Global Warming proven a hoax! by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Global Warming proven a hoax!

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 16:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7380
PAGE 3 of 3

Friday, January 19, 2007 4:43 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well, you guys just won't give up on global warming.

I've suggested that you sell individual processes because of their benefit to the individual, but you insist on trying to sell "global warming because of us."

"Global Warming Because of Us" is a much harder sell than "Hydrogen Fuel Because of Money."

But anyway, let's look at what you've got:

1) Global Warming Because of Us: "I don't need to provide evidence of Global Warming Because of Us. Where's your evidence of Global Warming Not Because of Us?"

2) Global Warming Not Because of Us: "I don't need to provide evidence of Global Warming Not Because of Us. Where's your evidence of Global Warming Because of Us?"

Looks like an impasse.

Let's see if I can break down both sides of the equation:

A) Global Warming is Because of Us: Human beings are burning fossil fuels that release X agent into the atmosphere which is causing global warming.

Proposed Solution: We need to stop burning fossil fuels so that X agent is reduced and the temperature returns to normal.

Problem: It's hard to definitively prove that Human beings are responsible for Global Warming. You'd literally have to have two identical Earths... One with humans, and one without humans, in order to conduct a good experiment on the hypothesis. Because it's hard to prove, human beings, who are essentially selfish animals, will do what suits them best.

Solution: Convince humans to stop burning fossil fuels for reasons that have NOTHING to do with Global Warming. Find an argument that actually makes it more convenient for humans to stop burning fossil fuels. Then, motivated purely by personal selfish desires, humans will adopt your pro-environmental policies.

B) Global Warming is NOT Because of Us: The Earth enters a natural cycle of increased heat from time to time.

Proposed Solution: Slow down the inevitable as much as possible. If humans reduce the emission of X agent (by burning less fossil fuels) into the atmosphere, Global Warming may be slowed or postponed to some degree.

Problem: If it's a natural cycle, and all we can do is slow it or postpone it, then the selfish human animal will balk at going through all that effort. The selfish human animal will rather build house-boats than change his habits.

Solution: Convince humans to stop burning fossil fuels for reasons that have NOTHING to do with Global Warming. Find an argument that actually makes it more convenient for humans to stop burning fossil fuels. Then, motivated purely by personal selfish desires, humans will adopt your pro-environmental policies.

We clear on this? You can't sell Global Warming.

You have to appeal to the selfish human animal on its own level.

My suggestion? Show conclusively that alternative fuels will cost less money in the long run. Point out that if we use alternative fuels, then oil producing nations won't be able to push us around. Point out that we won't have to get entangled in foreign matters simply because of our love of oil. Motivated by MONEY and SELF INTEREST, people will do what you want them to do.

"Stop Global Warming and Save the World?" A rough sell, unless you're selling the idea to Captain Planet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 5:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S'wenyways

When I bought my car 12 years ago I made a vow to myself I would not get another new car until I could get a liquid fuel, direct electric drive fuel-cell vehicle. (For a lot of reasons I personally think are good, those were the conditions I set.)

In 2004 scientists made a breakthrough discovery of a catalyst that converts ethanol (ethanol good - made by plants) to hydrogen.

"Lanny Schmidt, a University of Minnesota chemist, and three colleagues of his have discovered a process that could leap several of the hurdles facing the hydrogen economy: the high cost of making hydrogen, the impact on global warming of burning hydrogen, and the safe and efficient use of hydrogen in cars.
The new approach, reported in the journal Science last week, offers hope for the cheapest and most efficient method for extracting hydrogen yet.

This new technique - confirmed late one night while the scientists waited for a pizza to arrive at the lab - could produce the gas at $1.50 per kilogram. That would put it in the ballpark even with ultracheap conventional sources like coal, Dr. Schmidt says."

It's a small, cheap, rugged, self-heating catalyst that converts wet dirty ethanol into nice hydrogen.

