry foul when "Climate CHANGE " is used, as if some bait and switch had taken place, though it only was their own design. No one has yet answered my question. And to the anonymous caitiff that accused me of being an intellectual, I say no more, sir,no more.

Climate change is not even a debatable issue anymore, except in the so-called minds of American conservatives.

95% of scientists in the world agree that climate change is taking place and it is driven in part by human activity. No question. No longer a debate, even.

But US conservatives look at this as some kind of litmus test to prove their lock-step allegiance to right-wing beliefs, no matter how kooky, no matter how dangerous.

Many of these same numbnuts advocate creationism when all scientific evidence has proven the truth about evolution again and again.

Say it ain't so, Rush. Tell us that all of these scientists are really just a cabal of left-wingers intent on forcing the United States to spend money.

The idiocy of America's right wingnuts is an amazing thing. They would rather fall on their swords than acknowledge simple scientific fact.

All of you anonymous posters who are beating your chests with one hand while beating your dicks with the other are impossible to reason with. Reasoning isn't part of your makeup.

Following the leader (or das Fuhrer) is all you mindless automatons are capable of.

Do some research. Read actual scientific journals rather than right wing blogs.

You may actually learn something. --eh, no. just kidding. learning is beyond your abilities.

Ice cover had returned. It's always nice to write drivel popular drivel backed up by fake science and people with agendas. I think I'll start claiming that the polar bears are the cause for global warming.

Have you ever looked at history and seen ice ages with ice coming and going?

Because global warming has been debunked and most legit scientists are running away from it as fast as they can. Only the few left who are trying to retain lucrative research grants are trying to maintain that it is true. Problem is, the ones at the top were caught lying.

A question though, by scientists, do you mean your buddies at the DailyKOS or Huffington Post?

You offer drivel, I provide source material. And no, global climate change was not being used by by anybody until they realized they had a problem in the the earth WAS NOT WARMING ANYMORE.

Get over it...it was about a big money grab. That's it. Scientists were caught up in it because the research grant money was flowing in one direction to the tune of thousands of dollars to one dollar for research against global warming. And why was that? because the richest financial institutions stood to make a huge amount of money that the oil companies can only dream about in their fantasies. Governments liked it because it was going to give them more power..

A well written story weaved around a lot of facts about our planet. I am lucky to have curbside recycling in my neck of the woods. I have been recycling since 1985. My whole family recycles. I know global warming exists.I am a research assistant for a scientific plant here in my hometown. So everybody who has their heads in the sand WAKE UP!

So the scientists and professors at places such as MIT, one of the top 4 universities in the nation, have their heads in the sand?

Sorry, but the simple fact is that this is money driven. There is a financial incentive for scientists to be on the global change advocate side because it is around 3,500 dollars for global climate change advocacy research for every dollar skeptics get.

And the reason for that is clear, because large international banks such as: JP Morgan, Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Barclay's, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, all stand to make money that the oil companies can only dream about. In fact, at least 2 times the amount of money. And they don't have to do nearly as much to make that money. No research into where oil deposits may be, no research and design into newer and more efficient ways to get to those deposits, no high risk insurance to cover very expensive oil drilling platforms that can be wiped out by a hurricane, etc...

All you are doing is parroting the BS by those seeking to utilize the old standby that if you keep telling a lie, it eventually becomes accepted as truth.

From Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

3. And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."

Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

You know, Rustydippednail, I find it very interesting that you joined on April 8th just so that you ban use my story as your pontificating soapbox.

Perhaps, since you are such a pompous ass, maybe you should take all your information and write your own story, before I take my high heeled shoe and stick it up your ass.

Oh, and by the way, you suck.

Why thank you. But you are blaming the river for overflowing instead of the clouds for depositing the rain. In other words, if the idiots wouldn't stop trying to spread lies, I wouldn't have to post facts to counter them.

Ergo RHDN, which is why you should write your own Earth Day story, so as to dispel all the misinformation and to regale us with your knowledge.

Now, begone with you. You're casting too much of a shadow over my story.

"Security!"

Hey A.T.E. - you hit a big one here, more comments than I've seen for one story in FOREVER!. And to think, all this from a short story by an ultra-conservative Neo-Nazi transvestite lesbian. Uh, that was you wasn't it? LOL.

BTW - the Richter scale has sort of fallen out of favor with the geotechnical types, the more favored scale now being the Moment-Magnitude scale.

Mr Trump will sort it out he's a man you can trust lol---thank you for the read. I'm glad I live on a hill 213 ft high cos i'm close to the sea.

It is wrong in allmost everey sentence. It is not logic and not true. There was allways a climate change . Since billions of years. The continents are moving permanently. About 70 Million years b.c. the average temperature used to be 17(!) centigrade higher than today. We would not have charcoul without this effect. Greenland is called Greenland by the Vikings as it used to be a green Land in y 1000, when Eric sailed along the cost. There have been times when there was not any snow ore ice on the planet. That was the time of the highest density of plants. This global warming hype destroys more nature than the real fact of the natural globel climat change. Read Michael Schellenberger and forget the terrible alarmisme.