Posted by SeaDuck79 at 4/18/08 1:11 p.m.

Sorry, but your "experts" are either wrong or lying. The earth has NOT warmed for the past 10 years. Neither have the oceans. That also comes from NOAA data.

You are correct in saying that regional and seasonal abnormalities aren't really relevant. I hope you remember those words the next time you point to one that supports your belief in the AGW theory, as has been done many times before.

Speaking of sample sizes, it bears noting that what was NOT reported in the "The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record." statement was that "on record" to AGW extremists means 150 years of history. Out of 4 billion~ years of Earth's ACTUAL history, that is an insignificant and statistically irrelevant sample size.

That so many continue to cling to such cherry-picked data to support a conclusion only undermines their belief in it and/or their credibility to state an informed opinion on the topic.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 1:17 p.m.

I feel sorry for you, SeaDuck...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 1:45 p.m.

SeaDck You have to allocate for livable conditions if you want to compare sample size. This region only became inhabitable 8-10 thousand years ago as the Puget Ice lobe retreated. Even then the landscape was far different and unable to support an agrarian society. If you give a null hypothesis of "The planet is warming" and use 150 years of data based upon 10,000 years of habitability. You will find with whatever correlation that you choose (if you are a geographer) for instance the pearsons correlation coefficient, you will find based upon those numbers that the you have to accept the null hypothesis as correct and reject H'a. This is because it is provable within a 5% margin of error, that the planet has warmed.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 1:49 p.m.

Or if you are not a geographer or capable of crunching your own numbers, and would rather listen to a corporate apologist like Rush Limbagh and take his word for truth that would work as well. But then, you are just repeated someone else's words as your own.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 2:13 p.m.

The stupidity is in the headline. I mean since when does Seattle get snow in April? Global warming means warm where its usually cold, and cold where its usually warm, and the issue of EXTREME temperatures. That is the problem with Global Warming. There will be no temperate days, either biting cold or melting heat.

Posted by technoshaman at 4/18/08 2:19 p.m.

OK. I see one comment by someone who bothers to identify himself, and four instances of *ad hominem* by anonymous users.

What's wrong with this picture?

More to the point: Weather reports are taken on airports - large expanses of heat-absorbing concrete that are continually being expanded. What I'd like to see is some mesoscale satellite data that takes the *whole earth* into account. The fact that those sea surface temps in the South Pacific are still capable of an extended La Nina tells me the whole global warming FUD still needs work.

Sign me,
Southern Skeptic in Seattle

Posted by MikaVexo at 4/18/08 3:00 p.m.

I think it is interesting that is acceptable to adhere to word of mouth from left wing wack jobs (Al Gore) but it is not acceptable to adhere to word of mouth right wing wack jobs (Rush Limbaugh). Unless you are a Geographer (as stated above) you have to listen to some of the wack jobs and provided you adhere to the left of center side of the argument you will not get scorned. Remember, you have to listen and believe everything said by the left regardless of the lack of evidence.

There is not enough evidence to substantiate the truth of global warming or cause. The Earth's temperature does fluctuate, but does that mean if the temperature goes down by 1 millionth of a degree next year from this year that we're experiencing global cooling? I can logically argue we are experiencing massive global warming base on temperatures during the ice age. What is the baseline?

Posted by gettingreal at 4/18/08 3:18 p.m.

Let's see who am I going to listen to Official government agencies who employ the top scientists, or a handfull of skeptics who pull out new "facts" to be debunked every month.

Posted by Robert McClure at 4/18/08 3:51 p.m.

FUD?

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 8:47 p.m.

"There is not enough evidence to substantiate the truth of global warming or cause. "

Yes, there is:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/18/08 9:08 p.m.

Here's some winter data from the NCDC ... with an actual link to data:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/20
08/feb/feb08.html

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville,

I wonder why Lisa didn't talk about this NCDC report .... could she be 'cherry-picking' data that supports her bias?

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/18/08 9:15 p.m.

Here's the actual NCDC March 2008 report:
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/20
08/mar/national.html

I don't see the statistics thta Lisa is quoting in this report. The report says:

For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for March was 42°F (6°C), which was 0.4°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and ranked as the 52nd coolest March on record.

