Two out of three are bogus. The are nothing but opinion pieces that do not even link too anything to back-up their claims. Just take their word for it. Do you believe everything conservative political blogs tell you? For example, the "Canadian Free Press" article (the author is not a scientist,what makes him qualified as an "expert" on the subject) repeats statements from other experts that are unpublished, anywhere. No links to support their claims. The Heartland institute is a well-known conservative denialist group paid by Exxon-Mobile to seed doubt about g****l w*****g. That is fair enough, but Exxon's own geologist looked at the methods and results related to g****l w*****g and found it credible. But, ignoring their own scientist, Exxon continues to fund them despite repeated vows to stop funding denialism.


http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/01/03/scientists-exxonmobil-paid-groups-to-mislead-public-on-global-warming//gcr_contributions_publicpolicy12.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business



Keep in mind that exon makes more money in 1 quarter than has been spent of g****l w*****g research since the 1890s, so funding denialsim to put off regulations another few months could earns them 10s of billions. Great investment.
Still, what you present is not science. It is politics.

wnho site - only links to blogs with more unsubstantiated information. No science involved. Just lame.

I like the James Watts site. It raises some valid questions that need to be addressed. Note, this leveling off does not mean that there is no g****l w*****g - mean temperatures have not declined to what they should be with no human impact, but it does have points that need to be addressed.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

The temperatures are the mean observed change temperatures derived from stations all over the planet since the late 1800s. The change is relative to the mean temperature from 1951 through 1980.

Note that the temperature between 1880 and 1920 fell or is flat. From 1920 until WWII, it increased. It then leveled off until about 1970 - it did not fall significantly, just leveled off. The temps climbed until the early 2000s. Note that temps have leveled off again and not fallen significantly. This suggest that the long term temperature trend has not changed. And you claim that the "no increase " period for the past 10 to 15 years means g****l w*****g is wrong? I think you read too much into a very small time period. But I'll try to research it more over the next couple of weeks and post what I find. It could be a reversal, but it could take one or two decades to see a true downward trend emerge.

This is just a stupid. If the lawmakers have insurance through their employer (they do), they are in compliance with the law. After they leave, if they have no health insurance, they will need to purchase it or pay a fine. If their income is low enough, they can get assistance to purchase insurance.

A lot of people have pointed out teh obvious problem that would need to be overcome. I want to point out the conflict and adversity (not necessarily war and hatred, but less intense than that) is also how we problem-solve and spur creation in our society. Although we have an inclination to be contrary and to try to dominate with our ideas, there is still a desire to get a broad acceptance of our ideas and form alliances. We desire to get along in the end. This internal conflict (we are contrary but want to get along with others) is what helps our species to advance. Maybe it is not so bad if not taken to an extreme.

Just a thought.

Of course climate has been warming, cooling and changing through the history of the earth. Science teaches this, quantifies it, models it, and describes the changes mathematically (these collections of mathematical equations that correspond to what we observe and called SCIENTIFIC THEORIES) so that we can recreate it. Scientist have modeled the Milankovitch cycles, solar cycle, volcanic activity that are all among the primary natural drivers of NATURAL changes. Scientists have recreated past climate using these models accurately. The current warming is unique in that CO2 typically rises AFTER temperature rises because of the increased rate of decay. Now, CO2 concentrations are rising BEFORE temperature, and the concentration of additional greenhouse gas in the atmosphere corresponds with the amount of f****l f**ls being combusted. This is caused by humans. The concentration has increased at an extremely fast rate, and temperature changes have been equally fast - much faster than most natural change. About half of human emissions are absorb by the ocean at this point in time as the differentials in partial pressures of the gases allow the ocean to absorb more. But the ocean is warming. At some point, the process will reverse because as the oceans warm and the warmer water mixes into the deeper layers of the ocean. The increase in heat content of the ocean means that the ocean will not absorb as much greenhouse gas in the future and could become a source instead of a sink. The acidity level has already increased because of the additional CO2 it adsorbs from the atmosphere. Here is information if you are interested in reading a little science.

