Climate change hits Mars!!, What? No humans on mars! How can this be? Options

[Midnight Rambler]

The self published book you are citing was written by Robert w. Felix, this is from the Guardian in the U.K.,

"Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof."

If you are interested in climate change why not go to the National Geograhic website instead of relying on nutjobs like this and Richard Hoagland, a guy that thinks NASA has a secret astronuat corp and that there is a mile high glass tower on the moon?
One of your friends, Dennis Prager also continually lies by telling his audience that the MIT science department doesn't believe in climate change. As it turns out there is one professor at MIT that doesn't believe it and he just happens to be the same "expert" Prager cites when he claims that second hand smoke is not harmful. BTW the profesor is not a climatologist and has no background in biology either.

[Blitz]

Midnight Rambler,

The point of me dropping all of the links was to show that the debate is still ongoing.

Is there such a thing as “Climate Change”? YES. If there was not the United States would still be in a tropical Climate, or there would be a large sea over most of the middle united states or Glaciers would still be covering the northern hemisphere and there would be no great lakes or Grand Canyon.

Is man responsible is the debatable question.
There is plenty of scientific data on both sides of the issue and very little fact. That is the main problem I have, everything is speculation and both sides have a political axe to grind.

It is no longer “Global Warming” because that no longer fits the template.
Of course in the early seventies it was all “Global Cooling” that was all the rage.
After a relative warm 40’s and 50’s the trend raced downward prompting articles such as the following.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,944914,00.html

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp

Hurricane Katrina was global warming and we should expect stronger storms with more frequency.
That was another “Henny Penny” prediction that was not completely researched but taken as fact by many.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental...pundit-47110512

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
* I hate trusting wikipedia, but it’s a starting point to research it yourself.

Who can forget the famous picture of the polar bear on the last remaining ice chunk, you know the polar bears that are in peril, and all will be lost etc.etc.etc… you know this picture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries...in_page_id=1055


Well what do you know….

http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/dispatch2004/index2004.html

Read the log from the actual trip, and view the pictures (dispatch #2)… Also note that their trip was delayed because of “Heavy ice conditions”

The polar bears
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...f868&k=5287


The point of all of this is, there are people on the environmental side of this movement that want to bludgeon everyone over the head with what they claim as facts that are conjecture.
They repeatedly only tell one side of the story, and when they are proved wrong just move on to the next point.
They also have an agenda, lets face it you will not receive grant monies with a report that says hey this is all part of nature can I have some more money to study it.

You also have environmentalists that are 100% against progress;
Do you want to not burn coal and save polluting CO2? How about nuclear, Europe has a lot higher % of their energy from nuclear than the US why can’t we?

Drill in ANWAR… Unthinkable, even though it was set aside for that exactly. Oh it will kill all the caribou, just like the Alaskan pipeline did.

Finally, I live on the shores of Lake Erie; I remember what it was like in the 70’s and early 80’s. I fish and am an outdoor enthusiast. I support good environmental causes and fight for clean air and water.

I think most people do not remember that Ohio and Pennsylvania were covered in Smog and people died.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/aerosol/ATOC3500/...in%20Donora.pdf

I just think that this current movement is more in restricting freedoms, political agendas and other such nonsense. If someone wants to have a rational discussion about new sources of energy, new CO2 scrubbers, implementing new technologies, or other items that will piece by piece make the planet cleaner, I’m all ears.
Knee jerk reactions that tax and regulate the hell out of everything are not solutions they are punishment.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Thanks Blitz. Great post. At least their are few of us with a common sense and rational approach to this subject.

