Ended up going full cricle and buying an atlas...

Unlike the rest of the global warming conspiracy.  All those
scientists banding together to try to ban fossil fuel consumption and
send us back to the Dark Ages.  The nerve of them.

I dunno.  I'm not the only one who attributes algae growth to warmer
water.  Maybe they reach critical mass and die off before maximum
water temperature is reached.  Perhaps global warming will benefit
you.  Once the water reaches the boiling point, you'll never have
algae problems.

"A trifecta of conditions helped the algae flourish, he said. That
began with an influx of algae-feeding pollutants spewed into the ocean
during two successive hurricane seasons. Sunlight from clear skies
during the current dry season and high ocean temperatures spurred the
growth, [Brad] Bedford [of the Harbor Branch Oceangraphic Institution]
said."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/03/29/0329
algae.html

Chlorine.  Are you suggesting chlorinating the Atlantic?  That might
work.

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> muttered:

Fox News - The propaganda arm of the Bush/Republican Party.

Goebbels would be proud.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk
science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. . . Mr. Milloy holds a B.A.
in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of
Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University
School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the
University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown
University Law Center.

In other words, a lawyer.  Is he qualified as an atmospheric scientist
with his biostatistics degree or with his LLM, that's what I can't
figure out?

Your lawyer says the greenhouse effect is a myth.

NOAA says otherwise:

"The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate
the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and
is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat
absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases
because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-
radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most
abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace
gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the
Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present
57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a
greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an
enhancement of the greenhouse effect."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Or the EPA:

"Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will increase during
the next century unless greenhouse gas emissions decrease
substantially from present levels. Increased greenhouse gas
concentrations are likely to raise the Earth's average temperature,
influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea
levels. The magnitude of these changes, however, is uncertain."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html

Since the Bush Administration that is directly in charge of these two
agencies has a vested interest in denying human global warming, why
would they be too be part of the vast global warming conspiracy that
most of the civilized world has succumbed to?  They must all be out to
get you, the only possible explanation.

Milloy's the guy that also doesn't believe in any dangers of second-
hand cigarette smoke, as he takes hundreds of thousands from the
tobacco companies.  Yeah, real credible.

He was registered as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute
between 1998-2000.

You couldn't find a better example of a biased wacko.

Five goofball scientists and a British tabloid TV show and that's the
best you got?

Besides Bush's own government agencies, chock full of scientists, you
have basically every other scientist in the world except for your 5 on
the British TV show.

I like this factoid:

"In September of 2006, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) stated
that the only major scientific organization that rejects the finding
of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists."

What really strikes me as odd is why you people believe it's a
conspiracy to get you.  I can understand Milloy and the second-hand
smoke issue.  You believe that anti-smokers, who just don't like
inhaling used CO when they want to breathe fresh air, forged all these
scientific studies proving links between second-hand smoke and
disease, just to piss of the smokers who should otherwise be allowed
to smoke wherever they please, on airplanes, in all hotel rooms and
restaurants, and in nurseries, hospitals, and day care centers.

But who do you believe is behind the global warming conspiracy that's
swept up every scientific organization except the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists and the 5 scientists on your British tabloid
show?  It's not Bush, I can guarantee you that.  It's not the UN, or
that crafty Bolton would have caught on by now.  Could it be Osama's
doing?  Saddam from the grave?  Those sneaky Iranians and North
Koreans?  Who, exactly, and just how have they managed to brainwash
all our credible scientists?  Black helicopters have something to do
with it fer sure, but I can't figger out yet precisely how they fit
in.

*****

We've led the nation in curbing emissions.  It's not our fault that
our perfect weather and natural wonders have made the place so damn
crowded.  I'd be glad for a few earthquakes if it would send 10
million or so scurrying back to the sorry states they came from, but
we unfortunately don't get big ones too often unlike Florida where the
frequent hurricanes, oppressive heat and humidity, and bugs keep
everyone but senile folk and oppressed Cubans from moving there.

Tony,
The petition you mentioned is so called Leipzig Declaration which was
signed in 1995 by 17000 "scientist" worldwide and only 20 of them were
involved in any kind of climate research. From those 17000 many didn't
know  that they even signed such a document
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate
_Change

BTW in 1995 Seitz was really old guy with little contact with reality.

Janusz

On a geologic scale, perhaps not.  The human race and its global
warming will be but a belch on the planet in a few hundred million
years.  It really isn't a big deal.

But I'm certain I'll witness some dire effects of global warming
within my lifetime.  I hope it's as exciting as they portray in the
movies.

Here's the latest news:

"Concerning the USA, the report will reference numerous scientific
studies on the effects of spring arriving weeks earlier, says
University of Montana ecologist Steve Running, an author of the
chapter on North America. The "big climate signal and impacts" will be
in the West, he says. Earlier melting of mountain snow, on which much
of the region depends for water, would mean more severe dry spells and
droughts that would trigger worse wildfire seasons. Lower stream flows
also would threaten fish and wildlife.

"Research also has predicted more frequent heat waves, increased
rainfall and flooding in northern states, and more severe tropical
storms on the Gulf and East coasts.

"In its first report in February, the panel, backed by the World
Meteorological Organization and conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations Environmental Programme, concluded that "unequivocal"
evidence shows industrial releases of greenhouse gases have warmed the
Earth an average of about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century.
That makes it "very likely" that temperatures will rise 3 to 7 degrees
this century, depending on future emissions.

"Moss says the roughly 5-degree rise in global average temperatures
envisioned in the February report will cause damage that cannot be
recovered. He echoes a warning by NASA scientist James Hansen in 2004
that the window for action is only 10 years. The Stern Review, a high-
profile report last year by the United Kingdom's chief economist,
Nicholas Stern, warns of serious financial threats to agriculture and
commerce.

"Environmental and energy analyst Anthony Patt of Boston University, a
report co-author, says the report will divide the possible effects of
temperature increases this century into three grades: a 3.6-degree
rise with warmer winters but few human catastrophes; an up to 7.2-
degree rise that wealthy nations could handle but would prove
calamitous to poor nations and many species; and an even higher rise,
which 'would prove difficult for any society to adapt to.'

·At a 3.6-degree rise, all Indian Ocean coral reefs go extinct, and
97% of the rest around the globe are "bleached" or severely damaged.
All Arctic ice disappears.

·At a 5.4-degree increase, half of all nature reserves become unable
to conserve native species. The Amazon rainforest disappears.

·At 7.2 degrees or higher, coastal flooding is seven times worse than
in 1990. Malaria threatens 330 million more people a year, and hunger
jeopardizes 600 million. Australia no longer can grow food.

All of this leaves aside the most extreme risks that Schneider calls
the "dark edge of the bell curve": melting of the vast Antarctic ice
sheets; shutdown of Atlantic Ocean circulation, which brings warm
weather to the United Kingdom; and the release of more greenhouse
gases frozen in the Arctic tundra.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-04-03-tipping-points_
N.htm?csp=34

That's pretty cool.  Even under the best-case scenario of a 3.6-degree
rise, we lose 97% of the world's coral.  But I won't be diving then,
so what do I care?

If we spent as much on the issue as we do on the Iraq War, we might
come up with some decent alternatives and make a difference.