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

This is no fairytale. This is what the science has suggested will happen based of what we know of physics and chemistry, and what we can observe and tests.

What are your opinions based on? Not scientific concepts and observable facts. If you have anything more than political propaganda from blog sites that can be discussed, please post it. Some intelligent ideas and concepts from denialist would be a welcome change. You have no scientific foundation or evidence to back up your opinion. All you have is an opinion that is completely unsubstantiated by facts. That is the fairytale you have bought into, hook, line and sinker. Time to rub the sleep out of your eyes and put on your big girl panties and face reality.

Al Gore is not a scientist. e is not an "expert" on the subject of g****l w*****g relative to climatologists who are educated in the field and have researched the subject. He is a politician and a spokesman to increase awareness of the subject. If your panties are in a wad because Al Gore has drawn attention to the subject, ignore him and look at NASA, the USGS, NOAA the National Academy of Sciences, or any other scientific organization. The all say the same thing. i know believing in conspiracy theories is 'in vogue' in the conservative part of the GOP, but common, this is stupid even for the ultra-conservatives!

In Oklahoma, there are no libertarians in the primaries and it is very difficult to get the on a b****t. It does make a difference on the quality of the candidates if only a small portion of the e*****rate can pick who is able to be on a b****t.

I'm leaning this way too. The campaign finance has to walk a fine line: large companies also have the right to speak on issues. But, their right to speak has to be balanced with the responsibility to not use their resources to spread mis-information. I think as long as the company has a message that they are willing to put their name on, then it is fine. If consumers don't like the messages, they can boycott. They can support the company if they like it. None of this spreading rumors anonymously. If you want to exercise great power with your right to free speech (as is possible is you have great resources), be open about it. That is one of the best ways to ensure t***hful information is put out. However, there may be many other ideas that can work as well. Congress will have to take a look at the options. But, I would not hold your breath.

G****l c*****g was never accepted scientific hypothesis. Take a look in the library databases (University level), you'll find nothing. It was only something that Time or Newsweek picked up on that was found to be incorrect. Do a little research (just a little) and you will easily confirm what I just said. That is why you stick with peer review publications.

Greenhouse gases have been rising steadily and that is a fact. Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily and that is a fact. I have heard nothing about mining causing shifts in tectonic plates and earth quakes. I know they think small-scale local tremors may be associated with fracking in some cases, but have not yet found proof of it. You are right that volcanoes can result in massive injections of greenhouse gases and aerosols into the atmosphere. The super-volcanoes (like the one in Yellowstone) would have a huge impact.

But, right now, human activity emits a little less than100 times the CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanic activity does. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2827&from=rss_home


That big yellow ball in the sky in the daytime. It is called the sun and it is the source of almost all energy on the planet. The output has changed very little since the 1978. The increase in solar activity accounts for less than 10% in the enhanced greenhouse effect. Sunspots occur that change the output a little in fairly regular cycles that are well known - SCIENTISTS actually discovered this quite a while ago. These are know and accounted for, along with volcanic activity, but they do not explain the increase in mean global temperature we have experienced to date. Human emissions do.

Anyone foolish enough to believe we can alter our atmosphere without consequences is arrogant and self-important, and is willfully ignorant preferring to stick their head in the sand rather so that they cannot see the t***h regardless how simplistic you make it for them. Pull your head out of the sand and actually read some science to try to understand rather than have the BS fed to you by political blog sites. Don't be so lazy!

I've got to agree. Maybe have three bathrooms. Women, men, undetermined. If you have man parts but "feel you are a woman trapped in a man's body," go to undetermined. Same is true if you feel you are a man trapped in a woman's body. Please, KNOCK FIRST!

EXACTLY!!!


If you refuse to learn the science or trust the scientist, but rely on political blogs to provide you with scientific information, then you are buying the fairytale. Only believe what can be observed and explained. That is what scientist do - they have an idea (excessive concentrations of CO2 ore building in the atmosphere that will result in additional greenhouse warming. The additional energy in the system will result in climate changing because weather and ocean currents redistribute the energy around the globe). Scientists have to PROVE that this is happening and convince other scientist their methods, results, and conclusions are valid.