And just today I read this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070112122924.htm

"Platinum is the most efficient electrocatalyst for accelerating chemical reactions in fuel cells for electric vehicles. In reactions during the stop-and-go driving of an electric car, however, the platinum dissolves, which reduces its efficiency as a catalyst. This is a major impediment for vehicle-application of fuel cells.

Now, scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have overcome this problem." With a catalyst they tested under rugged conditions.

Back then these types of cars were supposed to be just around the corner. It's been a wait, but I can see it on the horizon now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 11:33 PM

FLETCH2

Question:

What happens to the carbon in this ethanol conversion? Is it captured? Ethanol is a hydrocarbon fuel --- it's made up of both carbon and hydrogen. If you extract the hydrogen what happens to the carbon byproduct and what form is it in?

I suspect that the best short term solution would be an extended range pluggable biodiesel hybrid. You charge it overnight from domestic electricity and let it run the first 40 miles or so on battery alone, this would be enough to make the daily commute electric only especially if the destination had charging stations to recharge the car while you worked. If it DID need to switch to fuel it could run on biodiesel and so not add any extra polution.

When I lived in Canada most cars had engine block heaters to stop the engine from cracking in the extreme cold. Many businesses had electrical outlets in the car parks to allow the heaters to be plugged in while the employee was at work. That same kind of system could work for a plug hybrid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 11:33 PM

FLETCH2

Duplicate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That isn't merely MY opinion, but the opinion of a host of accredited scientist which are so often ignored by the 'mainstream'."

Please provide data. All you've done so far is make unsupported claims, which is why your posts fall into the category "opinion".

One of the basic, and often never challenged claims of the global warming advocates is that sea level is rising, and thanks to global warming, the rise in sea level is accelerating at an alarming pace. Many popular presentations of the global warming issue (e.g., Gore’s film) show images of low-lying nations that are seeing their islands erode away thanks to the rising seas. Throw in a few locals dressed in native clothing who looked distraught over the situation, blame the industrialized nations (and obviously the United States), and another pillar of the global warming story is reinforced.

If one simply took the time to examine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report, they may be absolutely stunned to read “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” Although since the publication of the IPCC 2001 report, a few studies have been published which report to have found evidence of sea level rise acceleration. However, the jury is still way out on this issue. - Larsen, C.E. and I. Clark. 2006. A search for scale in sea-level studies. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(4) ,788–800.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/?s=quotes

Andy Revkin had an article on January 14, 2007 in the New York Times entitled The Basics Connecting the Global Warming Dots

Unlike his earlier article which I was impressed with and which Climate Science posted a weblog on (see), this new article presents, at best, a grossly oversimplified summary of the science of the human role in climate change, and more specifically, the human role in global warming.

Perhaps this article was written in response to the pressure he must have received on his balanced January 1 2007 article. In any case, this new January 14 article is a disappointment to anyone who values objectivity in news articles.

I will document four of his oversimplifications/errors below (but these are not even all of his mistakes!). The first clear oversimplification/error in his presentation is his statement that,

“The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.)”

I assume I must fit outside of his category of “almost everyone”. His presentation of a simple linear model between added CO2 and less ice and higher seas ignores the complications that result associated with the biogeochemical effects of added CO2, as well as the requirement for a positive water vapor/cloud feedback in the hydrologic cycle in order for significant warming to occur. - Roger Pielke Sr.
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/category/climate-science-op-eds/

There is a vast amount of evidence that contradicts the popular global warming frenzy, but too few are willing to look into it. From fossilized *diatoms to **core studies of tree rings, there's every bit enough reason to believe that much of the changes we're seeing aren't being taken into account of the context of 1000's of years natural climate variation. I'm in firm agreement with the likes of Michael Crichton that the majority of global warming hysteria has more to do w/ utlerior motives and ignorance than real, hard core science.

* http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/?s=diatoms
** http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/01/03/the-park-former
ly-known-as-glacier/#more-206

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 20, 2007 6:41 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Stop Global Warming and Save the World?" A rough sell, unless you're selling the idea to Captain Planet.

Or socialists, who are always champing to stick it to big business and industry. That’s why most of the “solutions” are based on Left-wing economics. Not because anyone really cares, necessarily, about saving the world, but rather that people see an opportunity to advance the Left-wing argument.