[Midnight Rambler]

So your bottom line is that you don't want to be taxed and regulated. Industry fought air polution standards in the 70's that cleaned up Lake Erie and the skys over the nation that were so poluted that people were dying from it. People whined that jobs would be lost and companies would go bankrupt if they were made to clean up the mess they had made.
we are in the same situation today, we are being told that pumping greenhouse gaases into the air is harming the environment and industry is whining that air quality standards will ruin business. Bullshit. Environmental standards created whole new industries. Jobs were created, and everybody survived.
Please find one peer reviewed paper published in a scince journal that states that global warming is not being influenced by humans. You will not find one. Science relies on data, not on what someone believes is correct. Show me data that demonstrates that humans are not influencing climate change. All you will find are indivduals stating that they don't believe the data. Science doesn't work that way it doesn't matter what you believe the only thing that matters is what the data tells you.
Stories about thicker ice in Antartica and hurricanes being stronger are just that, stories. Show me the data.
There is irrefutable data that shows that the co2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising dramatically since the 1700's. Maybe the brightest minds in the world are wrong and Joe Sixpak is right. I'm not willing to gamble my grandaughters future on it.

[Spectre]

The True Reason For The Ice Caps Melting

Yes I will agree that we are some cause to the warming affect and the UV rays increasing and what not but now here is something I noticed while in science class.

There was a map of what the world was predicted to be like before the last ice age and it showed that the southern states(North Carolina and below) was more like a tropical area more like it is today. The temperature was guessed to considerable higher.

Also the ice caps where much smaller than the map of today shows. It is said that the Earth will reverse what happened and fix its self from the last ice age. Since the ice age the world got warmer and warmer from before. Could it be possible that the earth is reversing the last ice age and is gonna make the ice caps the same size it was before the ice age?

Im not saying that we arent causing some problems maybe we are just "helping" it advance faster.

[Genocide Junkie]

I say we should keep raping the Earth all we want. After all, why not use everything we can before we get hit by some giant rock or comet, invaded by aliens, swallowed by a black hole, killed by radiation from the sun because it decides to burp one day, blacked out by a massive volcano, washed away by a giant tsunami, etc. etc. etc. it's a numbers game before we have one of these or an ice age or any number of crazy things to worry about. Truth is a million things can take us out in a blink of an eye. I could care less how much CO2 is put in the air now. We've been on this earth a few thousand years and we manage to kill each other in alarming numbers. I some how doubt that our biggest worry is going to be if we drove too many SUV's in 1000 years.


Mechanic you got lucky eh? You mean she brought you a beer and left you alone in silence for an entire day??? WOW!!!!

[Blitz]

Good Point Spectre.

When is enough....enough.
At what point, If I said we could be under the Kyoto Protocol by switching coal to Nuclear, would you be for it? There done problem solved, or is that not enough?

I've shown a ton of links and proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong.
it is a FACT that NASA admitted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html
Did this make national headlines that 4 of the hottest years on record are now on the 30's? NO

FACT: the 22 models used for the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) that just concluded were tested against existing known data and proved to be wrong! They predicted warmer temps then actually happened. This was reserched by Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, the U of Rochester, the U of ALabama, and the U of virginia.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...w-nsi121107.php

What was it about "Peer" reviews. Lets see here we have a billion dollar industry, "predicting" that the temperature will rise sometime in the future, catastrophy will happen and you have people at the UN begging for BILLIONS of dollars in wealth transfer to help other countries. Gee I just can't see why they would not sign up for accepting data that shuts down their system.

Here are some peer reviewed data for you
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...3a-b35d0842fed8

Oh I love the quote " An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears."

http://gaia.tribe.net/thread/d4411609-931e...df-8ac21cce3135

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html (Possiblly supporting the above case?)

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/...DE2YTRlMjMxNzc=

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Ummm so there you have it, should we continue to clean up the environment, fix our energy issues, make the world a cleaner place for kids and grandkids... Hell Yes!

Should we fly off the handle, scream that the sky is falling, start driving horse and buggys (oh the horses fart causing co2 cant do that) and shut down every factory and become hunter gatherers.

Really look at any picture of the coal burining plants in the 30's, the cars with no catalic converters, mufflers, and 6 miles to the gallon and rationally explain HOW we are polluting more than we did 30 years ago.. I say BS.

