1 The bumper stickers tell me "If you're not mad, you're not paying attention." And the logic of bumper stickers is infallible.

2 The number of errors in Gore's movie should have embarrassed his supporters. However, despite numerous people documenting the errors, the MSM was virtually silent, quoting only those who supported Gore's political (as opposed to scientific) agenda. I'm not the least bit worried either. In another 20 years, Time Magazine (or some other Left-wing rag) is going to revert back to the global cooling theory, and the enviro-whackos are going to worry about the next Ice Age. The enviornmental movement is really just an anti-capitalist movement, and so when fascination with global warming goes away, they will find something else.

3 It must suck to be afraid of every gawd damn thing.

4 I am much more frightened of global suckage. If hollywood starts sucking any more the whole USA will be pulled into caleefornia.

5 It's in the 50's in Syracuse in January. I've used the snow blower once this winter. If this is global warming, bring it on!

6 Yeah, me neither. It reminds me of so many fads that have come and gone. People are such sheep. Baaa! Give me a research grant to study global warming.

7 global warming is a leftwing scam designed to give them an excuse to raise taxes, and bash capitalists and industry. if they don't scare us them they can't raise taxes - selectively, on things and people they don't like. funny how life spans have gone way up since the industrial age, and prosperity has increased too. that is for everyone in the industrialized world. if industrialization was so bad for our health and the globe then we'd a seen worse things by now. if we really want the lives of the poor people in the third world to improve we need to build them some big factories and powerplants.

8 So many conspiracy theorists in one blog! Yes, there are a handful of scientists, most of whom have taken money from fossil fuel companies, who remain somewhat skeptical, though as the years go by, they've backpedaled considerably. There will always be those who say science is wrong, and will pick one or two examples to 'prove' why. This has been going on ever since the days of Colombus and Galileo. For those who get their science news from Fox or science fiction writers and think there is still a healthy debate in the scientific community, simply read the scientific opinion on climate change, then some of the science itself. I'd be glad to have someone critique that information from other than a polemicist's stance.

9 The science is by no means clear, and scientists are divided on the issue. Most are independent of fossil fuel support. The historical temperature data you reference are for 2,000 years, and the global temperature swings occur on a roughly 12,000 year cycle. We are actually overdue for an ice age, and if global warming can prevent that, I am for it. During the last ice age the ice pack was one mile thick in North Carolina.

10 > The science is by no means clear, and scientists are divided on the issue. Most are independent of fossil fuel support. I invite you to provide support for the above statements. Note that the position taken by Science Academies of the G8, China, India, and several dozen others are in conflict with your position. I have heard denialists say that "this warming is to be expected because we are just now coming out of an ice age", which conflicts with your position as well. At what point in time did you expect the next ice age to start, if human-induced warming was not a factor? What basis of support do you have for that position?

11 Yes, there is a rise in the global temperature. What we disagree about is whether we are the cause of it or not. What I love is when someone says, "Show me proof, but I'll not accept anything from these sources." Automatically ruling out a source because it doesn't fit into your world view, in this case it's Fox News, is one of the most immature arguments that anyone can make. Just because something is the prevailing opinion (humans cause global warming) doesn't mean it is correct. Just as the fact that the prevailing scientific opinion at varying times has been that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. The earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling, and humans weren't around for the vast majority of it. Most of the earth has been covered by water at one time or another, and yet there weren't any evil CFCs around to cause the melting of the ice caps. We have recorded data for what, 100-150 years worth of temperature readings? And how old is the earth? Those of us who resist regulation like the Kyoto protocol, which does all it can to harm industrialized nations while exempting emerging countries, see this as a typical double standard. If global warming is THE threat of our lifetime, then no one should be exempt. But, like most feel good, leftists causes, this is more about punishing success.

12 Frank wrote: >What I love is when someone says, "Show me proof, but I'll not accept anything from these sources." Automatically ruling out a source because it doesn't fit into your world view, in this case it's Fox News, is one of the most immature arguments that anyone can make. Fox News is not a science organization and is clearly heavily biased towards the few sceptics, so one would do well to seek other information sources. Saying so about Fox News is hardly immature, indeed I see it as quite the opposite. YMMV. > Just because something is the prevailing opinion (humans cause global warming) doesn't mean it is correct. Just as the fact that the prevailing scientific opinion at varying times has been that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. Actually, those where church positions that were being fought by scientists such as Galileo, Bruno, Copernicus, and others. The first two sacrificed themselves to stand on principle, and we are fortunate they did. > The earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling, and humans weren't around for the vast majority of it. True. > Most of the earth has been covered by water at one time or another, and yet there weren't any evil CFCs around to cause the melting of the ice caps. True. However, CO2 has risen far above any prehistoric levels we've examined. Since 1878, CO2 has risen from 278 ppm to over 380 ppm now. Since CO2 is most significant steady-state greenhouse gas (GHG), one becomes less and less confident in skeptics who say that the current warming is 'natural' or simply an unexplainable abberation. But read the references I provided and critique them; everyone seems to be relying on their Fox News et al biased reporting. > We have recorded data for what, 100-150 years worth of temperature readings? And how old is the earth? There are many ways to determine the temperature, rainfall, and atmospheric composition of prior centuries and millenia through the paleoclimatologlical techniques of ice cores, geological sample analysis, and even tree rings, to name a few. Don't be afraid to read the links I provided above. And a large segment of the paleoclimate scientific community can be found at realclimate.org.

13 Will, Educating you would be a difficult challenge, even though I was a university professor for thirty years. Start with snowballearth.org, and then look up these references: THE GREAT INFRA-CAMBRIAN GLACIATION. W. B. Harland and M. J. S. Rudwick in Scientific American, Vol. 211, No. 2, pages 28-36; February 1964. THE EFFECT OF SOLAR RADIATION VARIATIONS ON THE CLIMATE OF THE EARTH. M. I. Budyko in Tellus, Vol. 21, pages 611-619, 1969. ENERGY BALANCE CLIMATE MODELS. G. R. North, R. F. Cahalan and J. A. Coakley, Jr., in Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pages 91-121; February 1981. MODELLING THE GEOCHEMICAL CARBON CYCLE. R. A. Berner and A. C. Lasaga in Scientific American, Vol. 236, No. 3, pages 74-81; March 1989. LATE PROTEROZOIC LOW-LATITUDE GLOBAL GLACIATION: THE SNOWBALL EARTH. J. L. Kirschvink in The Proterozoic Biosphere, J. W. Schopf and C. Klein, editors, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 51-52, 1992. THE NEOPROTEROZOIC CLIMATIC PARADOX: EQUATORIAL PALEOLATITUDE FOR MARINOAN GLACIATION NEAR SEA LEVEL IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. P. W. Schmidt and G. E. Williams in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 134, pages 107-124. A NEOPROTEROZOIC SNOWBALL EARTH. P. F. Hoffman, A. J. Kaufman, G. P. Halverson and D. P. Schrag in Science, Vol. 281, pages 1342-1346; 28 August 1998.

14 Joints: You've simply tossed out a wheelbarrow full of references (no online links) with no suggestion of even a thesis statement. I could also whip out hundreds of such links fairly easily, though no one here will start running around campuses tracking them down. Since this technique of 'snowballing' references doesnt' work here, perhaps you like to provide a peer review of the article I mentioned above? Or demonstrate the fallicies several dozen Science Academies all committed (including the US and UK)? Or deconstruct the findings at realclimate.org? (Hint, they invite such in their article comment sections, which get quite long. You may be disappointed in the depth and soundness of the disagreement, however). Note that a large number of climatologists were skeptical throughout the 80s and into the 90s. Indeed, a good scientist should remain skeptical until presented with evidence to believe otherwise. btw, what was your scientific specialty? The topic of your doctorate?

15 "What I love is when someone says, "Show me proof, but I'll not accept anything from these sources." Automatically ruling out a source because it doesn't fit into your world view, in this case it's Fox News, is one of the most immature arguments that anyone can make." Get used to it: That's typical Will. He pretends he's erudite by quoting people who support his position and disqualifying anybody who disagrees. Don't bother with him; he's like debating a 6th grader. What's worse, he's not a subject matter expert in anything but name-dropping. Save your breath. I'd rather debate, Straw. He at least has his own opinions.

16 From the snowballearth.org faq; "Could a snowball earth occur again? The steadily increasing Solar luminosity and the present continental configuration conspire against it, but a large asteroidal or cometary impact could possibly trigger a snowball earth given the present cold ocean. If a preponderance of tropical continents made the globe cold, the present geography with its enlarged boreal and subtropical land areas should have made it relatively warm. Before the ongoing intervention by our own species, this this was not the case."

17 will: "there are a handful of scientists, most of whom have taken money from fossil fuel companies" and the source for that is??

18 Sorry to intrude on Will's E-penis exhibition, but even if we all agreed with him that global warming must be stopped via our blank checks to the IRS or UN, you must remember that the implementation of the plan, to ultimately save the planet, is in the hands of government. The same type of government that loses nuclear secrets, billion dollar space probes, and my Hustler subscription in the mail. The government will manage Global Warming just about as well as they handle public education, the War on Drugs, and immigration. You have no chance to survive. Make your time.

19 Annika, glad to oblige. I might note that I refer to those that are consistently skeptical now, and not ones from the 80's, 90's, or even early 00's. A good starting point for working one's way through this information is www.exxonsecrets.org. If anyone has trouble (requires java), then I'll type out some of the names. Pat Michaels, Larry Singer, Robert Ball, Sally Baliunas, etc are just some of the most consistent skeptics, and you'll find their connections at the above site. Pat Michaels was even caught a few months ago trolling for fossil fuel corporation slush. And Exxon alone has pumped at least $16 million to 43 groups to sow the seeds of doubt over climate change (because they don't have to win the argument, just cause doubt and inaction).

20 Not to belabor the point, but those wanting to see an excellent overview of what both sides are saying would be well suited to go a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy">here. You'll see I spelled a couple of names wrong of the top of my head...

21 Cool. As you know, I'm an agnostic on the issue. I wish i had as much time to research it as you do. I'm wondering though, if you have any references that might tend to show bias on the part of the Global Warming hawks. Or is it your belief that they are totally untainted by any motive other than scientific altruism?

22 "www.exxonsecrets.org" C'mon, Will. Probably no agenda at this site.....it's a freakin Greenpeace site. Don't waste your time, people. These folks are nuts. They are also socialist luddites that HATE capitalism. Yeah, when I want information, I always like to first go to the the most luny left-wing site I can find; or, alternativley, go see a Michael Moore film on the subject. You make fun of Fox News news and then link to a Greenpeace site. LOL. Hey, Will, do you think that Bush blew up the buildings on 9/11? Cuz, I can give you some really awesome links that "prove" that the government was responsible.

23 People like Will put their money on Paul Ehrlich back in the day: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html The global warming nuts come from the same stock.

24 You make fun of Fox News news and then link to a Greenpeace site. LOL. What you say!! But..but he's an Independent, Blu!

25 > if you have any references that might tend to show bias on the part of the Global Warming hawks. The closest I could come would be some of the early models were rather simplistic, providing only very rough orders of magnitude. Undoubtably, there are many non-scientists that this subject evokes an emotional response rather than a rational one. Blu said> Hey, Will, do you think that Bush blew up the buildings on 9/11? No, he was reading a book about a goat at that time. Certain misguided policies and inaction in his administration certainly didn't help matters, though. And yes, the previous adminstration also made some missteps in this area. Spanky said> You have no chance to survive. Make your time. From the overview mentioned above; The US National Academy of Sciences issued a report on this phenomenon in 2002, titled Abrupt Climate Change - Inevitable Surprises. [39] "It is important not to be fatalistic about the threats posed by abrupt climate change," it stated. "Societies have faced both gradual and abrupt climate changes for millennia and have learned to adapt through various mechanisms, such as moving indoors, developing irrigation for crops, and migrating away from inhospitable regions. Nevertheless, because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly." Blu said> People like Will put their money on Paul Ehrlich back in the day: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html Actually, I didn't, though I'm not a Simonian either. Two quick items for you; speaking of Simon the cornucopian, in what month or quarter was the highest global oil production?

26 Not caring about Global Warming is one thing. But how come nobody seems to be worried about the evil donuts from the future that reprogrammed the stock market last year. That's the real scandal!

27 Followup from yesterday, where the administration is admitting greenhouse gas warming; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html?sub=AR "People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change." The center said there are indications that the rate at which global temperatures are rising is speeding up. ------------------------- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/science/10climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin “A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,” the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El Niño and the human influence were not known. A link between greenhouse gases and climate change was also made in a December news conference by Dirk Kempthorne, the secretary of the interior, as that agency proposed listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Still, the climate agency’s shift in language came as a surprise to several public affairs officials there. They said they had become accustomed in recent years to having any mention of a link between climate trends and human activities played down or trimmed when drafts of documents went to the Commerce Department and the White House for approval. James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the release reflected longstanding views within the administration. “It’s helpful for them to describe what is a question in many people’s minds — what is the human factor, what is the El Niño factor,” Mr. Connaughton said of the NOAA release. “From our perspective, what was in the press release was a direct reflection of what the president and folks in his administration have been saying for some time.” Mr. Bush has made two speeches on climate. He first expressly accepted that humans were contributing to global warming in a news conference in Denmark in July 2005 on the way to an economic summit in Scotland, saying, “Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.” But the government’s scientific bureaucracy, where public affairs officials and scientists as recently as last year complained that findings pointing to climate dangers were being suppressed, has taken time to catch up. “There’s been some sensitivity to the fact that some people have complained that NOAA and other parts of the government haven’t been as open as they would like them to have been on this,” said Jay Lawrimore, a climatologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., where the temperature trends are compiled. “Now NOAA is making an effort to be clearer on some of the influences.” Mr. Lawrimore said there was no way to account for the trends, be they the melting of Arctic sea ice or the warming of winters, without including an influence from heat-trapping gases. “Year after year as we continue to see warmer temperatures,” he said, “there are more and more converts convinced that it’s not just natural variability and not just something that’s going to return back to temperatures we saw 40 or 50 years ago — that in fact we are doing something to the climate.”