Only three states in the contiguous U.S. were warmer than average for March (Arizona, New Mexico and Rhode Island), while near-average temperatures occurred in 39 states and below average temperatures in seven states.

On the Regional level, much of the U.S. experienced near normal temperatures during March. The East North Central and Northwest regions had below average temperatures.

March 2008 temperatures contrasted sharply with those in March 2007, when record breaking temperatures covered large parts of the nation during the last two weeks of the month. The broad area of near-average temperatures this year kept the nation's overall temperature-related residential energy demand for March near average based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI). For the cold season (October-March), the energy demand was 3.1% below the mean period of record consumption and was the 30th lowest value in 113 years.

Snowpack conditions decreased in many parts of the West in March, but in general, heavy snowfall during December 2007-February 2008 has left the western snow pack among the healthiest in more than a decade, with most locations near to above average.

Lisa - where did you get your data?

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 9:21 p.m.

Speaking of cherry-picking

"The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, "

What you leave out is that the report goes on to say that the period was still warmer than the 20th century average. And your observation supports the original premise that looking at temperatures in one area or for a short period of time is meaningless when arguing about global warming.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/18/08 9:23 p.m.

Oh... Lisa's looking at the cover page... found here:
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/20
08/mar/mar08.html

Note how the highlights on the cover page are different from the data inside the report.
The cover states:
"ranking it as the 63rd warmest March on record"
while inside the report it says
"ranked as the 52nd coolest March on record."

Interesting how the data is presented two different ways ... 63rd warmest versus 52nd coolest.

Then Lisa leaves out the part about
"Only Rhode Island, New Mexico and Arizona were warmer than average" (proof of cherry-picking)

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/18/08 9:39 p.m.

Robert McClure:
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Salespeople from IBM in the 70's and 80's coined this term along with 'Nobody ever got fired for selecting IBM' when selling their products.

Posted by Fastfish42 at 4/19/08 6:06 a.m.

While I agree Global Warming is a left wing schlock bunch of hooey...I also belive we should take better care of the planet. Most of all we should all STIFF the oil companies and walk, run or ride bikes.

Posted by Descent at 4/19/08 6:21 a.m.

The problem is that global temperatures have continued to rise since 1998 and without the help of "the El Nino of the Century" that pushed temperatures that year to record highs.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/19/08 7:02 a.m.

Cooling global temperatures over the past twelve months has eliminated any global warming that might have happened over the past 100 year. The temperature data is from four major reliable climate monitoring source - RSS, UAH, GIIS, and HadCRUT.

The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time.

wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19
/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-coo
ler-in-the-past-12-months/

Posted by christine gust at 4/19/08 7:14 a.m.

The question isn't really whether or not the earth is warming. The 'hole in the ozone' was reportedly allowing more UV rays in, also warming the planet. Mars' temperature has also been calculated to have increased.

The question is whether the natural carbon sinks for CO2, such as the oceans, are adequately filtering the CO2 present, a level that has steadily increased since the Industrial Revolution from burning coal. A whole lot of countries around the world continue to burn coal, including the US. There's a lot of coal to burn, and the US has an enormous supply. I'd love to see all these short-term carpet-bagging hysterics apply their considerable energies to working to improve the 'cost-effectiveness' of clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration in IGCC power generation, rather than just panickedly waving their hands in the air and screaming "DO SOMETHING!"

What do you think "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" means, kids? The same barrel of oil that has topped $100 a barrel yielding the gasoline for your car also supplies you with the natural gas fueling your power plant. What we as a nation couldn't accomplish if we collectively just turned off 'Dancing with the Stars' and other idiot box programming and cracked some books!! Oh, wait, I forgot... that's 'WORK'. Uh huh. But that's who Americans were back in the day - more working, less whining.

Don't paint me red without the white and the blue too.

Posted by VX at 4/19/08 7:27 a.m.

No matter how cold it gets, the global warming nut jobs will alway attribute cool tempatures to a "Weather Pattern", where as warmer tempatures will always be attributed to gas guzzling cars and big business.

Its not about the climate, its a political movement for the environmental extremists. Until people understand that, people will continue to buy their global warming BS.

Posted by BoeTiger at 4/19/08 7:50 a.m.