[HammaTime]

I've shown a ton of links and proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong.
it is a FACT that NASA admitted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html
Did this make national headlines that 4 of the hottest years on record are now on the 30's? NO

Wow, Blitz, you kind of stubbed your toe on that one! This illustrates how incredibly easy it is for someone to make outrageous claims, post a link and claim victory.

Sorry, mate, but you've now bloodied your nose with this bit of flim-flam. If you had actually read the article you linked to, you would have read that the Quixote blogger who discovered the insignificant error in NASA's data agrees that global warming needs to be addressed by cutting CO2 levels:

One thing not in question, Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen agree, is the merit of shifting away from energy choices that contribute heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Mr. McIntyre said he feels “climate change is a serious issue.” His personal preference is to shift increasingly to nuclear power and away from coal and oil, the main source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Reading further, you would have seen that contrary to your outrageous statement that you have "proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong," the reality as stated in the article is:

Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen also agree that the NASA data glitch had no effect on the global temperature trend, nudging it by an insignificant thousandth of a degree.

Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.

The controversy over the study that found the 22 models were inaccurate at predicting recent change is just one study. Ironically, you've chosen to once again cite something from someone with an apparent political agenda. The lead author of that study, Dr. David Douglass, is a scientist who is well known as a climate change denialist. He even concludes his lectures with a picture of Al Gore superimposed on a mushroom cloud. A real honest broker!

Next up you cite a document produced by the political hit man that brought us Swift Vote Veterans for Truth and smeared John Murtha, a recipient of two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor in combat, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinquished Service Medal. Now, there's an honest broker for you. If Morano tells us there isn't global warming and you cite it, well, damn, I guess we should be buying it! LOL!!

Morano's article is largely based on one paper submitted by a respected researcher in atmospheric physics, Dr. Stephen Schwartz. Unfortunately, Schwartz never expected global warming denialists like Senator James Inhofe to seize his research as evidence against global warming. I encourage you to check out his website here. You'll see that his research was very limited in scope and he was primarily evaluating the influence of short-lived aerosols in the atmosphere.

Schwartz writes on his home page, "No matter how the uncertainties are calculated, they are quite large relative to the estimated total forcing over the industrial period. In view of these uncertainties, which are due largely to uncertainty in aerosol forcing, it cannot be stated with certainty that the warming influences of CO2 and other GHGs exceeds the cooling influences due largely to aerosols, although this is likely to be the case."

He goes on to state, "It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock."

Personally, I'd rather not have to tell our grandchildren that we didn't attempt to soften our impact on the environment because, due to our myopia, we feared an increase in taxation.

[Genocide Junkie]

I liked the following bit from this link (apparently from harvard smithsonian)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

"For a long time, researchers have possessed anecdotal evidence supporting the existence of these climate extremes," Baliunas says. "For example, the Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium that died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder. And in England, vineyards had flourished during the medieval warmth. Now, we have an accumulation of objective data to back up these cultural indicators."

Which basically says that man adapted to the climate based on what was presented to him. When it was cold he moved. When it was warmer he came back. Seems that England and Greenland use to be quite warm. This doesnt appear to be from some kook on the left or right it's from "NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute"

This wasn't the key to the article but sort of put things in perspective to me. They actually were saying that we're not in a period of "extreme" weather any more than we were at any other time in the past 1000 years. Thankfully none of us will be here in 1000 years to give the other the big I told you so. People will adapt just like they have since the dawn of man. I'm all for building a few dozen more nuclear plants to help with the problem. I'm guessing those who are screaming the loudest that we're slow roasting the polar bears won't like that idea a bit either.

[Midnight Rambler]

With a global average temperature that was three-tenths of a degree Celsius (0.54º Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, 2005 tied with 2002 as the second warmest year in the past 27, according to data gathered by NOAA satellites and processed at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

Temperatures in 2005 followed a general pattern seen over the past 27 years, with the most significant warming seen in the northernmost third of the planet — especially in the Arctic. Large regions of slightly warmer than normal temperatures covered much of the globe.

