>Yep, but I'll bet the liberals who do so want to believe the sky is falling will rail against him. How dare him use fact when there is so much hype to go around!<g>

Since when do republicans care about facts? in their eyes facts are only facts when they support their agenda. The days that american politics are ruled by facts are way beyond us. It is rules by the $$$

BTW, I'm living at sea level, and I certainly don't want to see the climat warming up. The motives not do anything about environmental polution is only because of the holy buck (in that sense you're living in a 3rd world country). I have also my doubts about the seriousness off polution, however, beeing in complete denial is the most stupid thing you could do: If it does not drown us, it at the least impacts other life systems.








>John
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>The article is correct, the R for Air taken from Glacial Ice samples from approx 200,000 years ago found it to be the same as today.
>>
>>What does this mean, there can be no Global Warming as the heat carrying capacity of air has not changed, and if you go back far enough in time, today's reading is actually less.
>>
>>BTW the amount of heat being released from the Earth's Nuclear Core and combined with the radiant energy received from the Sun, makes man's output fade into insignificance.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Finally, a real scientist comes out with a statement based on fact. The scientific community doesn't all walk in "lock step" regarding global warming. Here's a link and an excerpt from an article by a climate scientist from that school some of you may have heard of - M.I.T.
>>>
>>>"Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
>>>
>>>"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science."
>>>
>>>"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
>>>First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
>>>
>>>Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
>>>
>>>Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. "
>>>
>>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597