Bismarck, North Dakota News

" NoDak, I am an environmental professional, an activist, yes, but not radical one and just happen to be in the bureaucracy you so nterestingly described. I thought it was interesting that our government if starting to grow a set and recognize this as a problem. Your correct, the conservationist principles as well as the belief in an inherent right of nature became the bedrock of modern environmentalism. The proper term is light green and dark green environmentalism. Dark green forms of environmentalism get more attention, due to their radical approaches. while the mainstream environmental movement gets pulled into the quagmire, but over all have a more positive effect. I saw this article thought it was interesting. I see there are some very disturbing comments made in these remarks, some are out right hilarious, but to me it showes a very polerized view. Very interesting artical recently released. Agency Affirms Human Influence on Climate ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: January 10, 2007 "President Bush has said it. A lot of government scientists have said it. But until yesterday, it appeared that no news release on annual climate trends out of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Bush White House had said unequivocally that a buildup of greenhouse gases was helping warm the climate. The statement came in a release that said 2006 was the warmest year for the 48 contiguous states since regular temperature records began in 1895. It surpassed the previous champion, 1998, a year heated up by a powerful episode of the periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean by El Niño. Last year, another El Niño developed, but this time a long-term warming trend from human activities was said to be involved as well. “A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,” the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El Niño and the human influence were not known. A link between greenhouse gases and climate change was also made in a December news conference by Dirk Kempthorne, the secretary of the interior, as that agency proposed listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Still, the climate agency’s shift in language came as a surprise to several public affairs officials there. They said they had become accustomed in recent years to having any mention of a link between climate trends and human activities played down or trimmed when drafts of documents went to the Commerce Department and the White House for approval. James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the release reflected longstanding views within the CEQ. “It’s helpful for them to describe what is a question in many people’s minds - what is the human factor, what is the El Niño factor,” Mr. Connaughton said of the NOAA release. “From our perspective, what was in the press release was a direct reflection of what the president and folks in his administration have been saying for some time.” Mr. Bush has made two speeches on climate. He first expressly accepted that humans were contributing to global warming in a news conference in Denmark in July 2005 on the way to an economic summit in Scotland, saying, “Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.” But the government’s scientific bureaucracy, where public affairs officials and scientists as recently as last year complained that findings pointing to climate dangers were being suppressed, has taken time to catch up. “There’s been some sensitivity to the fact that some people have complained that NOAA and other parts of the government haven’t been as open as they would like them to have been on this,” said Jay Lawrimore, a climatologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., where the temperature trends are compiled. “Now NOAA is making an effort to be clearer on some of the influences.” Mr. Lawrimore said there was no way to account for the trends, be they the melting of Arctic sea ice or the warming of winters, without including an influence from heat-trapping gases. “Year after year as we continue to see warmer temperatures,” he said, “there are more and more converts convinced that it’s not just natural variability and not just something that’s going to return back to temperatures we saw 40 or 50 years ago - that in fact we are doing something to the climate.” "

" "It's getting colder-it's global warming. It's getting warmer-it's global warming". How can you lose with that logic? "

" Stupid water vapor! We need to get rid of all the water on this planet and then we won't get too hot. "

" Here's a little on Water Vapor as the main Greenhouse Gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor Naturally the US does not have as much ocean as much larger countries. Who should we blame. Must be something or someone we can tax. "

" No pot smoking here. I just don't think we are going to stop nature from doing what it wants and I would rather worry about things we can control, like hippies. "

" Dave are you smokin pot? I usually don't smart off in these seriously taken issues but come on. "

" Global warming is over, it's going to get cold in a few days. Some people believe in aliens, some don't. Some people believe in global warming, some don't. Nature takes it's course and some form of life will go on, let's get over it. Nobody could stop the ice age either. Seriously. "