"No matter how cold it gets, the global warming nut jobs will alway attribute cool tempatures to a "Weather Pattern", where as warmer tempatures will always be attributed to gas guzzling cars and big business.

Its not about the climate, its a political movement for the environmental extremists. Until people understand that, people will continue to buy their global warming BS."

Thanks VX ! ! ! It's good to see that there ARE still rational folks in the World/NW/Seattle!! I agree with YOU ! !

You folks enjoy the snow ...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 8:05 a.m.

To all who are contrarians to the irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming, this chart indicates that the temperature of the earth as measured in the troposphere (far more acccurate than measuring at an airport as one skeptic pointed out), is increasing decade over decade: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html#tropo

And, one year of temperatures returning to normal (not below normal), doesn't erase the increase in temperature, it adds a small dot to the trend line pointing upwards.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/19/08 8:51 a.m.

The huge heat sink known as our OCEANS are a much better indicator of whether the earth is warming or not.
Read this article:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st
oryId=88520025

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.


If the oceans are not warming up, the Earth is not warming up.

Posted by Descent at 4/19/08 9:16 a.m.

So, just to be clear, one skeptic thinks 120 years is an insufficient amount of time to detect a warming trend while another thinks 12 months is plenty of time to detect a cooling trend.

Posted by Not PC at 4/19/08 10:15 a.m.

I am sure it was not intentional but Lisa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have exposed the major problem with all of the computer models that have been used to predict Climate Change. El Nino & La Nina. Many times the NOAA has reported (as recently as last year) that they can not predict when or how severe El Nino or La Nina will be. Even as we are experiencing one, they can not predict how long it will continue, what effects it will have or precisely what the weather will be.

Therefore, since these climate events can not be predicted they were left out of the Global Warming computer models. A true case of if the data does not fit the conclusion eliminate the data.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 11:40 a.m.

So, Concerned_Citizen, by your argument the last 3-4 years are the only ones worth figuring into the argument against the idea of Global Warming?

"the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years."

And, the data in the atmosphere over the past 100 years is a false-hood?

Posted by thesmallprint at 4/19/08 12:59 p.m.

Global warming is not based on small scale local variations. Global warming is based upon large scale trends and statistics. GW is not for amateur thinkers gazing up at the sky. It's extremely complicated.

If you're looking for facts rather than opinions, then consult the scientists with physical facts, such as tree ring and ice core analysis. Their research provides hard data that goes back thousands of years.

The amateurs need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves if they have a science degree from a top school. If not, they need to stop trying to find isolated exceptions in an attempt to prove what they want.

Posted by it'snotjustme at 4/19/08 1:20 p.m.

FOLLOW THE MONEY! Exxon/mobil puts 186 million into flat earth propaganda. The Bush administration either fires anybody or changes any science document that points out you can't dump sewage into the thin skin of atmosphere forever without some change to the intricate system that is our climate. The TV weather bimbos call unprecedented catastrophic events "wacky", I call it a crisis, and 7 years too late, even Bush says something must be done, (just not by him).

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/19/08 2:21 p.m.

I have 2 science degrees from a top school, along with a Professional Engineering License.

Posted by factcheck at 4/19/08 6:45 p.m.

Concerned_Citizen at 4/19/08 7:02 a.m.

"Cooling global temperatures over the past twelve months has eliminated any global warming that might have happened over the past 100 year." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Man that was just toooooooo funny.

Concerned_Citizen at 4/19/08 2:21 p.m.

"I have 2 science degrees from a top school, along with a Professional Engineering License." Phoenix University!! Next time you should pay attention in Physics class that you didn't attend.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 11:02 p.m.

What if a doctor told you that there was a 20% chance you might have a rare but possibly fatal illness? What if the doctor also told you that there was a 10% chance that drinking four cups of green tea for 2 months might cure it? How many of you would drink four cups of green tea for 2 months (assuming of course you didn't think your doctor was a quack)? It's similar with global warming. If you think it might possibly be true, isn't it a good idea to take some precautionary measures?

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 6:38 a.m.

