[The Madcap]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

[ABEHONEST]

My personal opinion: Why is So. Indiana having such a mild winter. Little snow if any. One night or two with a low of 14 to 17 degrees. 90% of this winter is mild with a high averaging about 45/48 [guessing]. And, if we're having this bargain decent winter, there has to many other states also with the scenario. Plus, winter tornados? Yep, something screwy in our World-Wide weather?

Plus, ask the polar Bears about losing their happy hunting grounds?

[Carseller4]

"Scientists" can only distort, delete, and manipulate data so much before everyone catches on to what they are doing.

To think humans can have any effect on climate is the height of arrogance.

[The Madcap]

We are having a mild winter here in NC too. But it was frigid last year. One year does not make a trend, and even a trend does make incontrovertible fact.

Scientists believe the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. The cataclysmic scenarios put forth by the global warming pimps is based on a 150 year old trend. To put that into perspective, that's like them telling us Death Valley is going to flood because it rained there for one second in the last year.

And polar bear populations have increased over the last 30 years.

[Waterstpub87]

You republicans just don't understand. It doesn't matter if the data doesn't match up, because whats true really isn't important. Its more important to just pretend like you want to help, so that everyone sees you as someone who cares about the environment. Fudging the data isn't as important as how you look to everyone else. And if you don't have the science to back it up, you can just belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Anybody who doesn't believe in global warming is counter revolutionary, and is standing in the way of progress.

[ABEHONEST]

Okay, time will tell, that's for sure, on our climates.
But, Polar Bears, I understand, are on the verge of extinction, or at least very close to the danger point, because of the lost ice from melting glaciers. Populations might have been solid a decade ago, but now, I believe I am seeing something different?

[The Madcap]

Okay, time will tell, that's for sure, on our climates.
But, Polar Bears, I understand, are on the verge of extinction, or at least very close to the danger point, because of the lost ice from melting glaciers. Populations might have been solid a decade ago, but now, I believe I am seeing something different?

No, you have been duped by Al Gore.



"Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-warmists.html

[The Madcap]

Oh, and then there was this today.....

"
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1ksakAyWz

[ABEHONEST]

