Wherever there is passion there is exaggeration – or at least biased opinion. I am turning off to the incessant talk about global warming. On the other hand, the author’s pointing to Al Gore’s private jet as an example of hypocrisy is a bit much. There is no way he could be as effective as he is if he was not wealthy and used the most efficient means to move himself and his support team around

Greenland is a big, flat mass of ice with a volume of 2,850,000 km3. It's recorded annual melt rate is 239 km3 but this does not include the 95 km3 of new ice deposition each winter. So even without any new ice formation it will still take 11,925 years for the ice to completely melt.

Greenland's annual mean temperature ranges from -31C to -20C and the climate cretins predict it will warm by 3C over the next century. And last time I checked, ice still remains as ice between -17C and -28C. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good "scarenario".

The facts are that parts of Greenland melt every summer. What the satellites detect is shallow layers of melt water on top of the ice each summer. This area of transient puddles has expanded recently and has been widely reported as if the entire ice mass has melted. But these puddles all do exactly the same thing every Autumn. They freeze over again, as they have done for millenia.

The latest research also reveals that the glaciers that have been recorded as speeding up are also just as likely to slow back down once the internal stresses have adjusted. To extrapolate from the speeding up times is just as scientifically corrupt as it would be to extrapolate from the periods when they come to a halt.

So Greenland isn't even melting much at all. Don't sell the waterfront property just yet folks.

Manbearpig is totally real! No one believes me but I am super serial!

Global warming, climate/change, end the world – whatever - will prove to be the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind since ancient sea voyagers were supposed to drop off the end of the earth if they went too far from home.

The worst effect of the nonsense is that sensible people have to put up with all of this chattering for now, knowing that when even the alarmists and climate charlatans get the message they will not be made to apologise, at the very least, for their scaremongering ratbaggery

"There is no way he [Gore] could be as effective as he is if he was not wealthy and used the most efficient means to move himself and his support team around."

But, what, shame on the small businessperson for using their Toyota Hiace to efficiently move themself and their product/service around to make an honest living and provide their family with food, shelter and shoes? Gore blimey!

Did anyone notice that even Rupert Murdoch acknowledged the reality of global warming today and intends to restructure his business activities to carbon friendly practice.

Meanwhile why do the editors of this forum continue to feature the rantings of the said turpentine. He is a fool--full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. Rantings like that would score an f triple minus in any decent philosophy or journalism class.

"There is no way he [Gore] could be as effective as he is if he was not wealthy and used the most efficient means to move himself and his support team around."

Unfortunately Gore has been very effective at creating hysteria in the under-educated or non-thinking majority. I hope he (the self-proclaimed inventor of the internet) will still be alive to be discredited (again). I'm sure his excessive wealth will cushion the blow. At the rate his girth is expanding you have to wonder how sustainable he is.

I loved this article.

For one reason: somebody was allowed to present the proposition that GW may not be happening!

Personally, until I see some scientific evidence for this phenomenon, I am yet to put my faith wholly in it.

I have wondered why people have become so obsessed with GW and your reasoning about an Orwellian socialist agenda makes perfect sense. Especially because it is a "global" phenomenon and in schools we are constantly told we are "global citizens" etc. If there is an agenda, it's not just to take over one country, it's to gain control of the entire world.

(Hmm, fodder for the Conspiracy theory articles perhaps?)

Why is it that deniers of global warming only seem to have mostly some un- scientific "feeling" to proclaim their position. I would just prefer to accept my own observations and the conservative scientific advice of the 2500 leading environmental scientists from around the world who all signed the United Nations IPPC. And please don't tell me it's a political conspiracy developed by all the countries of the world. Perhaps everyone should read Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers, a book with scientific research which has pages of bibliography that indicate it is not just one man's opinion.

R there still people believing in global warming? And they criticize my faith in God. I suppose people still hold to the hopelessly flawed theory of evolution as science so nothing should surprise.