" Red herrings, straw men, political and religious bashing...what fun. Anyway. I don't claim to be any sort of scientist or educated person at all (B.A. notwithstanding), at least when it comes to this global warming debate. I just have one question. If the writer of this article is correct, and 95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, why are we chasing after the 5% (or possibly less) that is caused by methane and other gasses? Can someone reasonably educated please explain to me the water vapor factor? Is this something we can control or improve? What's the deal? (Okay, that was four questions, but they're all related...) "

" Hemp, you mentioned Rush Limbaugh. Is that bird we call a yellow bellied jaw flapper? A friend of mine spent months explaining to him who owns whom and how they do their deeds. Rush listened well because he RAN to one of the major "owners" of people. "

" I think it would be hilarious if indeed man is causing global warming. Not because I hope for the death of most or all of the human population. But rather it's because all the while, a majority of our opinions on the matter come from Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, or whichever mouthpiece for our "team" we want to believe. It's ridiculous that "does global warming exist, and if so, is it caused by humans?" is a question that is treated like a political issue. I'd like to see a nation-wide poll on the issue that tracks peoples' responses and political affiliations. Sadly, the results are pretty predictable. If I'm going to listen to anyone's opinion about global warming, he will be neither a democrat or a republican, and he will be some sort of scientist, that's for sure. Let's leave the debating to the actual intelligent people. But, while we are waiting, why don't we all just drive hemp cars (http://www.hempcar.org/) powered by North Dakota hemp, and hell, let's grow and smoke weed too eh? Just for a little while. "

" Read about sunspots, little ice age, volcanoes, and the fact that the dark ages probably really were dark (big volcano, dust blocking sunshine?). The Rhine River really did freeze. Vikings in Greenland really did die off as the weather got colder. Galileo really did document fewer sunspots. At least one researcher blamed a massive eruption of Krakatoa Volcano for the (400 year?) mini ice age that ended perhaps in the middle 1800's. Doubtful we are as warm yet as just before the mini ice age. The pull of the Sun and Moon are no doubt a big part of plate tectonic movement, earthquakes, volcanoes. Last I read current theory, the molten center of the Earth was blamed for continental crust (plate) movements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age "

" CB I don't think you would qualify under the modern definition of an environmentalist. I prefer to call myself a conservationist. I take excellent care of the land, have planted 10's of thousands of trees and promoted wild life habitat while keeping a close eye on the petro-chemicals and have a minimal use for them. The environmentalists I have seen find a way to fastening themselves onto a spigot of old mother sow (formerly Uncle Sam) and filling their bellies to the point that they have an unbelievable amount of effluent which they spread all over the place and expect those of us who really do something to support their lifestyles through ever increasing government "solutions". As you stated, it is we the people who can make decisions which will improve our habitat. Bureaucrats seldom do anything but consume resources, that is their nature. "

" Whoa there. What in the world does faith have to do with the weather? Is it your faith in the various sources of propaganda which control your conclusions? The 6000 year earth model proposed by some is of little value, but I still fail to see what that has to do with weather. The construct of the universe however does have profound effect on our weather and there are numerous studies of the movements of bodies in our universe to determine what happened and what is probably going to happen again. The frozen mastodons testify to a sudden and dramatic change in weather, and that has nothing to do with faith, but does have a lot to do with the laws of physics and planetary movements. "

" Folks, this not an issue that will be solved in a day, believe or don't believe, but those who don't care one way or the other, please step back enjoy what you got, let those that want to figure this out go out and work on it.. I can't see that investing time into future generations of our children, looking at renewable resources doesn’t serve us all. I am an Environmental Scientist and I can kick into that mode when I need to, but I prefer to stay in the middle, and I have looked at the data, the raw, boring data, listened to the endless debates. It's like these two groups are speaking two different languages and just can't understand each other. Back off on the debate, focus on conservation, renewable resources, and our future generations. I remember my grandmother telling me stories of the great depression, heck I guess that was just one of those normal natural cycles. But on thing I will never forget is the look in her eye’s and they way she canned food, grew a big garden, made sure there was plenty of wood for the winter, even when she didn’t need it to speaks to something Folks, we are only here for a short time, no civilization last forever, never has never will, but what we do today will effect our children and future generations. Let’s give them the chance to chose and set ourselves on the right path. This is my personal opinion and I respect all other opinions, but have personally committed myself to getting actively involved. Whatyou do is up to you. "

