You need to read this as well: http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/.

Or, will you go there and claim you saw nothing?

Assholes, eh?

Here are the real 'assholes': check out the little program the CRU created to always 'confirm' their findings: http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/

Worse.

Example.

Ever.

Avalanches are (at the end) the result of gravity in a very LOCALIZED area - involving loose things.

GLOBAL Warming is EVERYWHERE.

New York City is a 'big' place and has a lot of people in and around it. But, the island of Manhattan is smaller than DFW Airport found between Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.

The amount of land inhabited by humans is small compared to the amount of land available (not that all mountain tops are inhabitable).

The surface of the ocean is much larger than the surface of the Earth covered by land.

Humans occupy a very small area of the surface of the Earth.

Then, there is more than 5 miles of atmosphere over the surface of the oceans and land. THAT is a lot of volume for man to fill up. It's just not currently possible.

...northern U.S...

...is what I wrote. While open to interpretation I also mention the Great Lakes - if you're not certain where those are and what area was being referred to then go look it up.

Ultimately: that glacier when away without the help nor cause of man. Period.

...substantially less plant mass...

How was the plant-mass initially lost? What caused it to be lost? Caveman clear-cutting? Slash-and-burn agriculture?

The bottom line, and my point, is that the massive melt off was not anthropogenic. Just like all the previous cycles that believed to have passed over the face of the Earth.

Perhaps he assumes the temperatures are holding steading (being normal).

I really like your 'drag tabs together to form split pane views' idea - it sounds like a new feature of Windows 7 - at least from one of the commercials currently out for it. (I personally can barely stand Windows.).

X11, which I guess your are not using, helps with sizing up windows when you need to see both at the same time with the ability to middle-click on the maximize button to only vertically maximize the window and to right-click on it to horizontally maximize.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) critics seem to espouse ideas such as the solar cycle hypothesis...

Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?

All the data seem to indicate is that the warming is happening on a scale that it has not before.

O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?

Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.

What ALSO doesn't fit with AGW is the fact that the Earth, very much without the help of humans, has waxed and wained in and out of warm and cold periods. WITHOUT HUMANS. Back and forth. Over and over. Explain that. Please.

You should actually go to the link provided in the parent post and see where the damning data manipulation is actually happening.

Yes.

And if inquirer's goals for using either one are not yet clear, this can help 'em see what each has to offer (for better or worse).

(Good advice.)

You mean his policy of using Federal money for Stem Cell Research based on fetuses' stem cells?

Because Stem Cell Research has worked and businesses have well funded them but not fetus-based research which has been a miserable failure?

You're absolutely correct.

I think the solution is to replace the current political culture with like-mined persons who are brave enough to stand up to the leaches (that in particular includes the small to very large companies that depend on government spending) and start cutting - cutting spending, favors, and anything else that is superfluous to maintaining order and other basic government services.

It's going to have to be persons willing to die for that goal.

Yeah, my first thought was:

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Sigh, then I actually read the post... so,

Ha! Ha!

Check it out: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Now, now, now... there's no need to let a good rumor go to waste.

They wouldn't some so crazed to make a living or even get rich (just like newspapers, TV stations, car dealerships, radio stations, singers, song writers, record labels, dry cleaners, Google, Microsoft, hospitals, architects, engineers, and anyone else who gets up in the morning to work in this world and/or starts/runs a business - do you get where I'm going with that?) if those same insurance companies were allowed to offer their services across state lines. That is: there would be better pricing if there were better competition.