I hear Al will be awarded "ConMan" of the century.

Yea, his statements are looking so bad, that the true believers in global warming are now declaring his statements irrelevant, just 7 years after he shared the Nobel Prize with the IPCC. A 'Peace Prize' no less. This bringer of peace is now declared unimportant by his followers.

We’re now in our third consecutive month of storm after storm and flood after flood. More flood warnings per month than there used to be per year. Right now parts of the country are being battered by storms, roads are blocked, rail-lines washed into the sea, airports closed, villages have become islands, homes are being evacuated as I write this. Not a flake of snow all winter and temperatures way above normal. I’d say the global warming scenario is working out exactly as predicted given that these weather events are part of a well established trend.

<< Is it true that the American Communist Party has moved into, and taken over, the environmental movement? >>

Invoking Godwin’s Law of Nazi analogy. Accusations that the ‘other side’ are Nazis, Communists, Fascists etc is recognised as an acceptance of having lost the argument; when all else has failed this is what some people are forced to resort to. Anyone who makes such a claim clearly has no better argument to use.

<< Is it true that a few yrs. ago they tried a global-cooling scenario, which also flopped? >>

Not remotely true, anyone who claims it is clearly doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about or is a liar. I’ve studied global warming and cooling extensively, I’ve written papers on both subjects.

Back in the 1970’s it was noted that the emissions of sulphates and black particulate matter was both absorbing and reflecting incoming solar radiation, this reduced the amount of heat energy reaching Earth’s surface. It was correctly pointed out that if such emissions were allowed to continue then there was potential for a degree of cooling to take place.

Governments around the world took action, the emissions were reduced and any potential cooling was averted. The scientists were absolutely correct in their observations, not that the so-called global warming “sceptics” would dare to admit this.

<< Some folks love to latch onto a lie like a pit bull clamps onto its victim. >>

That’s generally because they don’t understand the subject matter. Your observation explains why the “sceptics” believe the lies and propaganda coming from the fossil fuel industry.

There isn’t one scientific organisation on the planet that refutes the influence humans are having on our climates. Who do you think knows more about climate change – thousands of scientists who actually study it or the denier spokespeople for the fossil fuel industry who have almost no scientific qualifications between them?

PS – It also helps to be able to distinguish between climate and weather.

Wow, you ran with 3 denier fake points in the one question, way to gain credibility.

Addressing your fake points

1. Al (I presume you mean Gore) has nothing to do with the science on AGW

2. Not sure what the denier fixation is with communism is but in case you missed the global news in the last few decades communism and the cold war is long over.

3. Then we have that old denier favorite, "global-cooling scenario, which also flopped?" that's a nice denier myth, but one that is simply not true, in the way deniers try to present it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...

That deniers keep playing up this and similar lies, is very good proof of the weakness of the denier case

P.S. on the Gore point, over the years I've been here I've seen Gore attacked by deniers on every childish point many of them extremely personal like his marriage problems to the beach house he supposedly bought, which turned out to be a complete lie (what a surprise) it is deniers who keep trying to reference Gore because frankly they have nothing on the science front.

You talk of the "global-cooling scenario" yet what of denier many failed theories It's the Sun, It's cosmic Rays, It's clouds, it's volcanoes. This is the difference between science and denial 40 years ago some scientists did put forward the idea of "cooling" based on the evidence available at the time, later evidence show that theory was incorrect and scientists accepted that and moved on. Deniers on the other hand continue to use (interchangeably) all of the above four theories (and others) even though they have been shown to be wrong, now that is true "latching onto a lie like a pit bull clamps onto its victim"

1. You heard incorrectly. The errors Gore made (and there were some) were relatively minor.

2. Not to my knowledge. Aside from the fact that the environmental movement isn't a monolith that can be taken over...

3. There were some scientists worried about cooling from human-sourced atmospheric particulates such as sulfur emissions. The same things causing the "Asian brown cloud" you may have heard about. The problem (mostly) went away, because of better emissions controls, so scientists stopped worrying about it.

And now I'm going to throw several of my usual responses at you.

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

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

Global warming is climate. "It's cold right now" is weather. Learn the difference...

There's a lovely analogy here: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/scie... about a man walking a dog on a long leash.

Really, there are essentially no genuine scientific skeptics left on the matter of global warming, rather like there are basically no genuine skeptics on the matter of evolution, the Earth being round, and so on. We have reached the point where science has pretty much said "This is the answer, now let's figure out the details", and the only people not accepting that answer are a few fringe oddballs with (usually fairly wacky) alternate explanations, and people who are for ideological reasons doing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La, la, la, I can't hear you".

If you want more information, try here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://aip.org/history/climate/summary.h...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... (a while back, I asked people to post links to sources at various experience levels)

I certainly do not take the weather patterns in different locations as meaning anything, one way of the other. Some warmers, like trevor, like to bring up flood and other things as evidence, but at the same time ignore large snow storms as being evidence against. He takes the old, everything proves me right, approach used by psychic readers. Don't actually predict anything but "change" and declare victory because surprise, surprise, the climate always changes and if you look at every location all over the world, you are going to find something.

At the same time, I strongly disagree with using snow storms as evidence against AGW and notice the same behavior from the skeptics that I criticize in the warmers.

As for the communist stuff, I slightly disagree. A number of the warmers (including trevor) here have other methods for addressing the issue with something other than CO2 taxes. I would not call them communists. Generally, I don't call any of them communists, but I do recognize that this idea of haivng big brother gov't fix every problem va taxation, is far from the best method. I also notice that MANY warmers seem to only bring up taxation as a method.

The American Communist Party did not take over the environmental movement.

The American Communist Party BECAME the environmental movement.

Teddy Roosevelt (national parks, conservation)

Richard Nixon (environmental protection agency)

George W.H. Bush (Earth summit, UN Rio convention)

All card-carrying members of the ACP!!

Arnold Schwarzegger ran the body builder and massage chapter of ACP!

Margaret Thatcher founded the British Satanist chapter, see: