[-V-]

Do the math for future generations.

If we had started screwing up the ozone when Jesus walked the earth, summers would now be pushing 150 degrees in Arizona.

[-V-]

To put it another way:

If a 350 page book were written about the history of the earth, human beings would only appear on the last page. If scientists are correct about global warming we may only be written into a few more paragraphs before our chapter ends.

If the consensus opinion of world scientists is too "inconvenient" for you, a more "convenient" truth may be that they are exaggerating by, let's say, 75%. That would give the human species another whole page in the book of life.

If there is another chapter it would probably begin with something like Lava Lizards.

[NeoCon Newbie]

Well its 40 below is some places in the mid west and 54 degrees in honolulu. So much for global warming looks like u crazy tree huggars dont know what you are talking about.

[cat's meow]

Well its 40 below is some places in the mid west and 54 degrees in honolulu. So much for global warming looks like u crazy tree huggars dont know what you are talking about.

Wow, you are as stupid as you seem. Yearly temp averages are what matter, you are completely talking out of your a** by saying what you just did.

[Lionhearted]

Well its 40 below is some places in the mid west and 54 degrees in honolulu. So much for global warming looks like u crazy tree huggars dont know what you are talking about

Dude,
Do a little research before weighing in on a topic. Not doing so will only cause you to appear stupid.

BTW if you're going to research global warming (which I seriously doubt), please spare us and not use any of Dr. Fred "I'll Say Anything You Want for a Buck" Singer's "research". The old boy has already been pretty much discredited. He's paid or been paid by ExxonMobil (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1) and the tobacco industry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer)

[Jumpin Jupiter]

I bet these people wish global warming was actually happening. :eek:

LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4544262.html)


Link not working.

Personally, I dont believe in the Gobal Warming theory. The "scientists" out there dont all agree on it, thus, its no different than discussing Repubs vs Dems. There is an agenda out there for it, but I dont know who it is going to benefit.

I just read somewhere that the earth has warmed up .8 tenths of a degree in the last 100 years. Guess it all depends who you get your information from and if you believe if they (source) is credibile, or what agenda they are pushing for. For some reason, I dont believe we will ever know.

[-V-]

I just read somewhere that the earth has warmed up .8 tenths of a degree in the last 100 years.

If your post wasn't sarcastic, first you should read the first post in this thread, and tell me why .8 tenths of a degree doesn't frighten the hell out of you. Then consider today's headline: This was world's warmest recorded winter (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070316/sc_nm/winter_dc_3)

Then, regarding:
its no different than discussing Repubs vs Dems. There is an agenda out there for it, but I dont know who it is going to benefit.

ponder on one hand, large corporations that stand to lose billions of dollars if they can't continue business as usual, and on the other hand the consensus of world scientists who gain nothing in their lifetime except the peace of mind that may help ensure a livable planet for FUTURE generations.

:sunny: :mad: :sunny:

Though there is often opposing agendas between political parties it does not equate to two legitimate sides to every issue, as Bill Maher has pointed out on his show, regarding the equally absurd regressive campaign against evolution:

New Rule: You don't have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap.

President Bush recently suggested that public schools should teach intelligent design, alongside the theory of evolution. Because, after all, evolution is quote, "just a theory." Then the President renewed his vow to drive the terrorists straight over the edge of the earth.

Now, here is what I don't get. President Bush is a brilliant scientist. He's the man who proved you can mix two parts booze with one part cocaine, and still fly a jet fighter. And yet... yet he just can't seem to accept that we descended from apes.

It just seems pathetic to be so insecure about your biological superiority, to a group of feces-flinging, rouge-buttocked monkeys, that you have to make up fairy tales. Like we came from Adam and Eve, and then cover stories for Adam and Eve like, intelligent design. Yeah, leaving the Earth in the hands of two naked teenagers. That's a real intelligent design.

...even though there's a debate, in schools, and government, about this, there is no debate among scientists. Evolution... is supported by the entire scientific community. Intelligent design is supported by guys online to see "The Dukes of Hazzard."

And the reason there is no real debate, is that intelligent design isn't real science. It's the equivalent of saying that the thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, because it's a god. It's so willfully ignorant you might as well worship the U.S. Mail. It came again! Praise, Jesus!

No, stupidity isn't a form of knowing things. Thunder is high pressure air meeting low pressure air. It's not God bowling. Babies come from storks is not a competing school of thought... in medical school. We shouldn't teach both. The media shouldn't equate both...

[Jane of Arc]

JJ ~

Check your sources, man. Marc Morano ("previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington') posts on the Senate Committee blog and you believe this crap?

You will find roughly 1 scientist (backed by Big Oil or energy companies) to every 400 scientists usually doing research at universities, who believe man-made global warming isn't real.

Do you REALLY care about this issue, JJ? Or are you just attempting to rattle the cage? If you really care, ask me and I will provide you volumes of links to study so you can make an educated opinion for yourself.



Global Temperature Record

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif


http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/glacier_chart.gif

Why it's MAN-MADE global warming:

There is a fine historical example of a very dramatic and very regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic. A reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now, and indeed we were very gradually cooling over the length of the preindustrial Holocene, something around .5C averaged over 8000 years. It is informative to compare those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the very sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100Kyrs actually represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower than the rate we are currently witnessing.

[FDRfollower]

Two things everyone. I don't want to clutter up the thread with their charts, but here's the 17,000 scientists who oppose the hypothesis that CO2 is the basis for an increase in temps. There's tons of charts on the page.

17,000 of 'em (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)

and of course, the controversial "Great Global Warming Hoax (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170)" film.

Just so we can dispose of Gore's claim that there is a "consensus" behind the hypothesis of CO2=Temp.

[Wafflepudding]

The petition states that there isn't a concensus on CO2 causing significant climate change, not that there isn't climate change. In fact it points that the temperature has been going down, which could well be the result of an increased mass of particles floating in the atmosphere linked to human activity.

Do the math for future generations.

If we had started screwing up the ozone when Jesus walked the earth, summers would now be pushing 150 degrees in Arizona.

Ozone dissipates UV radiation, not heat. If the climate could be predicted on a linear and constant mathematical paradigm yes, that would be correct, but it's not, it's not even a bell curve, it's a chaotic system.

On one hand it seems illogical to me that releasing ALL the carbon trapped in the form of hydrocarbon fuels would really devastate the planet with temperatures over 100 degrees since that carbon (if you believe hydrocarbon fuels are fossil in origin) was once part of the atmosphere/biosphere, and if the temperatures during the early carboniferous, before all of that carbon was fixed by plant matter and withdrawn from the atmosphere, were not at that point then if we released it again the temperatures would likely resemble those of that time period.

On the other hand it also seems illogical to me to think that we can just dump millions of tons of greenhouse chemicals into the atmosphere, a chaotic and sensible system, and expect no sort of reaction whatsoever.

Concensus or not, I'd much rather err on the side of caution. We can afford to be wrong about human activity causing climate change, but we can't afford the opposite. If we reduce our emissions and we were wrong, nothing happens. If we don't reduce them and we are wrong, we're screwed.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

While arguing causes, the possible HUGE DEVASTATING effects are being missed. FDRfollower, how many OTHER scientists disagree with those 17,000 scientists who signed that petition? How many of the 17,000 scientists who signed the petition ventured to present their science, put their science "on the table" and to the test under the scrutiny of peer review and scientific criticism?

There are certainly vested interests, even individual ones like stock market investors not to speak of maybe having to completely change the way people live.

[Jumpin Jupiter]

JJ ~

Check your sources, man. Marc Morano ("previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington') posts on the Senate Committee blog and you believe this crap?


Do you REALLY care about this issue, JJ? Or are you just attempting to rattle the cage? If you really care, ask me and I will provide you volumes of links to study so you can make an educated opinion for yourself.




.


Jane, first off I have already posted that I dont believe in the Global Warming Hoax. Al Gore is the biggest Hoax of all IMO. It all comes down to if you believe what you read or not, I choose not too.

As far as the volumes of links, I too can come up with many that support my belief as well. I have watched this for a few years now and I see NO concensus on the reality of Global Warming.

Another problem I have with this site is. . . . if one posts a link from a source that others dont like or themselves disbelieve in, the message is no good. Credibility of the source is also up to ones own belief. I can accept where you get your information from, but any of my links posted here automatically come under scrutiny because you yourself choose not to believe it for some ungodly reason.

No, no, no, his brothers uncles nephew worked for some senators son and therefore that info is no good. Give me a break.

There is all kinds of information here on the super highway and other avenues that, YES, can be determined through careful analysis, sifting through the rubble of where it comes from and where the money lies in benefit from said article.

For me, there is a big problem here, for the simple fact that the author has to be a liberal with a point of view that has to agree with your own point of view. The difference between us is that I am not afraid to read ALL the information, now matter where it came from, and make MY OWN decision based on the information given in said article. Keep an open mind in finding the truth, after all it will set you free .:sunny:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

In the case of global climate change, whatever the cause(s), I can tell you that the Pentagon (I know a Pentagon insider involved with it) is projecting over the next 10 years that the American farm belt will become a true desert with rainfall there dropping to less than 2 inches per year, the result of changes in the oceans currents. The Pentagon is not only projecting that, the Pentagon has plans already drawn up for it that includes relocation plans.