• 2006 REPORT ON DEMISE OF POLAR BEARS

Disappearing by Degrees
by Mary-Russell Roberson
Along the western coast of Hudson Bay in Canada, female polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and their new cubs come out of their dens in late February or early March. The mama bear hasn't eaten in about eight months. If she and her nursing cubs are to survive, she must get food and get it fast. Food means seals, and the place to get seals is out on the sea ice. The female keeps her cubs near the den for a few days so they can practice walking, then she leads them toward Hudson Bay.
As global warming heats up the Arctic, polar bears in western Hudson Bay, Canada, are losing their icy hunting grounds. (Dave Olsen/USFWS) "She's gonna get out there and try to kill as many seals as she can," says Andrew Derocher, a polar bear researcher and professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta. "If she doesn't get enough to eat, soon she'll stop nursing and the cubs will expire very quickly."
Although polar bears can swim, they rarely hunt in open water. Instead, they wait patiently on the edge of the ice for a seal to come up for air. For the first few weeks after females and cubs arrive on the sea ice, hunting can be difficult. Adult seals are experienced in the ways of evading hungry polar bears. But in April, ringed seal pups (Phoca hispida) and bearded seal pups (Erignathus barbatus) are weaned and take to the sea. These six-week-old pups weigh more than 200 pounds (almost as big as adults) and are about 50 percent fat. "They are like huge fat packets," says Nick Lunn, a research scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service. "Polar bears have this opportunity with all these naive young seal pups out there. It's a feast—like kids in the candy store."
For the next two to three months, polar bears eat seals and build up their fat reserves. No one has yet quantified exactly how important this spring feast is to the western Hudson Bay bears, but Derocher estimates that the bears take in 70 to 80 percent of their yearly caloric allotment from April to June. When the ice on the bay breaks up and melts, the bears come ashore. Females and their cubs go farther inland and stay out of the way of potentially aggressive males, which keep closer to the coast. During the summer, bears may eat a few berries here or there but for the most part, they fast, living off the fat reserves they built up during the spring seal feast. In the fall, all the bears except the pregnant females, which are holed up in dens, head back out on the ice.
The spring feast is especially important for females that are nursing last year's cubs, and for pregnant females. Nursing females must consume enough to sustain not only themselves, but their cubs as well. And pregnant females, after mating in the spring, will gestate, bear, and nurse their cubs over a period of more than eight months in a den on land, and go without eating while other polar bears are out hunting seals.
The ice in Hudson Bay typically begins to break up sometime in May or June; the bay is usually ice-free by late July or early August. The timing varies from year to year depending on the weather. Derocher and Lunn, working with Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service, have found that when the ice breaks up early, bears come ashore in poorer condition, with less fat than usual. Females give birth to fewer cubs and the cubs are smaller and less likely to survive. When the ice breaks up later, bears come ashore in better condition and females produce more and larger cubs. A female in really good condition might weigh 900 pounds, of which 450 pounds might be fat.
An example of a good year was 1992. That year was particularly cold, because the June 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines spread tons of sulfuric acid particles, which reflected heat from the sun, around the Earth's stratosphere. An El Niño event also helped keep temperatures down. The ice in Hudson Bay broke up three weeks later than average, and bears were in very good condition when they began their summer fast. As a result, more cubs than usual were born and survived in 1992 and 1993. Researchers still call those bears Mt. Pinatubo bears.
When ice is scarce, female polar bears are unable to consume enough fat to nurse their cubs. (Steve Amstrup/USFWS) A population of polar bears can survive a bad year or two. But lately, there have been more bad years than good for some bears. Researchers have discovered a trend in western Hudson Bay of earlier and earlier breakup. On average, the ice breaks up 2.5 weeks sooner now than 30 years ago. Earlier breakups cut short the spring feast that is so important to the yearly cycle of the Hudson Bay bears.
The bears are indeed losing weight. Canadian researchers have been studying the western Hudson Bay polar bear population for more than 30 years and have seen the condition of the bears decline. "Condition" is quantified with a formula that includes the bears' length and weight—it's very similar to the body mass index (BMI) used for humans. The weight used in the formula is adjusted to account for the fact that the bears may be fasting and losing weight when they are caught and measured. If a bear is caught before September 1, the scientists subtract 0.85 kg (or 1.87 pounds, which is the amount typical polar bears lose per day during fasting) from its weight for each day before September 1. Conversely, for bears caught after September 1, the researchers add 0.85 kg per day. The body condition index is averaged for bears of different age classes and sexes, and used to make comparisons from year to year. From the early 1980s to the early 2000s, Lunn says, the condition of female polar bears in western Hudson Bay has declined by 15 to 20 percent.
"The bears come ashore in poor condition because they haven't had as much opportunity to feed, and we're asking them to turn around and go into their fasting state earlier," Derocher says. "It's a double-edged sword; they're being cut on both sides."
When the condition of females declines, cubs suffer. "As the female starts to lose her nutritional status, she stops nursing," Derocher says. "The cubs have very little in the way of body fat—they quickly burn off their stores and die quite easily."
Lunn and others are in the midst of a polar bear census in western Hudson Bay. While the work is not yet complete, Lunn says the numbers so far suggest that the population size has fallen since censuses of the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. He says, "We've seen differences. We don't seem to see the same number of adult females and cubs as we used to in denning areas. The adult females and cubs we find tend to be closer to the coast than they used to be, perhaps because there are not as many males near the coast as there used to be. We're not seeing adult males in the same numbers as we used to. There are more problem bears in and around Churchill. Things are changing. It's clear something is going on in the Hudson Bay ecosystem."
What's going on is likely to continue if, as researchers believe, climate change is the driving force behind the changes.
Average air temperatures on Earth are increasing. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s, global temperatures have risen an average of 0.6°C (1.1°F), according to the report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment published in 2004. This report was the result of the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world.
The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that these temperature increases are due primarily to man-made emissions of certain "greenhouse" gases, such as carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases trap the heat of the sun in our atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels is the main way humans add greenhouse gases to the environment. Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was about 280 parts per million. Today it's between 360 and 380 parts per million. That's a 35 percent increase in about 150 years.
