There has been many post on manmade global warming so I won’t repeat it here. This post is just stating that our side has been winning converts while your side is losing. There is much waste of my taxpayer dollars that I don’t care for especially appointing talking head to state scientific facts without the science to back it up.

Now then, an inquiring mind would not blather forth with this: It is another example of bogus science used by the manmade global warming cult. The trick in discourse is to define what the other person is talking about. As I was obviously referring to jet contrails, one place to start might be Wikipedia, where you will stumble upon this:

Vapour trails or contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that vapour trails or contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming.[3] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.[4]

There is obviously more in the article, including a discussion of the study that I brought to the attention of OTB readers. You may wish to explore the references in the Wiki article. An alternative would be a Google search, but that is a big bite to chew on with more than 120,000 entries for “contrails and global warming”.

The reason why I brought up David J. Travis’ study on contrails, temperature, and 9/11 is that contrails serve as a visible model of the effect of green house gas in the atmosphere. You may wish to explore how your tax dollars are at work in confronting this problem. The EPA has an elegant site that does not mention Al Gore, and provides a ton of information.

Take any three day period and it will most likely be higher or lower than the average of the last 60 years. If it by some small chance they are not then, one can use 50, 30 or however many years fit their agenda. There are many ways this study was bogus. To try to use it as proof that humans have significant impact on Global temperatures is lame at best.

It is another example of bogus science used by the manmade global warming cult.

Both can kill you, but it's pretty easy that the tooth would be the priority. That is the thing, per the polls that you "worry about."

OK fine, you've been to the dentist ... does that mean you ignore your cardiologist?

Actually, I think the reasons we tend toward overweight are very much the same reasons we ignore other long term and less immediate threats, like AGW.

(My BMI is 20.3)

I wonder if he knows how to pump gas?

Franklin, I certainly didn't take the Al Gore comment as political. I voted for Gore in 2000 and still believe he would have been a superior candidate in 2008, but I recognize his weaknesses and his public perception as much as anybody.

AHHH!!! SO IT'S YOU!!!!
Have you been exhaling CO2 Again and maybe a little flatulent???? HUH???[lol]

Or the NOAA

The intent of my post was basically that most people have chosen sides not based on any actual science, but based on who they believe.

I'm not offering an opinion because I haven't studied both sides of the issue. Plus every time I bring up the study that showed 97% of actual climate scientists believe in AGW, someone jumps all over me.

One could argue that these are cases where counter-elites are exceedingly well organized and have fought back with counter-propaganda. Regardless, they’re obviously cases where the elites have failed to dominate the debate.

It certainly does not take a graduate degree to appreciate that coupling gun control and climate change is a flight into absurdity. Gun ownership is a cultural phenomena limited to the United States, and selected other countries where tribalism or lack of adequate police power occurs. Global Warming on the other hand has immediate and long term effects on the ecology of our planet.

Now then, only the real, far out fringe thinkers fall into the climate change is not occurring crowd. Thus we are left with one of three possibilities: (1) Global warming is a “natural trend” and is unrelated to human activity. (2) Global warming is completely caused by human activity (3) There is a mixture of “natural trends” and human activity. It does not take a University trained logician to point out that the difference between possibility (2) and (3) is one of degree (pun intended, and a rather neat one at that).

Those idiots that argue that humans have no influence on climate just simply display their ignorance. Perhaps the clearest and most dramatic manifestation of human activity influencing climate was found when commercial jet flights were grounded in the 3 days immediately after 9/11. As for the impact of Global Warming, the dreadful man that FranklinTest (May 11, 2009 | 12:11 pm) decried can be found at Ted Talks with an update and some cool graphics.

Sigh, as the Center Right keeps touting the pre-eminence of the United States in world affairs they seem to have missed an obvious point. Great nations have a tendency to self destruct when the uneducated rabble reach a critical point