It doesn't matter. The pro-global warming crowd will attach ANY change or weather pattern to global warming. It has to because it has so much at stake. If the toilets start flushing backwards, they'll blame it on global warming. Heck they blamed the earthquakes in Indonesia on global warming. If this were 1980, they'd blame the eruption of Mt. St. Helens on it. But if you're watching closely, there is the chill in the air of global cooling (again). Follow the grant and carbon credit money on this one. See who's getting rich off of this hoax. Al's millions richer and not changing his lifestyle a bit. Hollyweird celebrities tell us how to live but won't move into smaller 1-room condos.

What's happening now is what we in the civilian world call - weather! It's been like this for millions of years and will continue to be like this.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 6:44 a.m.

Impressive Concerned_Citizen. From what I see coming out of our fine universities these days, I wouldn't brag. They're just sounding boards for a bunch of old Marxist professors that didn't get the love they needed, in the 60's.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/20/08 7:39 a.m.

Here's a couple more links for you eco-zealots out there trying to change everyone's lifestyle but your own....

Stop the CO2 scare, before it's too late
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?x
ml=/opinion/2008/04/20/do2002.xml

... and ...

www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020
.pdf

The report - Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate - presents a devastating analysis of the IPCC's case. Intended for a lay audience and signed by scientists from 15 countries, it takes all the key points of the IPCC's "consensus" case and tears them expertly apart, showing how the Intergovernmental Panel has either exaggerated, distorted or suppressed the evidence available to it, or has imputed much greater certainty to its findings than is justified by the data.

The real danger, the report warns, is not a continued warming but that temperatures and agricultural production might drop as the world faces its worst food shortage in decades (now being made worse by the crazed rush to give over farmland to biofuels). And if that is the way the evidence lies, Booker concludes, how much are any of our politicians doing to prepare for a crisis already upon us.

Posted by dannyb at 4/20/08 8:26 a.m.

It is very simple. The more energy you put into a system, the more unstable it becomes. Expect larger and larger swings in both directions as the overall average goes up.
The world IS getting warmer. Result, more extreme weather is to be expected. As time passes and the system becomes more unstable.
Ask yourself, should I have children? If you already have children ask yourself a different question, should I gamble on their future. What IF they are right. You will be dead, after all, by the time things get really bad.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/20/08 8:32 a.m.

Here's a good video from Professor Bob Carter discussing Global Warming. It's only 9 minutes long and well presented.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Posted by Green Party at 4/20/08 9:16 a.m.

There's no use trying to convince the Flat Earth Society(tm). They have their high-school education and Rush + Exxon/Mobil to feed them the political positions they should holler.

95% of the highly educated and experienced scientists in the field are just a nuisance to the knuckle-draggers, and in fact represent an enemy which they must angrily combat and try to defeat. (der)

Concerned_Citizen, Not PC , et al have made an emotional decision to support the opinions they do. There is no use having a discussion with someone who has made an emotional decision. Never try and teach a pig to sing; it will only waste your time, and annoy the pig.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/20/08 9:38 a.m.

From Professor Carter's video (link above)

AGW RELIGION - RULE 1
---------------------------------
NEVER discuss the science.
Attack the man - Repeat the mantra.
(that 'dangerous' global warming is man-made)

Examples can be found above ...
'pig'
'Flat Earth Society'
'high school education'
'Phoenix University' (i.e. mail order degree)

Posted by Green Party at 4/20/08 9:55 a.m.

We have discussed the science with you "Concerned_Citizen" with annotations, but the Facts make no difference to you. The evidence and the assessment and consensus of the best minds on Earth (95% of all scientists) are not good enough for you.

You are bent over the table by Big Oil and the Rightist Propagandists who have convinced your absent critical thinking, through brainwashing, repetition, and overwhelming force and amplitude.

There's no more sense in discussing this with you than there is in hunting birds which were released from a cage right in front of you, but STILL shooting your friend in the face!

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 10:18 a.m.

What if a doctor told you that there was a 20% chance you might have a rare but possibly fatal illness? What if the doctor also told you that there was a 10% chance that drinking four cups of green tea for 2 months might cure it? How many of you would drink four cups of green tea for 2 months (assuming of course you didn't think your doctor was a quack)? It's similar with global warming. If you think it might possibly be true, isn't it a good idea to take some precautionary measures?