[Jane of Arc]

Concensus or not, I'd much rather err on the side of caution. We can afford to be wrong about human activity causing climate change, but we can't afford the opposite. If we reduce our emissions and we were wrong, nothing happens. If we don't reduce them and we are wrong, we're screwed.

BINGO!!! WaffleToe nailed it! ;) (damn smart kid)

Nobody here is an expert on global warming. No matter how much we pontificate, blabber and claim we've 'studied' it for years ... none of us really know diddley squat. And that includes me, the superstar of 'know-it-alls'. (Taking a bow.) :notworthy:


But here's where common sense and logic come in:

(1) Fossil fuels are finite. We're running out of easily accessible oil. The US mainland has already run dry. No more oil.

(2) We're fighting wars and people are dying over oil.

(3) We need new industry and jobs developed in the US.

(4) Clean energy can only be a good thing. Breathing the fumes ain't healthy.

(5) WHAT IF the gazillion of credible research scientists who say man-made global warming is a REAL THREAT are DEAD RIGHT?! Doesn't it make SENSE to err on the side of caution and PROTECT OUR ONLY HOME, EARTH, for our children and future generations?

And if it's a "hoax", then the worst thing is we have more jobs, cleaner skies, we're independent from Arab oil, less people are dying and we learned to respect and take care of each other and our common home a little better. Wouldn't that be a nice thing? :sunny:



JJ~ I thought I've been very nice to you. I am sorry if I've offended you in any way. I do often come across like I said above, as a 'know-it-all".

[Wafflepudding]

The pentagon also projected easy wins in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, a humongous Soviet threat where there was little, and didn't see the falklands war coming. Their prediction record is by all means much less than perfect.

If they got the same people working on it that projected peak oil during the 70's, during the 80's, and then during the 90's (and now according to Jane in 2012), then I wouldn't put much credence on them either.

And finally the claim is absolutely LUDICROUS, climate change, even if man were causing it, would take many decades, perhaps even centuries to have such a drastic impact. These are slow, cumulative processes. Furthermore what farming belt are you talking about? the corn belt in the midwest? the rice belt in the south? or the grain belt near Canada? Because I can tell you, based on the warming effects of El niño, that global warming would have the OPPOSITE effect over the pacific gyre, it would increase rainfall wreaking havoc on irrigation systems.

While arguing causes, the possible HUGE DEVASTATING effects are being missed.

Cause is THE cornerstone of the global warming controversy. If the causes are natural rather than antropogenic the whole discussion about what we can do is stupid and pointless, we are not at a techno/socio/economical level were we can deliberately terraform planets in a matter of decades. If the earth is indeed warming as part of a natural cycle, tampering with that natural cycle would be disastrous.

There is no conclusive evidence to support either conclusion, but considering what's at stake, and additional benefits such as the ones Jane mentions, I'd say that's a moot point. If nothing else, energy self-sufficiency and security is more than enough reason to switch towards other energy sources.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Well, you know, wp, the Pentagon has to be right sometime, and on global climate change, the Pentagon's got support. The American dust bowl of the 30s is with us today; poor farming practices combined with dry soil and wind that carries topsoil away.

There is the slide show link below to see that the dust bowl is with us even now:

http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/future.html

Then there is what is happening today in the alpine forest areas of the American Southwest, a harbinger of global climate change in less arid areas of America. To read an article about that, there is the article at the link below, "In the U.S. desert, high altitude oases are vanishing:"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/27/news/warm.php

There is the new multi-billion dollar joint drought project between NOAA and NASA, named "The National Integrated Drought Information System," Federal bill authorized December, 2006.

http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/VariationsV5N1/Variations.DroughtWG.pdf

For sure, SOMETHING about global climate change is happening that's got governments WORLDWIDE prioritizing money, analyzing and planning!

[Wafflepudding]

Now hold it right there, I don't know if you did it intentionally but you just made me realize one vital thing nobody mentioned here before.

Climate change might be anthropogenic, but not due to CO2. There are many other human activities that could potentially alter weather patterns.

Methane is a FAR more powerful greenhouse gas, so perhaps factory farms have more to do with global warming than power plants.

Deforestation certainly alters the climate by changing humidity and carbon fixation.

Construction of massive geography altering engineering projects such as dams and reservoirs, highway systems and urban sprawl could have repercussions on local and perhaps even national climate change.

Cities are known to create their own microclimates. Perhaps the extension of urbanization and urban clusters have a worldwide cumulative effect.

Emissions other than CO2 such as dust particles, suphates and other chemical compounds might be absorbing heat and slowly releasing it in the atmosphere, thereby disrupting normal climate cycles.

These are just some ideas.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Wp, you've earned a B+, and that is TRUELY extraordinary! Really good interdimensional, multidimensional thinking! To get an A, you need to go beyond causation in summary. You really are almost all the way there. That's fantastic! YEAH!!! Not many people make the leap and get there, wp.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hey, everyone ... wp is OUT OF THE BOX & SPIRITUALIZING!!!

[Wafflepudding]

I really hate to break your enthusiasm but I've always been environmentally friendly (excluding the meat eating, and I've been trying to cut back lately), not because of selflesness but because of selfishness. And you know this is not the first time I think "out of the box".

I've considered myself spiritual as well, I just have a stronger mentalist inclination than emotional or cosmological. It's hard for me to explain exactly on what it consists, even more so because, well, almost nobody is interested in other people's spiritual beliefs, even more so when they don't subscribe to religion or new age. So I've never felt compelled to try to externalize it and give it coherency for others.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

There is the cosmological too that is at the same time physical and metaphysical that IS affecting global climate change, suggested in the excerpt below:

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/planetx.html

Such a distant and large solar system body will also have a huge effect on total solar hyperdimensional energy generation, Hoagland notes. He explains, unknown "worlds," or planets, can produce long-term cyclical changes in solar output lasting thousands of years [i.e. a "World Age"?]. In fact, such a geometrical relationship has already been established between the changing positions of Jupiter and Saturn relative to each other. Hoagland wonders, if the known changes in solar output are due to hyperdimensional effects of the largest known planets, what might be the effect of the magnitude of "aether stress" produced by these newfound planets, which have angular momentum contributions hundreds of times greater? He notes that the long-term cyclic increase in solar energy created by those cyclic phasings could measure as much as several percent above current solar output. Needless to say, this could trigger profound climatic changes on Earth.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

As a result of all the changes that are in progress in this new age, people will be living underground, growing their means of sustenance there as well. Earth will be a garden once again, all of its' parts participating in that consciousness, that awareness, that connectedness that is in all things and that together, is all things constituting the mind and heart of God.

Today I searched for and found a real, on location, Serengeti music video version of Toto's "Africa," though missing the night and the rain. It's pretty neat and is at the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34U2NwGzB0

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hyperdimensional consciousness itself, conscious and unconscious, contributes to "the quantum field" effects of all of the constituent parts of "THE ALL" in which they particpate in the quality of ONENESS, or not; in harmony - for health; or not. This is known by the Illuminati, the secret society elite. The Illuminati works to keep the people of the world "in the dark," "blind," "out of phase," "out of balance," "off balance," "in turmoil," "in fear" and in a state of disharmony. Doing so permits the secret society elite's combined, concerted efforts on the level of hyperdimensional consciousness relatively greater power and influence (coherancy) in the quantum field in which all life participates and responds.

[Michael DeM]

As for the consensus, let's take a look at just a few of the scientific organizations who accept that anthropogenic global warming is real:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
U. S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
National Center for Atmospheric Research
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
U. S. National Academy of Science
The Royal Society
Joint Science Academies consisting of 11 different countries (including the two mentioned above).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Michael DeM]

What are these people thinking?!?

Vote on climate bill is blocked in Senate
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_go_co/climate_congress

[FDRfollower]

Now that the IPCC was caught using faked global warming data, do you want to eat your crow baked, fried, broiled, or stewed?

Monkton statement (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/)

Telegraph article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)

download the ugly truth the emails (http://wikileaks.org/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip)

[Lionhearted]

Now that the IPCC was caught using faked global warming data, do you want to eat your crow baked, fried, broiled, or stewed?

Monkton statement (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/)

Telegraph article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)

download the ugly truth the emails (http://wikileaks.org/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip)

Nothing here disproves global warming!
I put very little faith in information that was obtained illegally. To me this is no different than the guy who hacked Mrs. Palin's email.
NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1) is a much better source for unbiased information on climate change in my book.

[-V-]

Now that the IPCC was caught using faked global warming data, do you want to eat your crow

it doesn't matter if some scientists twisted or fabricated some evidence, the fact still remains that the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS FULLY SUPPORT the theory of our contribution to the acceleration of global warming.

if a few scientists lied about finding the missing link, would you dismiss the theory of evolution?

