<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: So what happened to global warming?</title>
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/</link>
	<description>Global environmental challenges</description>
	<pubDate>Fri,  5 Sep 2008 06:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jessie</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-335361</link>
		<dc:creator>Jessie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-335361</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Jessie...&lt;/strong&gt;

I never thought about it that way....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Jessie&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>I never thought about it that way&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-335056</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 12:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-335056</guid>
		<description>I had no idea the anti carbon tax lobby would attack this article with such abandon!

In reality though, as a response to the original article, I think that the lack of AGW in the media is due to the fact that there are much bigger stories (rev Wright and Bittergate) that have been hogging the spotlight this year. Of course thats the same conclusion you came to. 

I think there's also tremendous work done to confuse people.  Oil companies (As per Exxon Mobil) spend huge amounts of money funding the extremely partisan "global warming debunking" groups.  

In the end, denial of AGW requires denial of many prominent groups, including NASA (which has the largest concentration of climatologists).  Ultimately it stems from a couple of things though, lack of immediate and obvious consequences being the most prominent.  The other, being what was mentioned so many times already: the weather.  

While it is neat to say things like "we couldnt measure the temperature or Co2 levels of the atmosphere in the 19th century" it's really a lie.  There are several ways to test both, most notably measurements of ice.  Ice that is decreasing at an ever increasing rate in the arctic. 

In the end though, refusal to reduce CO2 emissions do not carry any positive potentials.  From the melting of the arctic ice, to the exponential release of what was formerly frozen methane gas (a greenhouse gas) to the acidification of the ocean, one of our greatest food sources.  

In the end, continuing production of CO2 on a large scale serves only to benefit those who produce it on such a large scale, energy companies who thrive on oil and coal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had no idea the anti carbon tax lobby would attack this article with such abandon!</p>
<p>In reality though, as a response to the original article, I think that the lack of AGW in the media is due to the fact that there are much bigger stories (rev Wright and Bittergate) that have been hogging the spotlight this year. Of course thats the same conclusion you came to. </p>
<p>I think there&#8217;s also tremendous work done to confuse people.  Oil companies (As per Exxon Mobil) spend huge amounts of money funding the extremely partisan &#8220;global warming debunking&#8221; groups.  </p>
<p>In the end, denial of AGW requires denial of many prominent groups, including NASA (which has the largest concentration of climatologists).  Ultimately it stems from a couple of things though, lack of immediate and obvious consequences being the most prominent.  The other, being what was mentioned so many times already: the weather.  </p>
<p>While it is neat to say things like &#8220;we couldnt measure the temperature or Co2 levels of the atmosphere in the 19th century&#8221; it&#8217;s really a lie.  There are several ways to test both, most notably measurements of ice.  Ice that is decreasing at an ever increasing rate in the arctic. </p>
<p>In the end though, refusal to reduce CO2 emissions do not carry any positive potentials.  From the melting of the arctic ice, to the exponential release of what was formerly frozen methane gas (a greenhouse gas) to the acidification of the ocean, one of our greatest food sources.  </p>
<p>In the end, continuing production of CO2 on a large scale serves only to benefit those who produce it on such a large scale, energy companies who thrive on oil and coal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Barry</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334969</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Barry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 16:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334969</guid>
		<description>Political...  If your conservative, you are suppose to think anyone concerned about the environment is a whaco, If you are liberal, you are suppose to embrace "green" and global warming initiatives.  

I dont think we have enough data to decide either way about global warming.  We do have enough data to support being good stewards of our environment - for us and for our kids.  

Yes, there may be those who dont practice at all what they preach, but that doesn't releive any of us our responsibility to the planet that we all (democrats and republicans) drink, eat, and breathe on.