In the end though, I think you’ve got the better idea. We’re never going to stop carbon emission by imposing world wide socialism. It’s never going to happen, not without massive world-wide poverty and starvation anyway. The better idea is to advance our technology to produce solutions like hydrogen fuel and sustainable fusion, and to pose those solutions as profitable alternatives.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:38 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Stop Global Warming and Save the World?" A rough sell, unless you're selling the idea to Captain Planet.
Or socialists, who are always champing to stick it to big business and industry. That’s why most of the “solutions” are based on Left-wing economics. Not because anyone really cares, necessarily, about saving the world, but rather that people see an opportunity to advance the Left-wing argument.

I think this is a miss atributement. While government regulation is part of a Socialist economic model it is not unique to that system. In reality the constutuencies and objectives of companies and govenments are different. Company's are concerned rightly with return of investment to share holders (ie profits) while the stated purpose of govenment is the benefit of its electors. It can be seen that these often come into conflict.

For example, I read about a year ago about efforts being made in some new Jersey town to have an adult bookshop closed by rezoning. The argument from the local residents was that the store was on "the way to school" for many parents. It wasn't actually next to the school, just on the route that some parents chose to take. Someone of a more Libertarian bent would argue that the parents should perhaps have taken a different route to school or that if there really was no market for what it sold then it would close naturally anyway. However, neither option was considered, instead the parents wanted to use the power of the local council to close the business. I doubt any of these people would have discribed themselves as "Socialist" butr they were using the power of government regulation to effect social legislation to the detriment of this business. If you squint you could probably view this as application of "socialist economics" because in a pure capitalist world it shouldn't matter if a bookstore chooses to sell Harry Potter or Hairy Poontang, the only question would be if it could operate profitably.

Here in Texas there is a new city ordinance in one of the local city's that forbids landlords from renting to undocumented workers. Yet again "socialist" meddling. From a pure capitalist perspective the only thing that a landlord should be concerned with when choosing a tenant is that persons ability to pay the agreed rent and his treatment of the rented property. After all the owner did not rent the property from an alruistic desire to provide accomodation for society but to turn a profit on his investment. At a stroke the local government reduces the number of elegable renters, potentially effecting the value of the rent a landlord can charge if the number of potential "legitimate" renters is lower than the housing base.

Yes that happened in TX, well known Socialist superstate.

Getting back to the global warming issue. Governments are supposed to reflect the concerns of their constituents so if "the people" want action on global warming you can expect government to legislate to make that happen. That doesn't make it "socialist" par se it just means that regulation is a tool to effect change just the same as market forces. Regulation is not a subtle as the market it can be a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but that is the tool governments of any political ilk have and they wield it in response to political pressure from electors.

Ultimately the nature of a capitalist economy means that once a market moves in a direction then inovation will make it happen. I don't think it chance that Toyota, the biggest manufacturer of hybrid vehicles is now the world number 2 automaker. It is also not chance that the second generation of their product is better and cheaper than the one before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:33 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think this is a miss atributement. While government regulation is part of a Socialist economic model it is not unique to that system. In reality the constutuencies and objectives of companies and govenments are different. Company's are concerned rightly with return of investment to share holders (ie profits) while the stated purpose of govenment is the benefit of its electors. It can be seen that these often come into conflict.

That’s all true, but the principle behind Kyoto is not regulation. It’s the redistribution of economic power. China, for instance, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, is almost exempt from regulation. Redistribution of wealth is the primary goal of Kyoto which trumps everything else, including carbon emission. That’s the left-wing solution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:30 PM

FLETCH2

If you're talking Kyoto that's a different issue. International treaties are negociated not impossed by some central authority (much as that truth will disappoint Pirate News and AntiMason.) So that means you compromise to get the agreement you can even if it doesn't include all you would like.