Is the cost of those four cups of tea per day going to ruin the economy of the free world? I would gladly drink a couple cups of tea to address a possible climate change...I have to give great consideration to tanking our economy and putting my family in the poor house to address a "possible" climate change. Regardless of whether I am a scientist or not, I am being asked to make a decision and I have to judge the issue as best I can with the information available to me. At this point I have not been convinced in a conclusive manner that "drastic" measures are necessary.

Posted by Green Party at 4/20/08 11:23 a.m.

This is another tactic used by neocons to convince you against your own best interests, #119673: Taking the Extreme and Discrediting It.

They have convinced you that you must go to the poorhouse in order to prevent what they say is an inevitable change in the climate not due to man's actions.

No, you don't have to go to the poorhouse. But we all have to make some changes. Instead of perpetual Wars for oil which only pollutes the Earth, why haven't we instituted a Manhattan Project for Renewable Energy, which would simultaneously enhance the nation's security and save the climate? The opposite of what these Wars are doing? Because Republicans are bought and sold by Big Oil, and War serves the very direct economic interests of those who are in power.

Your economic objection only comes after we raise the Precautionary Principle, which is that even is there is doubt that man is causing Global Warming, isn't it sensible to try and do something anyway? When you raise the economic objection, you are implicitly accepting the Precautionary Principle as true. You accept that sacrifice of the world's Future is OK, as long as you don't have to conserve and switch to renewable energy now.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 4/20/08 12:12 p.m.

Speaking of economics ... look at the Kyoto Protocol and the penalties, costs, and job loss it is responsible for ...

scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/kyot
o-protocol-a-stupidly-expensive-10-year-
old-child/

Almost 23 billion Euros in penalties due to be paid by just three countries for not meeting greenhouse gas emissions limits: Italy (8.8 bil), Japan (8.8 bil) and Spain (5.3 bil)

A rise of 6.2 billion Euros in energy costs for Germany alone, in the span of year 2005 alone, according to Canada's National Post

A predicted 26% average increase in electricity prices and 41% average increase in natural gas prices, along with 200,000 jobs lost in each of Italy, the UK and Germany and up to 611,000 jobs lost in Spain to meet Kyoto targets for the year 2010.

And the above will be accompanied by a large loss in GDP: 2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros), 3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros), 1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros), and 0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros) according to the International Council for Capital Formation.


Here's another story on the economic problems with Kyoto:
www.nationalreview.com/comment/murray200
602170828.asp

not one major signatory (with the possible exception of the U.K., thanks largely to Margaret Thatcher's decision to switch the country's power generation from coal to gas) will actually comply with Kyoto's "binding" requirement to reduce its emissions to target levels

All the while China and India a bringing three coal-fired power plants on-line every 10 days.

By the way, how is Queen Christine going to come up with her 25,000 green-collar jobs? The only way is to create carbon-taxes to take money away from businesses and use that money to create a bureaucracy to administer that tax. That's not job creation.

Posted by Green Party at 4/20/08 12:31 p.m.

Concerned_Citizen, be advised that blog references aren't of any interest to any of us.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 8:50 p.m.

As an actual retired chemist with over 35 years federal and teaching experience in water quality and its reactions with CO2 I find these arguments amusing. There is the condesending elitist who scorns all who are lost and without the faith of our Holy Father Al Gore. There is, also, the "it isn't happening crowd". There are even a few objective thinkers who want to see the data.

The biggest flaw I see to Al Gore's CO2 theory is no account is given to the water. Water and CO2 have a great affinity for each other. They react with each other. They form compounds together. Together they react with minerals in the water. The reactions are complex and many. The water and its reactions with CO2 tie up enormous quantities of CO2. NOAA estimates there is 160 gigatons of CO2 tied up in the oceans. Al gore clames there is one gigatone of CO2 in the atmosphere. That means there should be theoretically 161 gigatones of CO2 in the system. The system is in equilibrium. If the ocean warms CO2 will outgas into the atmosphere. If humans add an additional gigaton of CO2 into the atmosphere within the next 10 years as Al Gore suggests a new equilibrium will be reached containing 162 gigatons in the system. (approximately 0.65% increased atmospheric concentration)

Another interesting fact is that CO2 is not the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is. As the global temperature warms the water vapor concentration increases. Therefore, we are faced with the "chicken and the egg" problem. Which occurs first. Global warming which drives up the contration of both water vapor and CO2. Or, Water vapor and CO2 concentrations which drive up global temperatures. My bet is on natural global temperature changes which then shift the equilibrium in both water vapor and CO2.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 3:22 a.m.

