yes and i was one of the ones late to work because of the traffic backups on Bollinger.

It was sort of ironic seeing people wearing snow gear at a global warming protest.

Yeah, I agree. It snowed in Danville, so those who believe in global warming must be wrong.

Is that sarcasm or do you people really not understand how climate change works? Because if you did, you'd jump to your conclusion (albeit just as unscientifically) in the opposite direction, that increasing weather irregularities the world over such as this one are in fact palpable measurements of what is happening to the planet. Gotta love that Sarah Palin-esque neo-con anti-intellectualism.

Thanks "Homework" - you beat me to the punch on that one. I also go back and forth between wondering if people are joking or if they truly believe that if it snows in their vicinity, that it proves GLOBAL warming is a myth. Sadly, I really don't think they are all joking.

Scary.

And if you did YOUR homework you'd know that Global Warming is a force created by liberal scientists to mess up the world and keep them in jobs and block traffic. Well, not going to work on me. You can keep your science and your palpable things and your fancy word play. When my snowman melts, I own several hawaian shirts, bermuda shorts and a huge gun. I'm riding this thing out.

It was sarcasm. Geez...lighten up.

Dick P: you represent every problem this world has. The list would be too long for this forum. Glad you were able to rape the world so you could possess all those Hawaiian shirts. Have fun riding it out with the other mis-informed, stubborn, and ignorant people. You need to open your eyes.

Dear DICK: I don't want to be disrespectful, but your anti-thinking rant somehow put me in a mind of this passage from Inherit the Wind:

"...fanaticism and ignorance are forever busy, and need feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating [and wearing our Hawaiian shirts?] we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!"

And remember DP, on the internets, EVerybody has a huge gun.

BTW, why are you here -- you do recall, don't you, that AL GORE invented the internets?

My, my aren't the global warmers being sanctimonious? Anyone who doesn't support their position is immediately labeled a Neanderthal. I love the terms, "misinformed, stubborn, ignorant, Sarah Palinesque and neocon. I am comforted that we will be taken care of by the true intellectuals.

Tony, you are entitled to your opinion (and Dick to his "big guns" - God save us all). My sister (who doesn't believe that we are degrading our own planet and contributing to devastating long-term climate change) recently sent an article that shows over 70% of Americans do believe in the global warming concept. She thinks 70% of Americans are then ignorant.

My response to her was to ask what the harm is in recycling/conserving/etc. anyway? What if, in spite of believing that all this science is a hoax designed to create unneeded jobs and just mess with the intellect of a minority of individuals (based on the article, anyway) everyone just used what they needed instead of what they could get, bought/used recyclable containers, brought their own bags to the grocery store, rode a bike more than drove their car, etc. Would that not be a more gracious and, indeed, responsible way to live? It doesn't seem to be asking that much, and I'll bet there are many who don't believe in global warming that already do this - we're not that far apart in actions necessarily.

If we removed the concept of global warming and still tried to use less energy/less space/fewer non-renewable resources/etc. is there any harm?

Just a thought...

I hope all of the protesters managed to get to their place of protest without the use of any fossil fuel! What a bunch of misguided manipulated fools.

This area, and Danville in particular, is of course very much against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. And so are the protesters that showed up at Chevron. Bear in mind that the mass of the atmosphere is 5,300 million megaton and the mass of carbon dioxide is about 3 million megaton. This amount varies annually by about 48,000 megaton up and down (6 percent). Burning all the petroleum used annually in the USA produces no more than 3,000 megaton of carbon dioxide per year which is eventually absorbed by vegetation.
Nothing to worry about and nothing to worry about Chevron. How cowardly on the part of Chevron to accede to the demands of Green Shirts (allusion to Brown Shirts). Instead they should come full out and fight the cap and trade legislation and the arbitrary decision of the EPA that carbon dioxide, a gas indispensable for life, is "pollution." Hopefully the Copenhagen meeting will be a flop.

To me, it seems like the deny-ers are pining for a simpler time -- it's a very dangerous pastime.