You don't seem to understand the complexity of the problem. There are lots of screwy things that will get your panties in a wad, but the two LEAST controversial findings in the scientific community is humans have caused g****l w*****g and this will cause climate to change. this is physics and hard to argue with (for scientists). What the impacts will be of changing climate (physical, economic, social, ecological) are MUCH harder to define and the certainty about this is still very low. Even worse is what is the most effective response. The problem took generations to build, and the solution will also require potentially generations to address. As a society, are we better off using energy as we have been? We are already looking for new sources - maybe in part because of g****l w*****g but also because it makes economic sense as increasing energy needs drive up the costs of f****l f**ls and we need energy security as a nation. If we stay on this path, we may maximize social welfare and have enough resources to innovate our way out of our AGW problem. On the other hand, if we reduce emissions, the the problem is not as severe and hopefully the consequences will be less severe. This means that it will be easier to offset the consequences in the future, and therefore less costly. But, addressing the problem now reduces resources available to offset poverty, heath care, job creation, etc. So the "now" generation bears some costs and "next" generation may not suffer from as many adverse impacts. But, predicting into the future is problematic, so we can have a lot of certainty about how our sacrifices today will help in the future.

It is silly to complain and deny what scientist can observe. We have measure a mean global temperature increase of about 1.5F that is significantly different for a very long time period (definitely the most rapid increase in 100,000 years, and likely for the past 1,000,000+ years). It doesn't sound like much, but the mean reduces variation. The reality is the warming at the poles and high elevation can be much greater. Ocean warming is evident, and the depth of the warming is increasing. The increasing atmospheric CO2 has increase ocean acidity. Glaciers are retreating world wide. Ice at both poles is thinning and more open water is present for longer periods. Note that the 60% increase in ice reported is from the record low. It is still an 11% decrease from the coverage going back to the 80s. Areas near the pole are greening earlier almost every year. We see the northward and upward migration of species. None of this is conjecture. All of this is observation based on years of watching. Their are a lot of concerns and questions, but this is probably the most certain part of the problem. The vast majority of scientist agree on this BECAUSE it can be observed and the methods used and results of those methods are consistent with human-cause g****l w*****g.

The one thing we all can agree on is entropy is a b*tch!

If it is by email, then it is a s**m. NEVER send money to someone through an email request. You already know that.

I think the "solid conservative majority" is issue dependent. the country is pretty evenly divided when you put all the issues in the pot. For example, on a******n, a solid majority does not like it and wants to stop late term a******ns, but a solid majority also does not want to cut all all access to early a******ns and contraception.

With gun control, - we have the right to bear arms because "A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state" means that congress cannot prevent citizens from owning weapons. However, with rights come responsibilities. If you do something bad with a firearm, you could loose your right to own them. Most people believe this.

The country is NOT a solid majority conservative as defined by the ultra conservative wing of the GOP. That is why Romeny lost the e******n. Had he remained a moderate GOP candidate, he would have likely beat Obama.

You seem to think the only problem lies in the democratic party. They definitely have problems. My favorite quote is from Will Rogers "I belong to no organized political party. I am a democrat!" But the republicans have moved much further right than the democrats have to the left (in most places) and demonized their own moderate members, driving them out of the party.

I feel this issue is way too important to leave to state legislatures. They are much more easily controlled than a large mass of people v****g. Leave it with the people. I guess my question is if you repeal the amendment, and the majority of the states v**e in democratic senators, would you then want to reverse it so "the people" pick the senators? I think you are just upset because a democratic President won the e******n, and even though the house went republican, the senate did not, so it is hard to do what you think ought to be done to put the country on the right track. But it is not just what you think. It is what the MAJORITY thinks. You think that majority resides with you, but the e******n doe not reflect that, so you want to manipulate the v****g so that it better reflects your views majority or not.