I find this a peculiar load of tripe.
Since when has Time been the accredited spokesperson for the enviroment? it was probably written by one of your fellow travellers to discredit climate change, as ridicule not science is your main weapon.As evidenced by your attack on Al Gore, you can't beat what he is saying so you try to discredit the man, shoot the messenger that is really pathetic, the oldest and most discredited tactic in the book.
Your ignorance about polar bears is appalling ofcourse they can swim that is the problem, they swim out to what formerly would have been pack ice, but due to global warming has broken into small pieces,then this drifts out to sea, they get lost , disoriented or too far from shore then try to swim back and drown.
I am just thankfull for one thing, that you are just writing this crap on an internet chat room, and hopefully you have no power in real life.

Oh ho, Ho Hum! And your best contribution to this debate is an ad hominem attack on the author, and indirectly of the editors for allowing the author to express his perfectly valid views.

I must say that the argument that global warming is far from proven to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 is seriously damaged by the idiot fringe who seem to want not to believe that global warming is even happening. Global warming is most definitely happening - the uncertainty, and there are arguments on both sides, concerns the cause of the global warming. My view is that the anthropogenic CO2 case is far from proven (despite the 2500 climate scientists mentioned in one contribution - that group is largely self-selected) and that there are other possible causes. That the cause may be extra-terrestrial is given considerable weight by global warming on earth having happened in the recent past (Mediaeval Warm Period) and that global warming also appears to be happening on Mars at the same time as it is happening here.

Yes, we're all in this together, but some of us are more in this together than others.

Reynard you just don't get it, the authors tone throughout almost the entire article was one of ridicule, I just answered in kind. I think you should carefully read what I have written, instead of skimming through, you have not answered one criticism.
(1) Time magazine is not an authority on climate change
(2) A complete misunderstanding of polar bear plight
(3) The usual shoot the messenger not address the issue
(4) Using ridicule instead of science as a debating tool

I think global warming/climate change has been invented to replace religion for those who are too intelligent to subscribe to religion, but not intelligent enough to see that the propaganda regarding anthropogenic climate forcing is just that; propaganda. It is a new religion for the irreligious.
In both cases, I am a total sceptic.
As for Al Gore, well! He is very inconvenient and a hypocrite.
Still, I suppose people have to have something to occupy their minds...

This global warming thing seems to me to have overtones of the leftist greenies finding another way to attack capitalist countries. It always seems to be the capitalist countries that have to change their way of life to save the planet and bring things back to the way the greenies or watermelons (red underneath) are always advocating.

I agree mankind has become like a plague on the earth because of our sheer numbers and this will certainly cause problems like more wars and poverty but I am not convinced that global warming will be one of the problems.

Keep your head in the sand, Ben-Peter.

We'll still try our hardest to ensure that your children and grand-children enjoy what you and your parents have enjoyed.

Terpstra cites C.Horner, a lawyer working for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (one of many right wing corporate funded thunk tanks http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_C._Horner) as an expert on climate science. What next, citing the press agent for British American Tobacco on causes of lung cancer?

Keep right on denying Terpstra, theres plenty of sugar daddies for such work (www.exxonsecrets.org) and you'll no doubt gain rich if repulsive friends. Cherrypicking the hypocrisy of Gore (a mainstream US politican hypocritical? NO!! shock, horror, better call Today Tonight) or the stupidity of Time magazine (mainstream media having been lobotomised twenty years ago) may win chuckles at the golf club but is irrelevant to the reality of rising land and sea temps, acidifying ocean, and retreating glaciers. Of course playing the man not the ball is the only card RightThink has left, but its a wonder more of the rats aren't departing the sinking ship of denial.

"R there still people believing in global warming? And they criticize my faith in God. I suppose people still hold to the hopelessly flawed theory of evolution as science so nothing should surprise. "

Wow - possibly the most moronic post ever written on the forum, and that's saying a lot. runner, you are something else. In fact I'm suspicious all your posts are actually a prank.

(I've got nothing to contribute constructively, just wanted to senselessly dish out a personal attack on runner.)

Al Gore is undoubtably a hypocrite, that however doesn't make him wrong.
Now the interesting bit, George Bush is a CLOSET GREENIE, he lives in a far smaller house than Al Gore, recycles his water and heats and cools his house geothermally. .Google Wizbang.
But do we see anybody jumping up and down criticising him for this, oh no, as a major greenhouse denier he is just as hypocritical as Al Gore.
The point of all this ,don't know really, just brings to mind an old saying from north of England, "nothing queer as folk".
Screaming your tits off about hypcrites and human behavour is a pointless excerise, show me human is never hypocritical and I will show you a corpse.