Why is it hard to understand that if a single, albeit cataclysmic, eruption can cause global climatic catastrophe, then humankind's pulling-out all that carbon -- sequestered over eons in coal, oil and gas -- and injecting it over hundreds of years into the atmosphere could also have a devastating effect (and in this case, a much more enduring one)?

Add in all the evidence that warming is, in fact, occurring, and you either take action to insure the future of your progeny, or take risks with their fates that utterly dwarf any heart-felt concerns about the national debt's effect on them.

And let's say, for argument only, that we have the evidence of warming without the proven human causation. We still need to counteract the effect, lest our grandkids are left a legacy of damage to which our species won't be able to adapt in time.

You think the war on terror is expensive in blood and treasure? Wait until you see the global war for food and water. I'll take ounces of prevention for $1000, Alex.

Sorry for trying to find humor in this global warming tragedy. I just thought it was kind of funny seeing people protesting global warming wearing snow gear.

I apologize for my momentary lapse of sobriety.

If you all would pay attention to the information that is being presented, you would understand that the very group of "scientists" who started the global warming scare, neglected to run all the data that is needed for a solid conclusion. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank! While you folks believe him. The folks in Bereley found out after years of being sure their soil was contaminated until an extensive study proved that it was one of the cleanest areas in the world. If you listen to lies long enough you begin believing in them. Maybe those of you who belive in global warming should go back and take a class in basic science.

Clearly a basic science class is your only level of understanding. I believe most scientists of the world now acknowledge that the changing climate hs in fact been impacted by human behavior. If you refuse to consider the findings of the leading scientists of the world, than you are just stubborn and unwilling to. Surely you don't think that you are smarter than those guys...do you? Trust me, I would believe them and way before I ever believe you.

Mr. Teabag till it's over, you are wrong. I ain't no physicisk but I knows what matters. I paint houses. But no one cares what the painter thinks. That's ok.

Dear Dolores,

Let's see if we can focus this discussion on the issues and in-depth consideration of mankind's impact on this planet by starting with information concerning Chevron's approach, Web Link

Then, if your commentators are interested CDSI could offer more information from all views on the impact of mankind on earth's environment. Not any one side but the scope of the real discussion and consideration.

Does that interest your Forum commentators?

Hal/CDSI

Sharon: Your sister has a lot more common sense than you. People are more likely to be injured in a car accident caused by the liberal extremist protesting at Chevron than by global warming.

Sharon,

Your observations are much more reasonable and well-thought than some of your predecessors who are throwing out inflammatory ad-hominems to anyone who doesn't agree with his or her position. For, that "thank you."

Hal -- I followed the link -- to a two-year-old sfgate article about Chevron's then-new ad campaign. Is that what you intended?

Since it's sarcasm that started this whole thing, perhaps it's sarcasm that should end it. I'm not saying which way this short clip cuts, just that it cuts good.

Web Link

Science is never really settled, there are always new nuances to be uncovered. But when you look closely at what was Dumped by someone inside the EAU CRU Web Link could not have been a Hack)This "Settled Science" is based upon Qustionable Data. "The Books have cooked" on this Data for whatever reason. It's time to start over and develop "real" data and a real debate over what is or is not going on.
We need develop the most efficient way of doing everything.
If you want to call me a "denier" so be it, but what has come out is damning and the CRU is not claiming the info to be a Forgery.

All you can do to protest this foolishness is to burn fires on spare the air days

Dear Dolores,

Here is the current Chevron position from their website: Web Link

The overall climate change program has been in operation and promotion for >3 years.

Hal

dbba: Spare the air days are moreover a way to combat the immediate threat of air pollution to children with asthma, adults with COPD, etc. By burning on these days you put your neighbors at risk.

American - I sent a link to this thread to my sister (the one you say has more "common sense"). I think she is still laughing - if you knew the two of us, you would understand completely.

Tony - thanks, and ditto to you. I don't know the answer here for sure and no one else does either. Only (much) time will tell. I know what I believe and that it doesn't hurt to live my life while recycling, reducing energy consumption, etc. I would rather err on the side of passing along a healthier planet (though I don't think this is a drill by any means).