Temperatures are not increasing evenly all over the globe, because factors that affect climate vary from place to place. Topography, wind patterns, ocean currents, and reflectivity of the surface, to name just a few, all affect climate. In the past few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have increased almost twice as fast as the rest of the world. One reason for this is that as ice and snow melt, they reveal darker soil or water underneath, which tends to absorb the sun's heat rather than reflect it as ice and snow do.
Sea ice on the Beaufort Sea. (USFWS) John Walsh, a professor of atmospheric science spending a sabbatical at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, did a study of average annual temperatures north of 50°N—the latitude of Prague and Winnipeg. He found that between 1943 and 2002, temperatures of coastal regions increased by an average of 0.4°C (0.7°F) and the temperatures of inland regions increased 0.8°C (1.4°F). Within those averages, there is quite a bit of variation. For example, the northern coast of Alaska has warmed 2°C (3.6°F) since 1973.
Western Hudson Bay is one of the areas where temperatures have risen faster than average. May and June air temperatures in western Hudson Bay have increased at a rate of 0.2 to 0.3°C (0.4 to 0.5°F) per decade since 1950.
Warming temperatures in the Arctic mean less ice. Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, has used satellite data to study annual and perennial sea ice in the Arctic from 1978 to the present. Annual sea ice forms anew each winter, while perennial sea ice, which is on average more than ten feet thick, remains frozen all year long. Comiso has found that the amount of annual ice in the Arctic is decreasing by 2 to 3 percent each decade. The loss of perennial ice is much more dramatic. Comiso says, "The thing I think is remarkable from our studies is the fact that the perennial ice is decreasing at the rate of more than 9 percent per decade."
"If you look at this trend and try to project it into the future, the perennial ice would disappear within this century," Comiso says. "Some models project a disappearance by 2050. Some are more conservative—they go as far as the end of the century. There is quite a bit of disagreement in the models. However, they all predict declines, using the scenario of ever-increasing greenhouse gases."
And what would happen to polar bears if there were no sea ice? Polar bears evolved from brown bears into a specialized pagophilic (ice-loving) species. Their adaptations suit their ice-based lifestyle—white fur for camouflage, black skin to soak up heat from the sun, huge paws to act as snowshoes, and a lot of fat for insulation. These adaptations evolved over thousands of years. "I don't think polar bears will evolve back into terrestrial bears fast enough if the various predictions of these models come to pass and we do lose sea ice or lose it in places forever," says Lunn. "The future doesn't look good for a species that depends upon it such as polar bears."
There are an estimated 21,500 to 25,000 polar bears in the world today, living in about 20 relatively discrete populations in the Arctic. There is considerable variability in the natural history and ecology of each population. For example, bears that live in areas of perennial ice can hunt the entire year instead of fasting through the summer like the western Hudson Bay bears. Most of the 20 populations have not been closely studied; only four are considered to have good population estimates. That means there are not a lot of data about how climate change may be affecting the majority of polar bears.
The Hudson Bay bears have been studied for longer and in more depth than any other population. "The Canadian Wildlife Service has been doing research on that population since the late 1960s," Lunn says. "The value of the work is that it is such a long-term database that we are able to look at the past and the present and make comparisons between what things were like 20 or 25 years ago and what they are like now." Because there is considerable variability in the timing of breakup from year to year, meaningful patterns emerge only when decades of data are analyzed.
This map shows the territories of the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea polar bears. (USFWS) Another polar bear population that has been fairly closely studied is the Beaufort Sea population, which ranges on the north shore of Alaska near the city of Barrow east into Canada. This population is showing changes in distribution that appear to be linked to environmental conditions. Scott Schliebe, polar bear project leader for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Anchorage, has been studying polar bears for more than 20 years. He says of the Beaufort Sea bears, "We're finding more bears on the shore during the fall open-water and freeze-up period, and they seem to be staying there longer. In the 1980s and early 1990s, it was rare to find bears on the coast and we didn't find them in aggregations of substantial numbers like today." Schliebe and his colleagues considered a number of possibilities for the change: This population of polar bears could be growing, the distribution of seals in the area could be changing, the bears could be coming ashore to scavenge bowhead whale carcasses left behind by indigenous hunters, or retreating sea ice could be forcing the bears to move ashore. In an effort to tease out the most likely cause, scientists conducted five years of bear surveys combined with five years of ice surveys. Each year they calculated the average distance of the ice from the shore. "We found there was a relationship: The farther the ice is away from the shore, the greater the number of bears on shore, and that relationship was statistically significant. During all years, bowhead whale carcasses were a constant so we believe that ice conditions have a pretty good probability of being a contributor to this distribution change. We're quite concerned about it."
The Alaska Beaufort Sea population is adjacent to, and sometimes overlaps, the Chukchi Sea population, which ranges from Barrow west to Russia. There is anecdotal evidence that bears from the Chukchi Sea population have also been appearing on land more frequently than in the past. "Most research emphasis has been in the Beaufort Sea because the bears are accessible," Schliebe says. "Bears in the Chukchi Sea are less accessible, they occupy a larger area, and a good bit of the area is in Russia. The United States signed a treaty with Russia in October 2000 for the joint conservation, management, and study of this population, and we are waiting for the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to enable us to implement the treaty—including a program of joint research. We're really hopeful that once Congress passes the implementing legislation we can start active management programs and work with our Russian colleagues and overcome data deficiency issues."
While most of the world's polar bears remain little-studied by scientists, those that are being studied show signs of being affected by climate change. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that as sea ice disappears, polar bears are at risk.
Lunn says that what's happening with the polar bears in western Hudson Bay right now is not happening to all the polar bears in the world. But, he adds, "if the various climate change and sea ice models are correct and we do lose a lot of sea ice over time, I think the things we're seeing in western Hudson Bay now we'll probably be seeing down the road in some of these other populations."
—Mary-Russell Roberson is a writer living in Durham, North Carolina. Her daughter's favorite animal is the polar bear.
Sidebar: Baffin Bay Narwhals, Out in the Cold