So your choice is to get a "coalition of the willing" and hope once that is in place and upheld you can get others to play ball rather than do nothing while you play "you go first" with every country on the planet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 7:31 AM

CITIZEN

Global warming: the final verdict
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 8:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch,

"What happens to the carbon in this ethanol conversion? Is it captured? Ethanol is a hydrocarbon fuel --- it's made up of both carbon and hydrogen. If you extract the hydrogen what happens to the carbon byproduct and what form is it in?"

The carbon is released as CO2 - but since it comes from plants it doesn't add to the overall carbon load.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:14 AM

FLETCH2

So the advantage of using a reactor plus a hydrogen fuel cell is system efficiency over just burning the ethonol in a heat engine? In making CO2 in the reactor you are effectively burning carbon and releasing energy, energy that isn't making it to the driving wheels. I'm wondering how this compares with just making an ethanol burning traditional engine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

"ocean level"
Somehwere in a post a long time ago a person said they would not believe in global warming until the Statue of Liberty was drowning, and maybe not even then. That may be your issue, or someone else's, but not mine.

Since I haven't made that claim I don't feel any need to discuss it.

"many scientists"
As to the post you copied (which I appeciate btw) what I got out of it is that there is a researcher named Roger Pielke Sr. who disagreed with an article in the NYTimes. After reading his post, I'm not sure he disagrees with the concept of global warming in general or with specifics in the article.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So the advantage of using a reactor plus a hydrogen fuel cell is system efficiency over just burning the ethanol in a heat engine?

Higher efficiency. (Ethanol => heat => expansion => mechanical engine motion => transmission => wheels) wastes a lot of energy. With a fuel cell and direct electric drive you eliminate the waste of (heat => => transmission). You can also regenerate electricity during braking. If you insist on a liquid fuel (as I did when I made myself my promise) it's b/c you don't have to rebuild the entire infrastructure to accommodate high pressure hydrogen gas, for example.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 12:21 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

This is why I seldom bother with taking the time to post my research. So few times is it even read by those who call for it the most. My 'ocean levels' reply was meant to show that credible scientist have grave reservations as to the science as well as the CONCLUSIONS which support global warming. Point of fact...there are other answers besides man made global warming. At least, for those willing to hear.

As for Roger Pielke Sr, he's taking issue w/ the errors in oversimplifying the evidence, which leads to a misunderstanding of the greater issue. He's not so much a skeptic of man caused global warming, but stresses the complexities in climate change and how those errors can lead to false conclusions.

Per one of the links which seems to have gone overlooked by you, dealing with how temperature readings are represented - " If you have followed World Climate Report over the past few years, you are aware that we have taken countless swings at the “Hockey Stick” depiction of planetary temperature. The “Stick” is popular with the global warming crowd for it wipes out the “Medieval Warm Period” of 1,000 years ago and the “Little Ice Age” that began 450 years ago and thankfully ended around 1900. The “Stick” makes the warming of the 20th century look incredible, disturbing, and completely unmatched over the past 1,000 years. The only explanation for the recent warming must be the dreaded buildup of greenhouse gases. "

So, you see, my remarks about global warming aren't merely " my opinions" , as rue falsely tried to portray earlier.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Umm, quick thought for ya.

When you "plug it in" - where does the energy then come from ?

From powerplants, burning petroleum, coal or what have you, unless you're downline from a Nuke or Hydro, you see.

So yer STILL burning petrol-energy, you are just reducing it's efficiency by a significant factor by having it processed somewhere else and then forced down the line to you against the resistance of the circuit.

In the end, you use MORE petrol to power a plug-in than you would using a semi-efficient ordinary, all you do is move the waste and pollution down the line, where there is more of both - does that make you less responsible for it ?

Any "Alternative" that involves using more petrol energy to produce it than it reduces is ludicrous.

We really need to work on our alternatives and think about both issues like this, and stuff like waste/battery turnover, etc etc.

Logistically, for non-time-critical freight, a solar/windpower rail system wouldn't be a half bad idea, with powered assistance at road crossings to clear them.

And yanno, it really WOULD help if someone smacked some sense into the detroit automakers who don't comprehend why their 12mpg supersize SUVs ain't sellin and the Toyota Prius is.