Right on Froggie,

No sooner had I escaped the Pentecostal church, than a new bunch of self-righteous fanatics started telling me the world was going to end.

Liam,

I think I've said this before, but hec, I'll do it again:

Oooh. A right wing think tank. How dare they publish their evil, right wing propaganda. Only left wing, independent think tanks can be trusted to give unbiased information.

Blah Blah Blah

It is perfectly rational to assume that the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth is entirely beyond human control until proved otherwise and the correlation of rising atmospheric CO2 with rising temperatures (droughts, hurricanes, whatever) does not imply causation.
The assumption that rising levels of CO2 is causing a relatively modest rise in global temperatures is driven more by politics, psychology (e.g. guilt, angst etc.) and profit.

I just love the hysteria coming out of Hollywood and perpetuated by our inane media about global warming.

Only twenty years ago or so, there was fear that the world was entering a new Ice Age. That never occurred and now we're being told we're melting away this that and the other. Give me a break!

I recently heard that Sheryl Crow was campaigning against toilet paper, saying that people use too much of it and there should be a legislated one piece per person rule! There seem to be no end to Hollywood loonies trying to make headlines by waffling on about so-called global warming.

An excellent resource on the true nature of any climate change is: http://www.co2science.org

'Dinners' claims "Only twenty years ago or so there was fear that the world was entering a new Ice Age." This is an oft-repeated yet unsubstantiated and meaningless claim, but at least it marks its supporters for the mindless parrots they are. They base this claim on a very few sensationalist articles in nonscientific commercial newsmedia (that v.few have even read, hence no links or substantive discussion).

Such buffoons are funny, if embarrassing for their families, but not useful. I guess its a step up from the resolute ignorance of Admiral von Schneider, who obviously hasn't bothered to aquaint himself with the barest outline of global climate system science (AVS - causation is amply implied by the demonstrated properties of co2 and diff wavelengths of radiation, duh!)

There are good criticisms to be made of IPCCs 4thAR, but dedicated deniers are too busy regurgitating the golden oldies of the IPA/LavoiserGroup/ABolt/AJones to have a clue.

Dozer, the problem with Terpstra citing Horner is that he is citing a lawyer to support his claim that Gore & the IPCC are unscientific.

The IPCC/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is however the biggest & longest collaborative science project in the history of the human race, research by its participating scientists is thrashed out in dozens of peer reviewed journals over years, with plenty of heat and lots of witnesses.

Hmmm, who to trust, the lawyer (whoever he works for) or the 2000+ scientists?

Maybe we can throw the lawyer into a shark tank and see if he floats, is that suitably scientific for Terpstras christian logic?

That claim about global coolong was floated about 30 years ago but was quickly dropped, about the same time as global warming was mooted. I am not getting into a fight with global warming deniers as their arguements and lack of knowledge are beyond belief, I will just say one thing, what is smart about waste.
Howard and other deniers are always rabbitting on about the cost of alternatives, yet the cost of fuel in about 5 years has gone from about 80c to over $1.30 over 60% rise.
Now here is the rub,
My family fuel bill is about $1300.00 per qaurter
My electricity bill is about $220.00 per quarter
If the cost of electricity doubled it would still be considerably cheaper than fuel.We could reduce our electricity bills by 50% for $15000.00 per house using solar, the government should be paying for this as it would be cheaper than nuclear, which we will never have by the way the Nimbys will make sure of that bless their little hearts.
Now consider this, we sell gas to China for 6c a litre, yes 6c, yet we import fuel for about 30c a litre , the gas we sell to China can be used in any vechicle with the right modifacations.
How smart are we? not very by the look of all this.

Liam writes

(AVS - causation is amply implied by the demonstrated properties of co2 and diff wavelengths of radiation, duh!)

Sorry Liam thats only a theory, there is the nagging problem of infrared band saturation and IR competitive GHGs like water vapour. The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is still largely an unknown. Global temperatures haven't moved for the last six years, maybe sensitivity has been over estimated.