ZooGoer 34(4) 2005. Copyright 2005 Friends of the National Zoo.

#2 REPORT [newer version]
Polar Bears: Reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated

Posted on November 12, 2011

Here we go again. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, no less, who ought to know better, is warning (with a huge lack of originality) that the survival of polar bears in the Arctic is under threat from “global warming”. Apparently he predicts that summer Arctic ice will cease to exist within four years (odd, that, as there’s been no effective net warming for fifteen years). This will deny the pin-up predators their happy hunting grounds, and they will all starve to death.
Let’s try to get this in perspective. First of all, the world has been warming, slowly and fitfully, since the Little Ice Age in the 17th & 18th centuries. Say a couple of hundred years (since way before serious industrialisation, by the way, which rather undermines the anthropogenic theory of climate change). During this time, the polar bear has done rather well, with repeated studies suggesting that numbers doubled or trebled over the last decades of the 20th century. But climate zealots are interested in computer-based projections, and rarely care a damn about what is actually happening in the real world. “I know the theory, don’t bother me with the facts”.
And if we’re going for perspective, let’s look at the longer term. Viewed against the context of the last 12,000 years — that is, over the current Interglacial period — today’s temperatures are not at all exceptional. As I love to say, the recent slight warming is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate cycles. It was warmer in the Roman Optimum and the Mediaeval Warm Period. It was consistently warmer over the long-term in the early millennia of the Holocene.
Of course there weren’t too many earth-observation satellites in polar orbit during those earlier periods, but if (I repeat “IF”) the Arctic summer ice is about to go, then we can be sure that it also went during those earlier periods. Yet the polar bears survived just fine. They survived during the previous 100,000 years of severe glaciation. They were about in the previous (Eemian) Interglacial 120,000 years ago — fossils indistinguishable from modern polar bears have been recovered from that period. And they, or their immediate ancestors, have also survived through the last 2 million years of Ice Age conditions interspersed every 100,000 years or so by a 10,000 year interglacial.
Polar bears evolved in these conditions. They have experienced them, and survived them, again and again. So provided that we humans don’t hunt them to extinction with high-powered hunting rifles, it’s a racing certainly they’ll be here for the next interglacial, in A.D. 100,000. Indeed I’d give the polar bear better odds of survival to A.D. 100,000 than I’d give the human race.
This is a microcosm of the whole Global Warming Debate. Again and again the IPCC and assorted green zealots present theories, models and forecasts with a cavalier disregard of the facts on the ground. Above all, they fail to address the key challenge: that in a geo-historical context, nothing whatever has happened that requires any special or anthropogenic explanation.