It is up 60% from the ALL TIME LOW that occurred in 2012. It is still down 11% fro the 1979 - 200 average. Here is a link that shows the trend

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaIce

I know this is a very difficult science to understand if you have not had advance mathematics and science, but to deny g****l w*****g is silly - it can be directly observed. We are about 0.56 C warmer ON AVERAGE than in than 1950. To deny that people do not significantly influence climate through our emissions and land use patterns is to ignore 97-98% of the scientists that study this kind of thing. Believing in some big conspiracy theory will not make your life, your children's lives, or your grandchildren lives better. It may make things much worse.

Just because you can't or won't understand doesn't make it wrong. It makes you wrong.

This is a common thing. In 2004, I kept getting "survey forms" from may GOP congressional representative. I'd fill it out, send it back and get a new one the next week - the exact same survey. I was not filling out the credit card info or enclosing a check, so they kept sending them. I'm sure the surveys went into the trash - it was just a fund-raising vehicle.


Anyway, I'd fill it out and send it in. I kept getting angry at the questions because they were worded in such a way that the representative was always doing the right thing. I'm trained in statistics and survey methods, but this was just more obvious than normal: example - 'do you think 'no child left behind' is the best solution of solve all educational problems or do you h**e America?" Obviously, this was not a survey question, but the survey was full of loaded questions was just as biased as the question I posted.

I got aggravated and switched parties (I did not register as an independent because independents have no v**e in primaries in OK). Then the state democratic party started sending me surveys - the same type of thing. I'm aggravated with them too.

Just recognize this stuff for what it is - lame attempts to make you think you have a voice while trying to lighten your wallet.

Repealing the 17th amendment is a huge step backwards. We do not want to give power to politicians and remove the power from the people. In some states, the results would likely not change, but in other states, the political system is extremely skewed so that a very small minority controls the state legislator. I heard a talk yesterday with state legislatures that said only about 6% of the people v**e in primaries. Oklahoma has a closed primary system. You have no say if you are an independent v**er. Oklahoma's system shuts out almost all candidates that aren't in the republican or democratic party, and the democratic party is just about non-existent here. If only 6% of the people have a say in who can run and hold office, the state politicians may not be representative of the population, and the senate becomes even more of a "good'ol boy's club." They will only v**e in cronies. Do not reduce individuals rights. That is wrong and will lead to a bad result.

If anything, the v****g date for federal e******ns needs to be moved from Tuesday to the weekend. The reason it was on Tuesday was because that was the least disruptive time to allow maximum participation. Remember, in the late 1700's there was no forty-hour work week, no "weekend" with Saturday off. The founders (I think it was Jefferson that communicated it) decided that there would be no participation if it were on Saturday - people would not v**e because Saturday night was the big break from the week. Most the time, v**ers had to travel to the county seat to v**e, which could be a day's travel on horseback. They would not give up their Saturday night. Sunday would interfere with church, the chance for people to worship, socialize and catchup back in the 18th century. This was the big entertainment of the week - back then even reading a book could be tough if you could read. Participation would be too low if v****g fell on a Sunday. Tuesday allowed enough time for the v**er (the white man of the house) to travel to the county seat, cast his v**e, and return home to work. With Tuesday, most of the work week was not disrupted (Wednesday through Saturday was undisputed). Any other day would result in less participation or more disruption in the work week.

Moving v****g to the weekend would allow more citizens to v**e and be less disruptive to businesses and schools (often v****g places here), and is more in-line with the intent of the founders to allow participation and reduce disruption. However, with early v****g, it s not quite as prohibitive to v**e for national e******ns anyway, as long as the early v****g is honored.

The answer is not reducing participation. It is increasing participation, as the founders intended. Increasing participation and v**er turnout will make the senate, house, president more responsive to CITIZENS needs. It could help offset some of the influence of lobbyist and big money. There will always be some people that want to only allow people to v**e that will v**e like "them," but we have to embrace citizen participation, or end up with more of the same mess we have now. The national parties love the reduction in participation that Tuesday v****g brings. They work hard to turn out people that will v**e exactly as they want, and h**e the idea of independent citizens drawing their own conclusions and v****g based on what they conclude. I'm not against term limits and such, but I'd rather see a way to increase participation and educate v**ers about issues before taking such actions.