You know...plants do it, why can't we? I love it.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

....what they used to call timeshare.

I remember there was a time there would be professionally managed mainframes that companies would then use to do things with on a timeshare basis. Seems that 'Cloud' computing is more or less a return to that model.

Funny how things never seem to change.

>When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.

The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.

>Again, I've repeatedly stressed that science democratic.

I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.

We the folks are trying to examine both sides of this sometimes hard to understand argument, and when one dismisses the other with words such as "science isn't democratic", then (in my view) you've left their arguments unanswered and your credibility questioned.

Like I said, I have more reading to do, I'm sure we'll be speaking again.

Best Regards...

I'm not claiming giant conspiracies amongst scientists, however, I think the author raises some valid points that require further explanation.

There was once a time when it was consciences that the earth was flat. A didn't take a scientist to prove them wrong. Okay, I understand that we are much more sophisticated in sorting out what is truth and what is not. But I also wish to point out that there was a time were all sorts of "models" that accurately predicted the movement of celestial bodies under premise that the earth was in the center of the galaxy. One notable multi-disciplined individual begged to differ. We know what happened to him when he did.

Bottom line? I naturally wary scientific "consciences". It doesn't exist. So until the views of the educated and qualified folks who don't write for the New Scientist are addressed w/o name calling (i.e. skeptics) I think it is utter foolishness to consider the science settled. Anyone who doesn't take into account and rejects the views of qualified folks in order to establish scientific theory as consciences should be regarded with suspicion.

By the way, the loss of glaciers are non-events. It has occurred before and will occur again.

Until scientists models start predicting the future accurately, GW is going to be a hard sell.

I will agree with you that I certainly have more reading to do. However, I must say that the New Scientist is not he end all be all and neither is it a final authority. It is troubling to me that you reject papers from other peer-reviewed journals (as seems apparent in one of the responses to posts to your article). It raises questions in my mind why include some and exclude others.

Bottom line, there are too many creditable people who argue against your point of view. The most prominent and surprising is Claude Allegre, who was one of the first to warn about man-mande global warming. He has sense recanted and now considers global warming to be:

"...over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank." (see Allegre's second thoughts

I look forward to a continued lively debate on the subject.

The main problem I have with your position is the incessant manipulation of temperature data by those who really believe in global warming. This article points this out. How can we believe these pretty charts when temperature data is so easily manipulated?

Last link in my original post. It is the lower troposphere temperature readings.

Sunlight makes ozone, in the winter time, there is very little, it starts to go away. In the summer, it comes back. Wow, you know, if I remember correctly, we didn't notice the hole previously mostly because we couldn't see it until fairly recently (last 40-50 years or so?). I wonder what the ozone hole would have looked like if we had the ability to tack it 100 years ago.

The idea that we affected it in the first place is another example of the arrogance us human beings have. The earth is a heck of a lot more resilient than we give it credit.

How would you explain the obvious temperature "adjustments" NASA makes to it's data to fit global warming theory (linked in my original post).

Go Bush, it was about time someone stood up for people instead of the environment for once. We're natural too.

The inaccuracies and tampering being done by some folks at NASA and elsewhere is not only dangerous to freedom, but undermining the credibility of good scientists and shouldn't be tolerated.

You are implied they are biased. The folks claiming global warming are financed by their respective governments. Governments seem to be always looking for new ways to raise revenues. Why can't government be biased? What evidence do you have that supports the idea that government agencies are neutral?

It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians. Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance'

The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.

I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong. No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined. The models aren't working. It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about. Here is an article that illustrates this problem.

The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.

You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer. Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth. Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.

Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality , and the regular folks understand that.

Kevin

Hmmm...so they've figured out that storing hydrogen with carbon is actually a great idea.

Funny, the earth has being doing that for billions of years. Man, it sure takes us awhile to catch on.

What if the earth was making hydrocarbons in abundance? I think it is referred to as a-biotic production. There is a TON of heat, and pressure below the crust of the earth. It makes sense to me that this could be occurring. What going to happen when we figure out that we aren't going to run out of oil? I think there was a paper published by Western WA University Spokane, but I'm not sure where to find it today. Kevin

Why have temperatures since 2001 basically flalined? And why is there so many adjustments and modifications made to the data resulting in so much disparity between the pretty graphs 'proving' we're warming?

I mention it in a previous post here

I reject the premise that the world is broken to the point that we need to leave it.

This earth has an amazing ability to fix itself. Take a look at Chernobyl, life is flourishing there where there was massive radiation at one point. Humans have to get over themselves. Life has been here long before we were and it will be here long after we're gone.

We have to get over the CO2 thing too, we exhale the stuff for crying out loud. Most plants love the stuff, have you noticed?