28 So, Will, if I get your drift after like a dozen posts, I take it you believe in the induced global warming theory? Enough already! Go away. Seriously, you are like debating a spoiled, over-indulged 6 year-old. You couldn't possibly ever be wrong, could you? Here's an idea: Go look in the mirror and argue with yourself. That way you could keep the argument going for as long as you like; and, God knows, you'd be totally enchanted with the person looking back at you. Linking articles or lunatic left-wing blogs time and time again isn't going to convince anybody. You don't have any credibility. Anybody can cut'n'paste. Another idea: develop an original thought.

29 Struck a nerve, did I blu? Or am I deconstructing a position you are desperately trying to cling to, regardless of the findings? I've been there before, and it indeed can be trying. I'm no longer a Republican as a consequence. On the subject of whether or not GW is human induced, opinions from those other than climatologists (or climate-focused researchers in related fields) are meaningless. And yes, this means Rush, O'Reilly, your barber, etc. If you get your information from non-scientists on this matter, you're getting uniformed sound-bites at best, propaganda for the vast remainder. I'm simply providing references and information. If you don't want to consider it, keep your eyes (and your mind) closed. Keep watching Fox News and believe that we are winning the war, we've found WMD (or will very soon), the dollar is strong, and Bush and the Republicans are more popular than ever. Developing an original thought on this subject sounds attractive, but is frankly meaningless outside of the science. If you came up with such an original thought, we'd have to ask to see the scientific method and process by which you arrived at your conclusion. Pulling it out of a dark place, regardless of how rhetorically elegant it sounded, provides us with little more than fertilizer. I work with scientists and engineers every day, and know the importance of careful examination of data; if you have friends that are true scientists (i.e., who perform and publish research), talk to them about this subject; be prepared to listen. What's next is the policy discussion; that's where the fun begins, and where "original thought" from anybody can be examined, weighted, and scored. Engineers are well suited to providing the impacts of various proposed alternatives, but it will take true leadership to implement measures to avoid economy-wrecking climate disaster for our descendents.

30 Oh, blu, if you can provide the errors that you understand to be in Gore's movie, I'll be glad to debate you. If you have it in you.

31 I know you couldn't let it go. The mirror awaits you. Go talk to the one you love most. p.s. do you carry a picture of yourself in your wallet?

32 This is just one article I could find. And I declare that my "experts" are superior to yours. In fact, I dismiss all your experts because they don't agree with me. So, don't bother debating. (See, I'm using your technique: discredit any other sources as inferior. Man, this is fun. If a person uses Will debating technique, he is always right! Yea!! --------------------------------------------- U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE June 27, 2006 The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology. AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted. The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 ) Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro. Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore: Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006 Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote: “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.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect. “…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film: “…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column. Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970. "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press. # # # # #

33 Oh what the heck: one more. Once again, I declare the "Will Rules of Debate," and, therefore, my experts are superior to all others...cuz I work with scientists and engineers afterall. And because of that I couldn't possibly be wrong. ---------------------- Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths: (1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.) (2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming. (3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period). (4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century." (5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming. Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime? "An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth." Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

34 "I'm afraid your evidence is getting worse as we go along." Are you kidding me? Will, you are so utterly predictable. You did what you always do (and I'm certain everybody reading this thread expected): Insist that you're experts are better than the person with whom you are debating. You also employed your typical trick of attacking the person/scientist if you don't like their viewpoint. And while insisting their opinions are wrong, you never actually prove them wrong. Any serious person reading your response is going to do what I did: laugh. You didn't disprove anything. You simply did what you always do: Insist your opinions and your experts are better. Now, seriously, go away. Your mirror is calling. p.s. The list of those who think the “hockey stick” theory is crap is long and distinguished. As usual, you're excellent debate technique amounted to "that's not true cuz I say." p.p.s. Don't bother responding; I just wanted to see how long your undeniable ego would keep you posting. As expected, you reacted in the exact manner all that have read you on this site would have expected.

35 Breaking news, blu; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ > p.s. The list of those who think the “hockey stick” theory is crap is long and distinguished. Oh? Please list them and we will examine your claim.

36 > p.s. do you carry a picture of yourself in your wallet? Actually, I do. I really do. And so do you. It's called a driver's license.