>>>>>>>Now in a situation like this, where you are legally prevented from hearing the truth from a major outlet if it doesn't suit their advertisers... what's the point of having all these media anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "news" has been manipulated for years. What exactly is new here? There is very little fact-based news anywhere anymore. One must look at many different sources to have an educated opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>As if to make my point, ABCNews puts out this call today.
>>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2094224&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
>>>>>
>>>>>Opinion "news" at its finest.
>>>>
>>>>I am surprised that they chose to run that, so we are in agreement up to a point. But global warming is no longer a matter of opinion. The only "scientists" who dispute it are in the pockets ($$$) of the oil industry.
>>>
>>>Eh tu Mike?
>>>
>>>"But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
>>>
>>>No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
>>>
>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
>>
>>Hey, Jake, did you have a look around that rag?
>>
>>It's not a "press" site at all! I don't know if you can, but I couldn't get a link to who they are, who funds them, etc. But did you notice the "news links" the have?
>>
>>This is a right-wing propoganda sheet that appears to make its money advertising restaurants.
>>
>>I wouldn't believe a word I see written there.
>>
>>cheers
>
>I'm shocked! :)
>
>5 second Yahoo search (Here's the first 4 links out of 10 pages).
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172949,00.html
>http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
>http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/cf/visualhoffert.pdf
>http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2571
>
>The point is that there are scientists that dispute "global warming". They dispute the causes and effects. There are also scientists that say "so what"? Heck, they just found evidence of tropical algae in the artic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5034026.stm
>
>Any "scientist" that suggests that man has more impact on the climate than the sun should be laughed out of the room.
>
>Jim, please tell me you don't believe this scare tactic. Aren't you the one who tells me to watch out for distractions?

Jake,

I've been a skeptic but have been coming around for some time now. I now do think there is a global warming happening and that people are to blame.
Your links are both dated and in at least 1 case actually argue FOR the case of global warming.

Some scientists today like to take the counter position so they can get themselves into the media. The fact is that NOW, as opposed to 3 or more years ago, the huge majority of scientists agree that there is something going on and that it is extremely dangerous to our future.
Yes, they could be wrong. But doesn't it just make good sense anyway to not be wasting energy and things regardless?