I swear.. THAT particular ivory tower crowd needs a close encounter with a clue-by-four.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

"World Climate Report" I went to the other two websites you linked. I didn't mention them b/c they are obviously dedicated to an anti-global warming stance. Not only is that bad science (selecting data to fit your conclusions) I couldn't find any cv's on the principals or information on the sources of funding. So I did look at it but didn't find anything valid to reply to.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem,

That's the beauty of what I'm waiting for. The electricity is generated onboard from ethanol. You fill-up like normal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:48 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Umm, quick thought for ya.

When you "plug it in" - where does the energy then come from ?

From powerplants, burning petroleum, coal or what have you, unless you're downline from a Nuke or Hydro, you see.

So yer STILL burning petrol-energy, you are just reducing it's efficiency by a significant factor by having it processed somewhere else and then forced down the line to you against the resistance of the circuit.-Frem

Actually no, that's wrong. Portable heat engines, like the internal combustion engine in cars are VERY inefficient because in order to make the system light enough to be mobile you have to sacrifice efficiency. Even allowing for transmission losses it's much more efficent to burn 100 gallons of fuel in a power plant and distribute the power than it is to burn the same 100 gallons in 100 vehicles. Also, I can elect to buy my power from green sources (like wind farms) there is no way I could strap a windmill to my car. In addition the way internal combustion engines burn fuel creates more problems than a "clean burn" that only outputs CO2 and water. Cars also produce nitros oxides, carbon monoxide and partially burnt hydrocarbons. While some of this is caught by the catalytic converter in a car it's not nearly as clean as the large and heavy filters/scrubbers in a major power plant can manage.

Hybrids are not a perfect solution but it's available now and will be more common and cheaper as time goes on. Currently the biggest problem with fuel cells is polution, not what it produces but the stuff already in the air. Fuel cells used by folks like NASA are closed system, they get both hydrogen and oxygen in pure form from tanks. A vehicle fuel cell would have to be open system and take the oxygen it needs from the air. Unfortunately there is so much rubbish in our air that the cells can be poisoned. The Norwegians have built some pretty big units to supply power for some remote islands. The plant manager for the system was interviewed by the BBC last year and said that the technology had problems in urban centers because of air quality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:29 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I didn't mention them b/c they are obviously dedicated to an anti-global warming stance.

Seems we're back to square one. You dismiss my research out of hand simply because of YOUR opinion, that they are "anti-global warming" . Seems rather specious, don't you think? ANY site that arrives at that conclusion is viewed by you as " anti-global warming ",is guilty of bad science, a priori . I even posted a PRO - global warming scientist who rejects the tactics and methodologies which lead to , in HIS opinion , false conclusions over the matter.

Quote:
I couldn't find any cv's on the principals or information on the sources of funding. So I did look at it but didn't find anything valid to reply to.

So, after ripping me time and time again about me NOT posting any references and accusing me of simply offering my 'opinion', you fail to even comment as to the references I DO post, because you claim they are invalid ?

You and Kent Hovind should set up a DISPROVE Global Warming challenge. Offer up to $ 100,000 to $ 1 Million, or what ever you want. Doesn't matter, because you'll always change the goal post further and further back when ever the evidence doesn't fit your ever changing 'acceptable' sources.

Classic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Rap,

If I were to link a site dedicated to, I don't know, proving there's life on Mars, that selects only validating information, would you accept it as the answer on the topic? Probably not. That's the issue I had with those two links (to the same site).

I tried to penetrate the site you linked - which btw openly states it's anti-global warming - from it's home page:
"World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in the literature and popular press."

- anyway, I tried to penetrate the site - what credentials do the people have who post there, what is the level of information available (studies v editorials), and what are its potential biases (funding sources). After all, it's only a blog (again, from their home page: "This popular web log ...") A lot of supposed 'controversy' about global warming is directly funded by ExxonMobil for example.

I'll go back and look at the site again, but as far as I could tell it was not a credible source of information.

PS I looked at some of the posts. They are essentially uncredited editorials.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE