And as this topic reaches its fateful 100th post, I say...

Wow.

That is all...

Same reason you seem to repeat your views ad nauseum whenever someone dares to contradict them maybe?

Show one bit of irrefutable evidence that there is "massive global warming" and that that is caused in its entiety (or at least in a very large part) by human activity...
And the hockystick model won't do as it's
1) inherently flawed data
2) doesn't explain the warm period (far warmer than today) before the supposed massive global warming caused by humans.

There is no such data. In fact, the IPCC report itself doesn't even conclude anything LIKE the political document which forms the basis of the global warming hype. The "summary" that does was written by political analysts, supposedly based on the study but more likely based on political agendas as the "summary" bears no resemblence to the report itself.

He's entitled to his opinion as everyone else...I actually agree with him; global warming is at the VERY bottom of my worry list. I posted that to see what people thought about it and welcomed each and everyones comments.

Anyways, I just don't see how that will even do anything. I mean, eventually the co2 WILL reach the atmosphere won't it? co2 is a bi-product of co2 during the co2 cycle and is also used during it.

I just read in the newspaper that the trees are compensating for the warming by stepping up oxygen production. An automatic feedback system!

Scientific American was bought out by a liberal group a few years ago, and is no longer unbiased. It now reminds me more of Omni.

I have yet to read any conclusive evidence that we are truly in global warming. All I ever see on the subject are the fears of the liberals about what will happen IF global warming occurs.

I have seen two studies which claimed that global warming is occuring - and both have been refuted:

- The CO2 concentration in air trapped in ice study was flawed because ice in contact with the ocean can remove CO2 from air and transport it to the ocean.

- The long term temperature record study has three flaws. One is that the Fahrenheit degree was redefined in 1901 to be an exact multiple of the Celsius degree. Another is that most of the data after 1930 was taken at airports, where paving has been increasingly used. So that data showing a rise in temperature is local. The last part is that the total temperature rise claimed far exceeds the accuracy of the thermometers made at the beginning of the period.

Mark Twain I believe

It has several more flaws but those are indeed serious ones.
Another major flaw (which this particular dataset can't really help because there weren't any airports back then) is not taking into account the far higher temperatures in the 1700s (and all the way back to the 1300s) compared to the 19th and 20th century.
Of course during much of the period there were airports sending in readings their number was low and even today the datapoints are not distributed evenly enough to give a true "global" average. With about half the datapoints being in the USA and over 75% being in the northern hemisphere the data is heavily biassed towards northern American climate outside polar regions.

Another flaw is that there is no definition of "global mean temperature". Therefore the data produced by different reporters (and in different eras) cannot be compared as the data is incompatible (some is measured at sealevel, some at 1.5m, etc.).

Well, this thread is so long that I'll probably duplicate something already said. Still...

I think the current affair that worries me most, of those mentioned, is the economy. My concern isn't so much with present economic conditions, however, as with the growing disparity between those who have lots of money and those who don't.

Yeah, I know there are a lot of lazy deadbeats who'd like nothing more than to leech off of those who work hard for their living (good living or not). However, there are more people who are struggling through little or no direct fault of their own, and who are being rejected and shunned by those who have the means, but not the heart, to help them. It seems that, when sales plummet, prices rise in order to shore up profits, but then this just makes it that much harder for those who aren't well-to-do to afford the comforts many Westerners enjoy.

I live in a city in which crime, violent crime, is really getting ridiculous, many of our children graduate from high school about as dumb as a box of rocks and the streets are so bad that transportation costs skyrocket due to excessive wear on tires, shocks and suspension systems on cars. Federal funding has been witheld because of unchecked air and water pollution (edible fish haven't existed in our river for years), and the city is fairly bleeding decent jobs to places where the local population can actually spell the name of the company they'd like to work for. Yet the foolish local government is trying to scrape up money to build an arena so the local college can play basketball games! I believe recreation to be a vital component of a society, but in the face of these other issues, an arena is just plain stupid!

But the rich folks want it. The only thing they care about the poorer ones is that those broke folks don't invade their gated communities. History has repeatedly beaten us over the head with the fact that this kind of societal polarization will eventually crumble a civilization.

Your problems seem to be mainly education, not economics.
And it's not the "rich" people who want that stadium, it's the uneducated masses who want cheap entertainment.

Educated people would vote to get those streets repaired and those schools kicked into shape.
Company owners want educated people who can do valuable work and provide them with profits, not zombies with useless non-skills pumped out from your average school today.

Typically education suffers as areas slide into socialist rule. Poorly educated people far more readily fall for socialist propaganda about "equalising income", leading to nationalisation of industry and persecution of educated people (with the end result of killing everyone who wears glasses which happened in Cambodia for the sole reason that glasses are a clear sign that the person is educated and thus a threat for an egalitarian society).

No, my problem is economics, although education does have a lot to do with it (and I mean academic education, not so-called "common sense", which is what you seem to be talking about).

And I'm not promoting any of what you see as the evil societal changes you fear, such as socialism and the like, neither do I agree with your assertion that socialism leads to poorer education or that poor people are ready targets for any kind of propaganda. Such thinking is propaganda in itself.

I'm talking about decent, hard-working people who have good sense, but who simply don't contribute enough to the local authority's tax base to have a hearable voice. In two of the communities I'm talking about, the people do vote, they turned out nicely when the city and county decided to merge governments, but in spite of that, the city realigned the districting so that those in poorer areas were given fewer city services. Instead of one large area, they broke it down into three, while annexing several suburbs, then implemented a policy under which certain city services are allotted according to the size of the tax base.
The state, 15 years ago (when the state was 49th in the country in education) promised that if the citizens voted for a lottery, the money would be used for education. 15 years later we are still near the bottom in education. Poor people don't just want cheap entertainment (which is an unfair thing to say about those who oppose this arena for sound reasons), but they would like to have traffic lights at dangerous intersections so they could get to that arena without tearing up their only car; they would like to see more police so that maybe their children might, not only be safer, but less likely to continue the cycle of violence they grew up seeing; people have bombarded the city with requests for better roads, but the city keeps saying they need federal funds, which they can't get because of the pollution. I could go on with specifics, but what would be the point?
Look at it kind of like this; if your home has been damaged by fire, would you respond by going out and spending your limited income on a new car, or would you get the house fixed first, then maybe look at the car? It a very similar thing; before we toss money into something that is not needed (that local college already has a very nice place to play basketball), we should look into improving on some things first. If that's socialism, then hey, I'm all for it! The city might also consider putting more thinking (and money, but only of that's really what it takes) to bringing in more and better paying jobs and stop those that are leaving from doing so.

If poor people are targets for socialism and the like, it isn't because they're stupid; it's because they will grasp at anything that seems to hold the promise of doing better than living hand to mouth. I don't know what your economic status is, and I'm not calling you an evil person if your are rich (or even well-to-do), but no one who really knows the pangs of proverty would be so quick to blame poor people for being poor and at the same time offer them no viable solution, not as individuals talking about it like we are, but as human beings supposedly sharing the fruits of being citizens of the world's richest nation.

Singer James Brown wrote a song years ago called "I don't want nobody to give me nothing, just open up the door and I'll get it myself". A long and grammatically incorrect title, I agree, but the message of that song can hardly be faulted. Realistically, in many ways, that door may not be closed, but it just isn't opened wide enough for many poor people to have a realistic chance to improve their situation.

Socialism doesn't provide ANYTHING to the people it targets. The ONLY people who benefit from socialism are the ones in charge, the party leadership and their close friends.
That's the same everywhere and all the time.