I think it was pretty apparent that Dick P was kidding. Global warming is impossible to prove. What greens should focus more on is the fact that pollution stinks up our air daily. Without rain for long bouts, our skies turn brown and look depressing. We should focus on asthma and all the other harms caused to our children. Global warmings too convoluted. I happen to believe humans are affecting the climate for the worst. However, those who don't agree have a point. There has been sudden climate change in the past. Around ten thousand bc, there was a period called the younger dryas. Within a decade, the planet went from a warm period to being instantly thrust back into the depths of an ice age. It was like something out of The Day After Tomorrow. We should find a more conving argument to make the world switch from toxic petrochemicals

Oh, you'd just LoOOoove for him to be kidding, but if I know my beloved Dick P, and his beloved Hawaiian shirts, he's as serious as I am when I say, "Dick, I've been running all around this topsy-turvy, libby-dibby, greenhouse-gas-understanding, scientific journal-reading, ecologically-conscious world for too long. Please, won't you and your big gun make an honest, Earth-hating woman out of me?"

Dickita P: you are a breath of fresh, clean, carbon-free air in the wretched, acidic smokestack of life.

If ol' DickP doesn't treat you good an' improper, then you just come a-lookin' for me.

At the end of the day, global warming or not, I want to leave a clean planet for the future... And NO ONE that is arguing against global warming has been able to convince me burning MORE fossil fuels, eating MORE meat, and increasing the population at an unsustainable rate, is a good way to leave a planet that is clean and green for our children.

No matter if you are for or against global warming, supporting cleaner living is something everyone should support.

Wow, what a bunch of sanctimonious global warming hysterics. It snows and the "deniers" make a few comments and are immediately derided by the holier-than-thou alarmists. But every time a hurricane happens, or "record" temperatures are reported, these self-same smug nimrods tell us it's "proof" the world is going to boil away into space next week.

Paul - interesting accusation considering that you labeled all those who discuss their belief in global warming as: "sanctimonious global warming hysterics" and "smug nimrods." Do you feel that by labeling those of a different mindset than you in this way is a bit hypocritical, given that your point appears to be that you feel that the comments made by those in opposition to your views were out of line?

Whenever a debate is waged on such a hot topic there are people on both sides that make unflattering comments regarding the "other side." Maybe it is easy to turn a blind eye to those that are in agreement with your own position. In the end, we likely are heard by the "other side" much better if we stick to stating our position and avoid attacking the character of others.

Just a thought.

Global warming or not, do people really think that recycling and lessening our impact on the planet by using more sustainable approaches to consumption is a bad thing? I mean really, what is the harm in recycling our bottles and cans? What is the harm in turning down our thermostats a couple of degrees? What is the harm in pursuing solar options as a means to powering our homes? What is the harm in using eco-friendly products?

I would rather be wrong and do the right thing than be right and do the wrong thing...right?

I think, at the minimum, that people should take a close look at what and how they are consuming and think of the economic as well as the environmental benefits of making subtle changes in their lifestyle choices.

Those that don't even consider the alternatives are doomed to live in a state of ignorance at the peril of the greater populace as the world moves forward.

Though I think the Chevron protesters could have chosen a better means to make change, I commend them for standing up for what they believe!

Andrew, bless your level headed self.

Never fear silly Danvile (spelling intentional) liberals! Vlado Blech and his super-con-hero sidekick Sean "shun sanity" Hannity will save the day. Don't you fools know it's always cool with your heads buried in the sand? Just follow Super_Vlado off the nearest cliff. He and his merry statistics will save you, and melting poles be damned!

Global warming is expected to result in 400,000 more heat-related deaths globally. However, isn’t it expected to result in 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths?

Currently, 2.5 billion people do not have access to a toilet or clean water. If the objective of Copenhagen is to save human lives, wouldn’t it be more cost effective to address that first?

Didn’t life thrive during the Jurassic period, when the Earth was much warmer than it is now?

A world without fossil fuels would be amazing, but is that a realistic possibility? If we provide massive tax credits and government mandates, wind & solar will meet just 2% of world energy needs by 2030. They represent less than 0.5% currently.

If the global economy spends $180 billion per year for each year of the coming century mitigating CO2 emissions, it is expected to result in the eventual reduction of global temperature of an almost immeasurable 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

This would not matter if we had infinite resources, and if we'd already solved all or most other problems. But we don't, and we haven't. Especially in the current economic climate, shouldn’t we prioritize what we do?

"Global" comment: sources for these specific claims?

1 -- I do not believe it.

2 -- diversionary tactic. You could also argue that it All stems from over-population, and that therefore birth control should be a priority, but watch out for thunderbolts from the vicinity of Rome.

3 -- "Life" will survive -- I have a mild preference that it be "human" life. The earth will help us, but not if our one paltry species overwhelms its capacity to adjust elsewhere in the system to counterbalance our effects.

4 -- extreme argument, strawman response and unsupported claims.

5 -- unsupported, and dead wrong to say that a -0.3 degree change is insignificant -- it's hugely significant, on a global scale.

6 -- another dilatory tactic, and an argument akin to the grasshopper's position in the familiar fable. Except we don't have any responsible ants to bail us out later.

I hesitate to get into this debate having read some of the previous comments, but I believe that the protesters were exercising their right to free speech, and it concerns me to see how quickly people are arrested for doing so (the recent protests against tuition hikes at the UCs are an example). It often seems difficult for people on internet forums to debate issues without getting very personal--and very nasty--quickly. Perhaps it's the anonymity.

My question is: who has the monopoly on what is right? And why are people so quick to label each other? What is it with the nasty, judgmental remarks about the "other side?" And why do people have to be left or right? Life just isn't that black or white (or red or blue). I would love for once to see sincere, respectful debate about issues such as climate change, education, health care, etc.--and what we can each do to make this world a better place, rather than sifting through the name-calling.

After all, we have just made it through Thanksgiving and are in the midst of a number of holidays whose purpose is to spread peace and joy, not vitriol and hate.

Several of the people who commented here seem very entrenched in their world view and unwilling to consider any other point of view. Sometimes flexibility is a good thing.

What I can't really understand is who has the right decide what is "American" or "un-American." For such a great country based on the ideals of founding fathers, there appears to be a lot of fear and dislike of fellow Americans, let alone those who are not born in the USA.

Isn’t trying to stop global warming a fool’s errand? According to top climate researchers, Earth’s temperature will rise by 6.3 degrees by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges.

Web Link

If that’s the case, why spend $180 billion a year on a failed attempt at trying to cap CO2 emissions? That will accomplish nothing and only cripple the world economy.

Shouldn’t we instead focus our efforts on adapting to climate change, such as developing drought & heat resistant foods, and moving people out of the potential drought and flood zones caused by global warming?

I think what happens is that we begin to speak in different languages and we miss the point of the opposing argument. I think spcwt is half right. We should invest our energies in finding food and water alternatives as the world warms. But I don't think that capping CO2 emissions will hurt the current economy as much as the rising cost of fuel. Remember fossil fuels are finite. Supply will go down, Demand is already high, prices will skyrocket, and then it will be gone. What do you do then?

Also, I think the economy is broken already. It doesn't take an economist to know that many people in the developed world live way beyond their means and accumulate massive debt, both in the public and private sector. This is very unstable and if it continues as is, will ultimately lead to disastrous economic problems on a global scale. Cap and Trade programs will be a drop in the bucket when this happens.

Its time to innovate and implement a new economic and environmental paradigm and Copenhagen is a very beginning. Whatever is agreed upon in Copenhagen will be just the beginning of countries who will HAVE to realign their monetary systems and find creative ways to extract, harness, and use energy that is cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable. It will only get worse before it gets better so people should brace for a prolonged period transition. You thought this recession was bad...

I urge Chevron to be a leader in this change!

Booooooring!