[FDRfollower]

Yes, it would be nice if it was merely a "few scientists", so as best to deny the ugly reality of the scam. However, we're talking about the IPCC, the de facto authority on the climate, whose recommendations national governments make their policies from. Acting like the neo-cons and their misinformation, cover-ups, & cherry picking so as to launch wars should be just as bad in your book.

It was never true ~V~, that the "vast majority of scientists" supported the thesis. We're long past the point where using that old saw is going to panic people into going along, just as the Cheney-acs kept using the WMD "threat" to panic people into the war.

[-V-]

It was never true ~V~, that the "vast majority of scientists" supported the thesis

it was, and is still true.
because Cheney lied about WMD's does not make global warming untrue, or deforestation, or rapid species extinction, or any of the other ills we are infecting this planet with.

but i so don't get you?
so what if global warming is not really a big concern?

what about all the other great reasons to cut emissions and push for green energy and green jobs?
what have you got against mother earth? do you have a mother complex?
are you an Exxon CEO? employee? stockholder?

[-V-]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html?slidenumber=nKXgtAsK7Rw%3D
As blogger Jeff Masters writes,

"Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change—which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines—is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks."

As climate czar Carol Brower says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists [of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.] These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

...The top scientists in the world have just released a new report on the realities of global warming. Kevin Grandia summarizes some of the key points about emissions, melting ice sheets, and rising sea levels. The emails don't change any of this reality.

[Magi2]

I'm waiting for follower still..............too.........
:confused:
it was, and is still true.
because Cheney lied about WMD's does not make global warming untrue, or deforestation, or rapid species extinction, or any of the other ills we are infecting this planet with.

but i so don't get you?
so what if global warming is not really a big concern?

what about all the other great reasons to cut emissions and push for green energy and green jobs?
what have you got against mother earth? do you have a mother complex?
are you an Exxon CEO? employee? stockholder?

[Magi2]

anywaaaaaaaaaaay:


http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Top-10-Reasons-for-Ene-by-Scott-Baker-091211-131.html

The Top 10 Reasons for Energy Independence have Little to do With Global Warming
opednews.com
For OpEdNews: Scott Baker - Writer
Climate of The World
...
1. Climate Change:
...
2. Balance of Trade: We import 70% of our oil - $500 billion/year - often from countries that hate us, fund terrorists, and buy our businesses (Citigroup) and infrastructure (Chrysler Building).
...
3. Green Jobs: Germany has created 250,000 new green jobs in its solar industry, which supplies 13% of its electric needs.
...
4. National Security: We must not depend on foreign powers to supply us with vital energy, which is as critical to modern society as food and shelter. ...

5. The Oil Curse: Countries that depend on natural resources to make money, and not people, are the most corrupt, despotic, self-righteous and anti-human rights regimes on Earth. ...

6. Military Overreach: America cannot afford to defend oil fields. ...

7. Peak Oil: We are probably only seeing peak geopolitical oil, not peak geological oil, now, but it will only get more expensive to drill oil. Most estimates put peak oil within 10 years, and since global demand has exceeded earlier estimates, we may be even closer. ...

8. Local Environmental Damage: If we drill everywhere, we will eventually have oil wells all over the west (instead of wind turbines), and even in the (newly melted) arctic. These high-risk drilling areas will be more likely to see oil spills, soot, and CO2 damage and the further eradication of local animal ...

9. We eat too much oil: Oil goes into fertilizer, which goes into corn, which goes into EVERYTHING we eat, including meat....

10. Loss of American's position as Innovation Leader:...
...

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support Energy Independence




I enbolded a few........but ALL should be esp. noted...
:thumbup::thumbup::sunny:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Our world needs alternatives, and We, the people need to supply the actions necessary to turn alternatives into reality. The American "employee" mentality must be changed from, "Who will employ me?" to We, the people can and will provide the alternatives needed with and for our communities and our world on our own, financially and materially.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5455605137215634518&ei=jI9zS4OBGYyKwgPsg5nXBw&q=catherine+austin+fitts&hl=en#

There are negative agendas controlling what We, the people think, and in what directions we think. Some are human. Some are alien, and some are a combination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2v0cu8pQOc

[Tom's Fork]

-V- Beck, Hannity, Rush, Fox News, and GOP senators say the snow outside their door de-bunks global warming (i.e. climate change) and they're having themselves a hardy laugh mocking Al Gore

Oh, the snow outside debunks climate change? May I point out, these people are either ignorant or they are lieing through their teeth.

Ignorance? Lies? This is Truth:

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. - Robert Heinlein

The hottest year on record will still have very cold days.

There are those who believe, everywhere love is all around (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9iA8h0UNYk). Apparently, they don't listen to Fox and to the social conservatives.