>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- there are more trees now than at any time in this country's history
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting. Could you provide the source of evidence for this?
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>Viv
>>>>>
>>>>>I did'nt read many replies in this thread but after reading this one this phrase came to my mind.
>>>>>The phrase comes from a new movie we have over here. This is a comedy that takes place in space.
>>>>>
>>>>>At one point one of the comedian say "What is nice with a science fiction movie is that you can say anything"
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for contributing nothing to the conversation. Truly you have inspired us all with your witty spelling mistakes and eloquent reference to a unrelated movie. I shall anticipate to further my education on this and other topics from your continued irrelevant postings.
>>>
>>>So that's what it's all about "... Restricting America's influence ...". Excuse me I didn't give enough attention to what seems to be your REAL problem.
>>>
>>>You're right. There should be a world law. From now on only Americans are allowed to do whatever they please to whoever they please and when they please.
>>>
>>>According to you is the earth flat? Perhaps all this time on a farm kept you from reading books and getting serious scientific informations. And just in case you read some books. Are you sure you read enough to say that Al Gore is wrong. What is you scientific background? Oh yeah you lived on a farm LOL.
>>
>>Thank you for once again contributing nothing to the conversation. Truly you have inspired us all again with your witty spelling mistakes and eloquent reference to things I have never said. I shall anticipate furthering my Berkeley education with this and other topics from your continued irrelevant, and apparently anti-farm postings. Your specious argument regarding the need for qualifications in order to discuss a topic has been noted and I will expect you to cite your qualifications before discussing anything in the future.
>
>ROFL Berkely education. So what! Any studies related to what you're debating right now or do you just think that name dropping (Berkeley) will give you more credibility. Oh wait give me a minute so I can find that synonyms dictionary to find some fancy words to throw in. Darn I could'nt find it. Forgive me I'll have to use simple words. Those that were made for people like me. Some people (you seem to fit in that category) prefer the look of the package instead of what's in that package.
>
>Excuse me for replying to you sir. Next time I'll ask for your approval before engaging in a discussion with someone as educated as you.
>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Denis Chassé

Thank you a third time for contributing nothing to the conversation. Your reference to my lack of book knowledge certainly had nothing to do with my retort regarding my education. Perhaps I have been too subtle in my responses.

There is a mountain of evidence pointing to the inability of the models to predict anything accurately because they are woefully simple compared to the systems their attempting to define. In addition, the data sets they've been using are proving to be inaccurate at best and tainted at worst.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=145245
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/december_2007/ipcc_falsifies_sea_level_data.htm
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Science is not models and consensus, it is cold hard, indisputable, repeatedly provable fact. Science is skeptical to a fault. For Christ's sake Darwin and Einstein had to fight for decades to have their theories accepted. Now we're just supposed to roll over and believe what we're told because some group of do-gooders says they know better? What about those scientists who used to be believers who are no longer? What of the scientists who participated in writing the IPCC reports who do not agree with the 'consensus'? Are we simply to ignore them? They won a Nobel Prize right along with St. Gore.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Science can hold up to political pressure because the facts are on its side. Facts do not need the AP to write stories about how put-upon the poor little government-funded researchers are. The facts will prevail.

Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody about man-made global warming.
When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_trick_behind_global.html

If you wish to be led down a path by people with political and monetary agendas which have nothing to do with saving anything, then be my guest, but don't pretend to be well informed because the consensus is on your side. Your reference to the 'flat earth' earlier is appropriate, yet misdirected, after all, that was the consensus at one time as well.

Here are some other sites I read regularly about the topic.
http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://motls.blogspot.com/
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm <--- ;)

Finally, as always, whenever I see a study of any sort I always remember my favorites.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html

Good Day,
Jake