To me, it isn't political, it is common sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Political&#8230;  If your conservative, you are suppose to think anyone concerned about the environment is a whaco, If you are liberal, you are suppose to embrace &#8220;green&#8221; and global warming initiatives.  </p>
<p>I dont think we have enough data to decide either way about global warming.  We do have enough data to support being good stewards of our environment - for us and for our kids.  </p>
<p>Yes, there may be those who dont practice at all what they preach, but that doesn&#8217;t releive any of us our responsibility to the planet that we all (democrats and republicans) drink, eat, and breathe on.</p>
<p>To me, it isn&#8217;t political, it is common sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334956</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 16:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334956</guid>
		<description>Let me first say that I am a former science teacher with a degree in Biology who is now a school district superintendent.  I am very concerned about the indoctrination of our children with any political viewpoint.  I believe that a good teacher does not push children one way or the other, rather teaches them to think for themselves and learn how to collect and analyze data.  Yet the propoganda piece of movie magic that Al Gore put out is in nearly every school and pushed by most science and elementary teachers. (Thanks, non-analyzing, left-leaning mainstream media!)

I believe as many do that nearly all of the AGW hype is for political purposes.  Al Gore has been shown to be a charleton both in his lying and misrepresentation of facts in his film as well as his contradictory lifestyle.

That said, if these enviropolitical activists really analyzed their arguments, there is a serious conflict.  For years they have complained that we are cutting down too many trees and not protecting our existing forests.  More CO2 in the climate coupled with warmer temperatures would make for better growing conditions for our forests and farmers.  CO2 is not - NOT - a pollutant.  It is a critical ingredient for photosynthesis!  

Fear!  It is what the left uses to try to gain power and marginalize opponents.  Live free of fear - support freedom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me first say that I am a former science teacher with a degree in Biology who is now a school district superintendent.  I am very concerned about the indoctrination of our children with any political viewpoint.  I believe that a good teacher does not push children one way or the other, rather teaches them to think for themselves and learn how to collect and analyze data.  Yet the propoganda piece of movie magic that Al Gore put out is in nearly every school and pushed by most science and elementary teachers. (Thanks, non-analyzing, left-leaning mainstream media!)</p>
<p>I believe as many do that nearly all of the AGW hype is for political purposes.  Al Gore has been shown to be a charleton both in his lying and misrepresentation of facts in his film as well as his contradictory lifestyle.</p>
<p>That said, if these enviropolitical activists really analyzed their arguments, there is a serious conflict.  For years they have complained that we are cutting down too many trees and not protecting our existing forests.  More CO2 in the climate coupled with warmer temperatures would make for better growing conditions for our forests and farmers.  CO2 is not - NOT - a pollutant.  It is a critical ingredient for photosynthesis!  </p>
<p>Fear!  It is what the left uses to try to gain power and marginalize opponents.  Live free of fear - support freedom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gudenkauf</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334955</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gudenkauf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 15:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334955</guid>
		<description>I am constantly amazed that this topic hogs up all the headlines. It seems as though the debate of whether it is man made or a natural occurance, warming into the future or cooling is purely academic in nature, when the real topic of discussion should be that you cannot go anywhere in the world anymore without seeing, breathing, feeling, tasting and hearing pollution all around you - and the effects of it is astounding. Whether or not there is global warming, we are doing a terrible job of managing what resources we have left.

John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am constantly amazed that this topic hogs up all the headlines. It seems as though the debate of whether it is man made or a natural occurance, warming into the future or cooling is purely academic in nature, when the real topic of discussion should be that you cannot go anywhere in the world anymore without seeing, breathing, feeling, tasting and hearing pollution all around you - and the effects of it is astounding. Whether or not there is global warming, we are doing a terrible job of managing what resources we have left.</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ranger</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334946</link>
		<dc:creator>Ranger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 02:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334946</guid>
		<description>I would echo what Forrest has said.  I am an engineer also, and as such seek efficiencies in everything I do.  I also started off believing in the global warming hype.  After much study myself, I have also concluded that what we have been witnessing is nothing more than natural variation from a multitude of factors.  Most to complex to model.  I reject the overblown CO2 sensitivities and lack of meaningful variables such as the sun spot cycle modelers have used to scare the populace.  I believe what we have seen is the hijacking of a noble branch of science.  Unfortunately, it will probably take years(perhaps a generation) for climatology to recover as a science that will be seen as credible.  The global warming alarmists have done us all a disservice in more ways than just financial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would echo what Forrest has said.  I am an engineer also, and as such seek efficiencies in everything I do.  I also started off believing in the global warming hype.  After much study myself, I have also concluded that what we have been witnessing is nothing more than natural variation from a multitude of factors.  Most to complex to model.  I reject the overblown CO2 sensitivities and lack of meaningful variables such as the sun spot cycle modelers have used to scare the populace.  I believe what we have seen is the hijacking of a noble branch of science.  Unfortunately, it will probably take years(perhaps a generation) for climatology to recover as a science that will be seen as credible.  The global warming alarmists have done us all a disservice in more ways than just financial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom L</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334945</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 01:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334945</guid>
		<description>I want to thank Jim Peden for providing the link to the ClimateChange.doc paper.  Like Larry, I am an engineer also.  I happen to work in the nuclear energy industry which has much to gain from the acceptance of the CO2 driven AGW hoax.  I have been a "denier" for some time and don't really care if the fraud of global warming is finally exposed and the nuclear industry takes a dive (again).  I hope it doesn't because nuclear power really is a great way to go, but that's another fight.

