I saw a PBS documentary on "global dimming". I was unaware of this although scientists have apparently known about it for some time.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

It holds that there is a global cooling effect due to the particulate matter in air polution. Garsh, the "scientific community" didn't exactly trumpet THIS, now did they? Probably worried that it might endanger their global cooling research grant money.

So take your pick, folks - cooling or warming.

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

The most notable scientist in the entire piece is a guy named:
Gavin A. Schmidt

He used to work, or still does, at the NOAA. He is not a hysteric climatologist, but he is on board with global warming.

He said the program, that you are using as your only source on the issue, is greatly exaggerated and is not supported by the science.

He agrees with most IPCC assesments.

Have a nice day.

Ixtellor

P.S. I hope the oil companies are paying you for all your foolishness. Because if you are not making money off this, then you are just parroting the lies of other people who ARE making money off this. What does that make you?

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

May I sell you some energy credits?

Sincerely,

Algore and all those making money off global warming.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Climate is complex, with lots of interrelated and competing factors. The main thing to note is that the warming effect swamps the cooling effect. It's like noting that some advantages to falling out of an airplane is that you get to enjoy a pleasant breeze, great view and the sensation of flying on the way down.

__________________
Man up.

We better stop our carbon usage because it's affecting mars as well.
when will Al Gores Global Warming church start to burn the non-believers?
as soon as they discover a neutral way to burn them with a less carbon print?

__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

More silliness by you. Global dimming has been identified and studied by many scientists for decades. See eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

How is there a concensus when I can pull up a very detailed site noting all the follies of the GW theory in less than a few minutes. It seems there are still quite a few scientists who disagree with the "concensus". All I know is my dad said all he heard when he was a kid was GLOBAL COOLING! In the forties they thought we were heating up and back around the turn of the century every scientist was positive that we were going into an ice age. Even thought we are more than likely coming out of one. Interesting tidbit. You know the stories of all the old colonies along the carolinas and Virginia (Roanoke, Jamestown, etc.) One of the Worst things that they faced were these brutally cold, harsh, long winters. I've never known Virginia for being brutally cold. Besides. After this year, I think we could use a little more global warming. I'm getting a hummer.

Oh I'm dreaming of a green Christma. Just like the ones I use to know.

Few things.

1) Every single scientist in the global dimming special, believes that global warming is occuring and that it is caused by man.

2) Name them.
If you do any real research you will find a common trend among those who disagree. 1 - they work for an oil company and 2 - they don't have a PhD in any field related to climate.

Last I checked there were about 4 climatologists of note who were not funded by oil companies and had the academic credentials.
Of course the NSF, NOAA, and EVERY single body of climatologists and weather scientists in the world is on the other side. With one exception: The one dealing with petroleum geologists issued a statement years ago saying they didn't believe in it.

Please name all those scientists you found.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

The point and only agreeable fact in this entire discussion and all the debates around the world is that no-one knows for absolute certain what will happen. Even if you debate that all the scientists agree, they base their theories off models. Models that can't possibly include every tiny detail relating to weather patterns. If we can't even predict what will happen tomorrow, how can we accurately predict what will happen in a century?

I'm all for protecting the environment: I think we owe that, at least, to nature. But at the same time, I don't think we should require end-of-the-world theories to get a move on it.