My it's toasty in here ...

... the temp dropped to 45 in the desert today and I actually had to kick on the heat!

On your opinion describing my and conservative pundits arguments concerning "global warming."

I am convinced that the science does, in every measurable way, lead to the inescapable conclusion that man can NOT effect climate. 1:1 ratios of pollution to be sure, but the global climate? Not in the least. You are immeasurably mistaken to think that this is unsupportable or that these pundits are making claims "as" unsupportable as global climate change alarmists.

Let me put it this way. Why is there "no consensus" as you suggested? Is it merely because there are scientists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists and the like that are not "convinced" of the alarmists data? Do you actually believe THAT is the source of the scientific community's failure to reach a "consensus?" It is not ...

Thousands of scientists from across the spectrum are refuting the entire premise. In one scenario 31,000 (of which I have hundreds of names from M. Allard to Z Ci-Zong) have come together describing the idea that man's activity can surmount the cyclical events of earth's climate and make an impact as utter nonsense. The inventor on Hurricane forecasting and its vaunted "cat" system described it as "The greatest hoax perpetrated on man kind in history."
No sir,nNo Titus, I'm afraid you are behind the curve on this one. It is not "settled" that man has "some" effect and we're merely debating the levels. The debate has shifted as more empirical data emerges - and scores upon scores of reputable experts have decried our ability to affect the global climate in ANY measurable way.

So let me be clear, the idea that man can effect the earth's climate has to my satisfaction been proven illegitimate. It can not be. On the face of it the very idea that mankind, whose existence is infinitesimal when compared to the length of earth's existence is erroneous. A 4 billion year old planet, 200,000 year old existence of "man", and just under 200 years of notable industrialization and suddenly we are going to surmount that planet's natural climate cycles to the point of making a measurable impact? It's the silliness of a child's mind to believe so.

Now, you my say, "see that last line is exactly what I am talking about, use data, not insults." Well, I get that position, I truly do. It's just whether its within our forum or say in Beck's audience, the issue has been so discussed & debunked (I listened to Glenn Beck bring on one expert after another for a solid WEEK last year) that yet another recitation might literally bore the regular listeners. For me, I have spoken so strongly against it that only our New Deal debate would cause my eyes to roll quicker were I pressed to YET AGAIN present my case & evidence. And believe me, there's another reason for the sarcasm you hear employed. It is oft a reaction to those whom "believe" in global warming, or climate change (or whatever they've changed the name to now). What I mean is peoples whom have done no research of their own, simply watch a fake documentary or attend a "green" rally because Leonardo DiCaprio is appearing; or wives of famous stars whom hop on a multi ton diesel bus to go around the country advocating we each use only one square in the toilet in order to save the earth (as Seinfeld co creator Larry David's wife did). It is THESE people that these sarcastic comments are oft directed at - the patently absurd climate change advocates whom buy into this because it fits their preconceived notions about the evils of capitalism and/or because "recycling" is an easy religion to belong to. No more going to Mass or taking Sacrament, Al Gore says that I AM MY OWN JESUS, for I so loved the earth that I use only one square. So be careful not to confuse sarcasm or parody as our "argument" against the actual research of man induced climate change advocates, for more times then not (if not always) that bit of comedy is directed at the more absurd comments of their "true believers", and meant to entertain a commentator's audience or bring a chuckle to a Bund member's day, rather then serve as our serious discussions (which have been had) both on these shows and within our forum.

I submit that you are drastically behind on the evolution of this argument when stating the following: "Too many conservative thinkers (including you, but not ONLY you) use the argument that no amount of human activity can effect global climate change, to any degree. This is a patently false statement... so why make it? Why wouldn't it be easier to say that there is no consensus... in fact, no agreement at all... on the degree of human impact on the global environment? Rather than make unsupportable arguments FOR your point, why not show the unsupportable nature of THEIR arguments?"

First, I am not sure how you arrived at that notion being "patently false." Perhaps we should first define "effect"first, learning from our failure to define "success" at the onset of our New Deal debate. But that aside, apparently you were under the impression that we skeptics were merely that - skeptical of alarmist data. We are not, and let me speak for myself, I am not. I am convinced that in fact NO amount of human activity can surmount our planets own cyclical climate patterns. Quite frankly - we aren't powerful enough. Not in our wildest imagination. We couldn't do it if we actively sought out to. I am convinced that there is a cyclical nature to our climate based on the earths relation to the sun and sun spot activity and that no amount of human intervention can affect or intervene in that relationship in any discernible way as to change the climate. I am convinced that the climate models in the advocacy crowd used to date are flawed. That it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, via empirical evidence, that the nature of our climate is independent of any and all activity of mankind. Yes the climate changes, that's irrefutable, but man is by no means the force pushing such change.

Now, if you would like I will present my evidence in total supporting this claim, but it will take some time if I am to do it right. If for no other reason then I must dig some books out of storage.
But let me start here: NASA has admitted that it accidentally inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. The revised data now show 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1953. Four of the top 10 records are now from the 1930's, before modern human induced emissions could have been responsible, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the past 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). In other words there has been no stable warming trend in the US since the 1930's.

Similarly according Dr. S. Fred Singer (& about 100 of his peers in "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years") posit that we have had similar warming trends in Medieval Times, 950-1300 AD. , and the great "Roman Warming" of 200 BC to 600 AD. Ice cores dug up from Greenland and Antarctica show there have been over 600 such cycles in the past 1 million years - all of them moderate and none of them caused by man's industry.

This severely undermines the idea that we are now in some sort of near irreversible warming mode induced by man. Now, the Al Gore crowd knows this data exists, thus the evolution of the phrase "climate change." No longer was it "global warming", now it's climate change. Decades of claims on a hot-house like effect, screaming that our emissions were hurling our planet towards an irreversible scortching desert landscape were tossed out the window in order to maintain the template that man is screwing things up. Now we are capable of causing blizzards, snow storms, and ice ... "oh my."

The cyclical nature of warming and cooling that predates man by billions of years is so provable and so irrefutable that yes, it is hard to take the Gore's of the world seriously. They change their catch phrase, they rely on faulty models, and they attempt to predict the future rather than relying on the imperial evidence of the past. They are snake oil salesmen in $2000 suits tooting on their pide pipe as 18-25 year old's are led to believe they can save a planet, their planet, at the last minute like some comic book hero or Captain Kirk who hits warp speed at just the right moment. This movement fills their need to "belong" to something bigger then themselves, and since religion or the military or even traditional patriotism doesn't fit the bill, they glom on to this false religion based on faulty science. For any rationale human being they should serve as a constant punch line. However, when it comes to data and reports issued by the UN or NASA or "peer reviewed" position papers, yes, I agree they should be challenged on the facts, and ARE routinely done so on the programs I listen to ... not every day, but when the subject is broached in a serious manner, it is responded to in kind by conservatives such as myself or the commentators I frequent on the radio dial. Of that I am also convinced.