I didn't really examine the paper in detail, but the important facts are there.  If this could be distilled into something that the general public could understand, along with a few graphics, then maybe Algore and his ilk could finally be exposed for their lies.  I recently had the opportunity to work on infrared CO2 gas detectors, and what I learned about CO2 energy absorption makes the truth of the paper's conclusions painfully obvious: any level of atomospheric CO2 above a minimal amount, well below the current level, will NOT cause any perceptible change in global temperature.  If I understand the science correctly, the IR wavelengths that CO2 can absorb will ALL get absorbed by CO2 and water vapor over a certain mininal distance and therefore are completely filtered out within that distance.  Due to the conservation of energy, changing the concentration of GHG will only change the elevational distribution of any temperature changes but will not alter the overall temperature change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to thank Jim Peden for providing the link to the ClimateChange.doc paper.  Like Larry, I am an engineer also.  I happen to work in the nuclear energy industry which has much to gain from the acceptance of the CO2 driven AGW hoax.  I have been a &#8220;denier&#8221; for some time and don&#8217;t really care if the fraud of global warming is finally exposed and the nuclear industry takes a dive (again).  I hope it doesn&#8217;t because nuclear power really is a great way to go, but that&#8217;s another fight.</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t really examine the paper in detail, but the important facts are there.  If this could be distilled into something that the general public could understand, along with a few graphics, then maybe Algore and his ilk could finally be exposed for their lies.  I recently had the opportunity to work on infrared CO2 gas detectors, and what I learned about CO2 energy absorption makes the truth of the paper&#8217;s conclusions painfully obvious: any level of atomospheric CO2 above a minimal amount, well below the current level, will NOT cause any perceptible change in global temperature.  If I understand the science correctly, the IR wavelengths that CO2 can absorb will ALL get absorbed by CO2 and water vapor over a certain mininal distance and therefore are completely filtered out within that distance.  Due to the conservation of energy, changing the concentration of GHG will only change the elevational distribution of any temperature changes but will not alter the overall temperature change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NoOne</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334943</link>
		<dc:creator>NoOne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 00:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334943</guid>
		<description>The latest and greatest comments concern La Nina (making things cooler) and El Nino (making things warmer), but these events have been going on for thousands of years, at least long before there was any Industrial CO2 to cause any problem. This and many other natural events  are much more likely to cause any climate change than the slight increase in the non-polluting CO2, a gas that is absolutely necesarry for life on our planet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The latest and greatest comments concern La Nina (making things cooler) and El Nino (making things warmer), but these events have been going on for thousands of years, at least long before there was any Industrial CO2 to cause any problem. This and many other natural events  are much more likely to cause any climate change than the slight increase in the non-polluting CO2, a gas that is absolutely necesarry for life on our planet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334941</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 21:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334941</guid>
		<description>I started out "believing" in Global Warming because the media and scientists said it was “fact”. My sister asked what I thought about GW so I decided I should research it for myself. I am not a scientist, but I am an engineer and make my living trying to understand data and how to control it. After all of my study, I have concluded (like so many others) GW is nothing but a political movement with no compelling science and no direct evidence that man is the problem. Everything is a theory with nothing but antidotal evidence (if you can call the polar bear that) to support it. The computer models are a joke. If a model can’t reconstruct the past, how can we trust it to predict the future? They tune the model outputs to support their underlying theories! 