Who is nearest to being correct?

Advertisement

[rkelly110]

I tend to base my figures on the daily temperature records from the news.
You can learn a lot just from that. Records are meant to be broken and usually are.

[BWest]

"Scientists" can only distort, delete, and manipulate data so much before everyone catches on to what they are doing.

To think humans can have any effect on climate is the height of arrogance.

Spoken like a true car salesman. I don't know what global warming is but I do know that something called human induced climate change exists. To think that man's ability to totally destroy the planet does not exist is the height of ignorance.

[Indecent]

Oh, and then there was this today.....

"
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1ksakAyWz

If you look at the full interview, you can see that the sentence should be "the statistically significant rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997". There is no dispute that temperatures are still rising. In fact, this was the warmest decade ever.

[ABEHONEST]

Nicely well thought-out, analogy.
By the way, in my lifetime experiences, taken as hard-earned experience with humans, in general, I favor saving the animals, first, humans, second.

[rkelly110]

I hear ya Abe. We will get ours soon enough. Mother nature has a way of doing it's deed
for an over population of any species. Can the earth sustain 7 billion people and counting?

Is the weird weather giving us a sign of things to come? How about tsnamis, quakes, eruptions,
swine flu, bird flu, and the ebola virus just to name a few. It's time to pay attention.

NatGO is putting a series on called, Dooms day Preppers, Tues Feb 7th at 7 est. These
people will be the last to inherit the earth.

I do love the fact us humans are finally watching over our nature friends. It's also time to clean up the oceans. Dead zones in the gulf, disappearing coral reefs and that huge plastic bottle island in the ocean.

[ABEHONEST]

I hear ya Abe. We will get ours soon enough. Mother nature has a way of doing it's deed for an over population of any species. Can the earth sustain 7 billion people and counting? Is the weird weather giving us a sign of things to come? How about tsnamis, quakes, eruptions, swine flu, bird flu, and the ebola virus just to name a few. It's time to pay attention. NatGO is putting a series on called, Dooms day Preppers, Tues Feb 7th at 7 est. These people will be the last to inherit the earth. I do love the fact us humans are finally watching over our nature friends. It's also time to clean up the oceans. Dead zones in the gulf, disappearing coral reefs and that huge plastic bottle island in the ocean.

I agree! I remember a time when you could swim in a local creek without catching a serious illness, or maybe a mouth full of sewer debris.
The old methods of outhouses doesn't seem so bad now, do they?
Granddad had a two-seater.
It's downright scary to know what is emptied into our farm creeks, rivers, and oceans.

[rocky502]

Forget about all the money that the extraction industry cartels spend lobbying to preserve their empires that make billions of dollars quarterly, it's these shady "scientists" who are using this as an elaborate ruse to scam a couple of hundred thousand for their "research".

Now take your liberal partisan hat off and look at the other side of that Turd. Which professor do you think has a better chance of getting a fat government grant from this administration. A) Professor/scientist one is asking for a grant to study how man-made climate change has had a negative impact on bison in the great plains states. Or B) A Climate skeptic who would like a government grant to show that there is a lesser impact than is being stated by the IPCC.

When the government only funds the scientists that support the agenda they are pushing you don't get true science, you get skewed science. It is hard to call it true science when the result has been predetermined, and the only questions asked are how to use the existing numbers to fit the agenda.

[brooks85]

If you look at the full interview, you can see that the sentence should be "the statistically significant rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997". There is no dispute that temperatures are still rising. In fact, this was the warmest decade ever.

amazing how you could know something like considering ever is a lot longer than 160 years.

[lyon804]

For all you planet savers. Def. worth the 7 minutes

[Indecent]

amazing how you could know something like considering ever is a lot longer than 160 years.

Of course you are correct on this, bad wording on my part. "Highest in recorded history" should have been what I said.