Since November 1978, the Arctic atmosphere has warmed at a rate that is more than seven times faster than the average warming trend over the southern two-thirds of the globe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is from the University of Alabama, Huntsville website. You know, the guys that supposedly re-ran the data and found global warming to be a fraud. http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291

Why not do some fact checking. One thing I learned from the newspaper business is that reporters are lazy, generally ignorant people. Read some actual science websites and educate yourself.
What is the agenda of the thousands of scientists that developed the global warming data? They want to make you pay higher taxes and drive a Prius? I really don't understand what you think scientists have to gain from fudging the data on global warming.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

What is the agenda of the thousands of scientists that developed the global warming data? They want to make you pay higher taxes and drive a Prius? I really don't understand what you think scientists have to gain from fudging the data on global warming.

What's to gain??? Their paycheck. Many of these scientist, if not most, receive grants to study this subject. The grants is what gives them a job and a paycheck. This works both ways. Scientist can "swing" evidence either way depending on who is paying for it.



Ice is growing thicker in the Antartic. These photo's show a construction crane nearly burried and the other a 120-foot communication towers with only 30 feet left to see.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm

[Midnight Rambler]

As I pointed out yesterday Robert Felix is a former architect. Is that who you get your scientific information from? I was very impressed by the obviously photoshoped picture of the transmission towers buried in snow, you know the one he doesn't even have a source for.
If you would like to know why the Antartic is seeing more snow than normal I suggest, again, that you go to the National Geographic website. There you can learn all about how Antarctica generates it's own micro climate. But you would have to be interested in educating yourself to do something like that and you obviously just want to argue.
Yes, every scientist in the world is involved in a vast conspiracy to generate research grants for themselves, except of course the scientists that disagree. They don't get any research money as evidenced by their lack of research, and you are well informed because you look at websites run by former architects and frauds like Richard Hoagland.

[Blitz]

Hamma,

I read the article, and I'm fully aware that the author still wants to try to curb CO2 as much as possible. I knew it does not support my view fully but it does damper some of the alarmist claims like AL Gore’s extreme views like 9 of the last 10 hottest years on record are since 1995.

I have said repeatedly in this thread that Nuclear would do just that. (The author agrees as well)
I've read that if the US kept pace with France in the production of nuclear facilities to produce energy we would be UNDER the Kyoto agreement

Steve McIntyre, also kills the Hockey stick graph, showing the alarming trend that is causing a panic. So he is credible when he supports the position as you clearly pointed out in the article, is he still credible in the links below?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
“But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. “

“But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.”
“Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! “

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=95

My point throughout this entire debate, is this:

1)A huge percentage of the data is based upon statistical modeling that is a hypothetical guess.

2)There are scientists out there that have found flaws within the data, and instead of open honest debate it is quietly reported, or the person challenging it is waved off as an idiot because they are not part of the climate change culture.

3)It is true that many opposing people have an axe to grind.
The same is true on the scientific side. The UN just hosted an 11,000 person conference about this, they want billions of dollars (Much from the US) to give to other countries. They also want to control and issue “Carbon Credits” http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...36275/story.htm
These credits will be like a global tax. (Hypothetically)It would work like this, say the US is issued 1,000,000 credits, but hey the economy grows more rapidly than they expected Hmm… I know we will just buy come carbon credits from the Congo, they never use theirs all they do is sell them. Wow instant global wealth transfer. ( Hint: This is why Bush asked at the G8 summit for only 15 nations to meet and come up with their own framework, so they could cut the UN and their agenda out)

4)There are HUGE resources promoting one side of the science, and the skeptics rarely if ever see press attention because they do not have the “if it bleeds it leads” catchy headlines that never will get equal time.

5)The extremist claims are intended to scare the hell out of everyone, and if it all turns out to be BS they can just claim well at least the planet is cleaner, but to what cost? I’d rather they be working on cleaning polluted rivers or lakes we get our drinking water from with the monies.