Thanks, Concerned Citizen. Your references were most informative. Green Party should read them.

Posted by Green Party at 4/21/08 7:14 a.m.

If your diet of information is Trash, then your conclusions will be Trash as well.

Broadening your inputs to include Trash does you no good.

How to define Trash? Shouting heads, trivial points, and unbased propaganda are pretty good measures.

Should we watch more "Full House" to broaden our perspective and learn other cultures? No, it is Trash.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 11:32 a.m.

Did anyone see the thing on ABC news 2 nights ago that showed Al gore's entire introduction in his biblical 'Inconvenient Truth' movie was actually a stolen CGI animation from the movie 'The day After tomorrow'? I thought that was hilarious. Interestingly, he refused to comment on it (or acknowledge it in the movie- it was merely presented as fact, with breath-taking views of glaciers melting and crashing into the water). It was the flying over the glacier scene, so you can compare them for yourselves if you own both movies. Also interesting, is that I can't find a news story on it anywhere. Kind of strange huh?

I also find it fascinating that so many people call anyone opposed to the THEORY of global warming "oil workers, right wing nuts"... Clearly, our views are based on our own financial wealth, than that of true information. Why is this curious? Well, what none of you global warming alarmists ever seem to point out is that Al Gore (who is only in this for the science, unlike all the right-wingers) is the Chairman of Generation Management Inc (it's ok. Go look it up now, because you Uncle Al never really mentions it). He encourages the purchase of 'carbon credits' in HIS companies (he has a portfolio of alternative energy companies). He is profiting off of this hysteria mightily! Is it not biased to therefore label all right wingers as financially motivated, when Al gore, the head of the global warming craze, is profiting from the events so blatantly in front of you?

Lastly, how about the polar bear populations. I love the pictures of the bear alone on a single piece of ice, with nowhere to go. A gloomy image indeed. Except that there were roughly 5,000 polar bears in the 1970's, and there are now 25,000 today. 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations are stable or increasing. The 2 that are in decline, are actually in regions that have showed the most cooling. But you will almost never locate this information, because the World Wildlife Fund is benefiting. Only 2 bear populations (comprising 16.4 percent of the total polar bear populations) are in decline. Yet those are the ones you are peppered with in newspapers (I love it when you see some guy dressed in a polar bear outfit at a global warming rally haha.. It just shows how easily he'll accept what he's told)..

Anyways, global warming is a theory. It is wrong to call any of the so-called skeptics motives for their beliefs financially motivated. Thousands of top scientists ranging from Harvard to MIT disagree with the global warming theory. A healthy debate should occur without name calling. It should be a scientific problem, not a political one

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 4:14 p.m.

Objective science is rare, just ask Galileo. That is why I love the Argo Buoy Movement which simply measures the temperature and salinity of the ocean's top 2000 meters every ten days and the data is made available to all immediately. This project started in 2003 and seems very objective and transparent to me. Currently no rise in ocean's temperatures is indicated which is important because there was a fear the oceans were masking the effects of global warming by acting like a giant radiator. The fear was global warming was worse than we knew and that the ocean's ability to absorb the excess heat would eventually hit a tipping point and suddenly accelerate climate change. So five years of stable ocean temperature should be good news for everyone. Here is a cool video clip representing the movement of the buoys in the oceans. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003200/a003205/argo07_640x480.mpg
Del

Posted by dannyb at 4/21/08 7:15 p.m.

Concerned_Citizen, I love people like you.
"Oh no. something might cost money!" Think about simple economics, if you spend money, it goes someplace. Jobs will be made, just different jobs. They might not be your job, but money does not just vanish, that is unless it is sent to Iraq in the form of pallets of hundred dollar bills shrink wrapped to pay off Bushes "Allies". That money actually did vanish into thin air.
So the governments might spend money to solve a problem, say like the interstate highway system, well jobs were made. Good jobs. the same will happen when we address the global warming crisis.
So you have kids buddy?

Posted by Green Party at 4/21/08 8:37 p.m.

No.

No human female has agreed to breed with Concerned_Citizen.

Friends don't let friends sleep with Republicans.