[Waterstpub87]

First of all you right wing good for nothings think everything in this country has to be about money. Do you really think scientists do what they do (at least the good ones) because they are in it for the money? The subject of science and those that work in it are not doing it because of the lucrativeness of it. They do it becauae they have a natural yearning and inclination to discover knowledge and the " truth" about certain subject matters. Its actually one of the few fields where money isn't the great motivator and making actual discoveries is. Please do not confuse it with corrupt fields such as salez, marketing and politics.....where any idiot with a mouth and a gift for gab can be considered a " viable" candidate.

Lol, and you call others naive. Grants fund research and salaries. Someone who can fudge data keeps their job. Its that simple. Ask anyone in academia. If they tell the truth, the money to study "climate change" goes away. Those researchers are then out a job. Sounds like a decent enough motivator.

[The Madcap]

First of all you right wing good for nothings think everything in this country has to be about money. Do you really think scientists do what they do (at least the good ones) because they are in it for the money?
The subject of science and those that work in it are not doing it because of the lucrativeness of it. They do it becauae they have a natural yearning and inclination to discover knowledge and the " truth" about certain subject matters.

Its actually one of the few fields where money isn't the great motivator and making actual discoveries is. Please do not confuse it with corrupt fields such as salez, marketing and politics.....where any idiot with a mouth and a gift for gab can be considered a " viable" candidate.

Yes, they are in it for the "money."

Of course, it isn't "money" in the 'I'm going to make it rich' sense.

It's money in the "this is how I maintain my professional reputation, get tenure, and ensure the stability of my future career" sense.

Cops don't get in law enforcement for the "money" either, but there's plenty of evidence to indicate they are corrupt as hell.

The truth is that science is like most any other field, full of young, intelligent, idealistic people who go into it for all the right reasons, but then one day wake up at 40 with a wife and kids and car payments, and mortgage payments, and doctors bills, and all of a sudden holding their family together takes precedent over their ethical conscience. And if doing the easy thing for your wallet, your reputation, and your marriage is to toe the company line, then that's what you're going to do. Just like in every other company in the world.

Most people are cowards afraid to speak out because of the upheaval that takes place. All you need to do is watch a few episodes of "American Greed" to get that. It's why people are fighting so hard to protect whistle-blowers. It's akin to being a rape victim. Yeah, sitting on the stand might be the right thing to do, but that's a hell of a lot for a person to subject themselves to.

Sure there are some scientists out there willing to risk their careers to stand up for the truth, getting fired, denied promotion, and taking ridicule from the establishment, but then, those scientists are the ones speaking out AGAINST global warming.

[rkelly110]

Your analogy is right again, Mad one. Money is a powerful force.

The earth and sun are probably going through cycles. Has anyone noticed the increased
hostility among the people? No one has any respect for one another anymore. Is that
a sign the earth is going through changes and it affects us?

[rocky502]

First of all you right wing good for nothings think everything in this country has to be about money. Do you really think scientists do what they do (at least the good ones) because they are in it for the money?
The subject of science and those that work in it are not doing it because of the lucrativeness of it. They do it becauae they have a natural yearning and inclination to discover knowledge and the " truth" about certain subject matters.

Its actually one of the few fields where money isn't the great motivator and making actual discoveries is. Please do not confuse it with corrupt fields such as salez, marketing and politics.....where any idiot with a mouth and a gift for gab can be considered a " viable" candidate.

Who did you just sum up in one line there? Hell, sometimes one even snows half the country and gets elected president. How else could a one year junior senator with no executive experience run for and win the presidency?

Back to the topic. Even if you are correct NY, it is still a fact that when only one side of a scientific debate is funded, then the science is skewed. Obama has done this for most of his presidency. Take economic policy for example. Instead of hiring a diverse group of economic advisors including some with business acumen and experience, he hired a bunch of professors with little or no real world experience. Teaching an economic theory is a lot different than applying it in the real world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

When you only want to hear the one side of any topic, then there is no debate. When there is no debate, then the result has been predetermined. When you start with the conclusion and fill in the cherry-picked numbers to get you to the predetermined end, then that is not true science. Add in a liberally biased media and a teacher's union that is a fanancial partner with liberals and you see where this is heading.