6)There are other solutions to the problems, rather than taxing and regulation (I personally think the damn near 50% tax I pay is high enough) If you think that the 50% number is crazy research it yourself (Hint it’s not just what they take out of your paycheck)

Some examples of solutions:

Nuclear power, (Envromentalists hate this )

Wind Turbines on the coasts (Martha’s Vineyard residents killed this)

Drilling off Florida to reduce Coal burning plants. (Florida residents say no)

Drilling in Anwar.

1 Billion dollar Grant for a 100 MPG car/SUV that is mass producable, cost effiecient and similar to a typical car ( cost and performance of Ford Explorer)

500 million dollar Grant for solar panels for home use that are affordable and will reduce typical home energy consumption by 50% (Affordable meaning the cost of a typical home furnace)

500 million dollar grant to create CO2 scrubbers that reduce Coal burning plant emissions by 30%, that are cost competitive with existing units, setting tax incentives for plants to move to them as the older units need repaired or replaced.

I’m sure all of the smart people out there could think of some more…


Finally, for everyone who thinks that the skeptics are completely off base please provide the links with the backup scientific data for the following:

What % off Greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, (Please don’t forget to include water vapor in your percentages.), also please include the % effect on warming rates (I’ve read that Methane creates 20 times more impact than CO2.) Also please include accurate % of what if any of these substances are man made. (I.E. if there is 5% CO2 and 80% of that is natural then the net overall greenhouse CO2 made by man would be 1%)

Please provide a study, showing the % of CO2, Methane and all of the greenhouse gases, using the exact same testing method and source. (I.E. the test data should still be recording CO2 levels to today from the same ice core, not the Antartic ice core for a while, then shifting to the siple ice core, then to an atmospheric measuring station on Mauna Loa , Hawaii) Measuring CO2 on a volcano seems a little silly to me.
Please include findings on pressure reducing variations or accuracy, and degradation in the ice cores, as well as any comparisons to conflicting data in the geological or fossil records that may be more accurate.

I love old quotes:
”This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976 “

”If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)”


And here are your bullet points, shooting down anything anyone will ever question you about.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...ng-sceptic.html

This is my last report, I love to debate, it’s educational and fun but I need to get back to the battlefield.


P.S. no offense to anyone here, good open discussion is what these and other issues should be about.

[PFC Mustangman]

Here's something thats going to do some damage.Wonder what caused this?

www.infowars.net/articles/december2007/211207asteroid.htm

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

As I pointed out yesterday Robert Felix is a former architect. Is that who you get your scientific information from? I was very impressed by the obviously photoshoped picture of the transmission towers buried in snow, you know the one he doesn't even have a source for.
If you would like to know why the Antartic is seeing more snow than normal I suggest, again, that you go to the National Geographic website. There you can learn all about how Antarctica generates it's own micro climate. But you would have to be interested in educating yourself to do something like that and you obviously just want to argue.
Yes, every scientist in the world is involved in a vast conspiracy to generate research grants for themselves, except of course the scientists that disagree. They don't get any research money as evidenced by their lack of research, and you are well informed because you look at websites run by former architects and frauds like Richard Hoagland.

You know it isn't hard to find some reports on the growing ice in the Antartic:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V9/N45/C2.jsp

Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-...ais-thicker.htm

New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20130074839.htm

The stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet has long been a concern because of the potentially catastrophic rise in sea level that would result from its collapse. Researchers at UCSC and NASA now report that, contrary to previous studies, at least one part of the ice sheet is actually growing rather than shrinking.



And here NASA has built a computer model using satalite data for the first time. This shows a predicted cooling of the poles instead of a warning.

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.



My hole point with the "Global Warming Crisis" is we need much much much more data before we make drastic global economical decisions that may prohibit the ability of developing countries to provide for themsleves as well as creating economic strife with severe taxation for those countries that already have a strong developed economy.

Example: There already is a food shortage (wheat) in undeveloped nations because the US (which feeds a lot of the global market) stopped growing it in the wake of artificially inflated corn prices to make ethonal products.

"Carbon Credits" sounds like a disaster in the making to me.