I do believe Global Warming will be a disaster for the planet. But it won’t be from climate change, it will be from the extraordinary measures our governments are going to take to “control” it. I guess that is the most amazing thing about this entire debate. Even after spending trillions of dollars, no one really expects it to make any real difference; with the exception that a lot of people (like Al Gore) are going to make massive amounts of money. Of course we all know who will pay for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I started out &#8220;believing&#8221; in Global Warming because the media and scientists said it was “fact”. My sister asked what I thought about GW so I decided I should research it for myself. I am not a scientist, but I am an engineer and make my living trying to understand data and how to control it. After all of my study, I have concluded (like so many others) GW is nothing but a political movement with no compelling science and no direct evidence that man is the problem. Everything is a theory with nothing but antidotal evidence (if you can call the polar bear that) to support it. The computer models are a joke. If a model can’t reconstruct the past, how can we trust it to predict the future? They tune the model outputs to support their underlying theories! </p>
<p>I do believe Global Warming will be a disaster for the planet. But it won’t be from climate change, it will be from the extraordinary measures our governments are going to take to “control” it. I guess that is the most amazing thing about this entire debate. Even after spending trillions of dollars, no one really expects it to make any real difference; with the exception that a lot of people (like Al Gore) are going to make massive amounts of money. Of course we all know who will pay for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Forrest</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334937</link>
		<dc:creator>Forrest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 16:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/#comment-334937</guid>
		<description> Hi everyone, I am an AGW denirer, My name is Forrest. I suppose that my denial comes from 15 years of caring and examining all the applicable data that has been avaialable to me, a love of math, statistical analysis, etc and so on. 

I love being compared to people who believe the earth is flat, and think it is lovely that so many have taken pains to see that my judgement and ability to understand complex issues are so easily dismissed because I do not agree with their statements.

I love the earth and the enviroment, I ride an electric scooter ( because it is cheap ), and believe that people should be responsible for themselves.

I also believe that the Earth, by all accounts has warmed over the last hundred years. Most notebly if you examine the last 29 years you can see that the earth had warmed.

I also can see that in the last decade it has a cooling trend.

 I suppose I need to go on a 12 steps program... I need to accept a belief in a higher power ( 'Scientist and AL GORE' ) and turn my life over to that higher power... Maybe then and only then I will be able to shake off this horrible, horrible problem of denying AGW... If only I could shut my brain off... Hmmmm... how to do that... Maybe I just need to watch "An Inconvieniant Truth" a few more times that would do it for me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi everyone, I am an AGW denirer, My name is Forrest. I suppose that my denial comes from 15 years of caring and examining all the applicable data that has been avaialable to me, a love of math, statistical analysis, etc and so on. </p>
<p>I love being compared to people who believe the earth is flat, and think it is lovely that so many have taken pains to see that my judgement and ability to understand complex issues are so easily dismissed because I do not agree with their statements.</p>
<p>I love the earth and the enviroment, I ride an electric scooter ( because it is cheap ), and believe that people should be responsible for themselves.</p>
<p>I also believe that the Earth, by all accounts has warmed over the last hundred years. Most notebly if you examine the last 29 years you can see that the earth had warmed.</p>
<p>I also can see that in the last decade it has a cooling trend.</p>
<p> I suppose I need to go on a 12 steps program&#8230; I need to accept a belief in a higher power ( &#8216;Scientist and AL GORE&#8217; ) and turn my life over to that higher power&#8230; Maybe then and only then I will be able to shake off this horrible, horrible problem of denying AGW&#8230; If only I could shut my brain off&#8230; Hmmmm&#8230; how to do that&#8230; Maybe I just need to watch &#8220;An Inconvieniant Truth&#8221; a few more times that would do it for me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