" You have to love the internet where everyone with an elementary school education on a subject can be an expert on topics they know nothing about. What does ND's climate during the time of the dinosaurs have to do with global warming? Anybody who has ever picked up a historical geology textbook would know that ND during most of the age of dinosaurs was at the same latitude as current day Panama. It called plate tectonics and continental drift. It's the same old tactic used by certain people to attack every scientific theory they don't like, whether it be global warming or evolution. They make strawman arguments to attack one small part of whole pile of interelated evidence and then say because the small part is faulty the other 99% is wrong too. They require absolute 100% proof of certainty on scientific theories and yet when challenged for proof of their religious claims they say they don't need proof because they take the truth of the stories they've heard on "faith." Faith is the only proof they need. Not only that(speaking of economic considerations)but then they support organized religion that has paid hundreds of millions (or is it billions now?)of dollars in damages to victims of child sex abuse. Electric bill going up: bad; giving to the church: good. Makes sense to me if it wasn't so absurd and laughable. "

" the same people that think that we are at fault for global warming are the same people that have been told this.. they dont know.. they have been brainwashed.. they prob think that we should keep jailing people for smoking weed too... Before you open you mouth.. listen,, I mean listen to both sides with equal ears... there is a stong argument from both parties.. I personally dont believe in global warming beeing caused by humans.. I believe it is a natural cycle that we have no control over. "

" Always "man" is at fault. Not long ago I watched another garbage science channel movie about how "man" killed off the Hairy Mammoth. Not one word about how Mammoths have been found frozen in ice. Not skeletons, flesh and hair. Since the last Ice Age we have had many small few hundred year periods of warm and cold. Look up "Mini Ice Age". Prior to the Mini Ice Age was a few hundred years of warmer than average. That is when the Vikings named Greenland and Vineland. Greenland was green and Vineland had grapes (east coast of Canada). A Mammoth is a type of Elephant and to eat it wraps it's trunk around tall grass and pulls it up placing the grass in it's mouth. It lived on the grassy areas north of the tree line. The Bison, Elk, and other grazing animals that replaced the Mammoth have the ability to put teeth to the ground cutting grass much shorter. They can even move snow with hoves to reach buried grass. In other words The ones that were found frozen have remained frozen for a very long time since caught in a rapid freeze. The survivors were caught in a crunch competing with more efficient grazing animals. Climate change is normal and expected but the trend is warmer since the last ice age. No one know what the normal warmest periods between ice ages is like. "

" Where did "So You Admit It" and "Future Tense" get the idea that anyone's afraid to admit weather in recent years has been warmer? I even admitted humans are a contributing factor. But what do you expect America to do about it? Strangle our economy with kneejerk environmental laws that will have ZERO benefit, while others around the globe do nothing? America is already doing its part. We've invested $29 billion in the past six years on alternative energy research. What's the rest of the world doing? Paying lip service by setting Kyoto emission reduction goals that they're failing to achieve. If you believe GLOBAL warming is a serious problem, then the only responsible course of action is to demand a GLOBAL solution. "

" Fifty to one Hundred years from now. The future generations will be asking: "What were they thinking, when they were aware of global warming and did nothing to curtail the increase of CO2? I hope they will be able to morph, so they can breathe what little oxygen there will be available for them to breathe. But, what will the future generations physical attributes look like? Will your grandchildren thank you or curse you for the destruction upon this planet? "

" A few years back there were those who said "global warming" was occuring and those who said there was "no global warming" occuring. Now it seems the group that used to say that there was "no global warming" is saying "yes we are experiencing "global warming" but that its not caused by humans. It still sounds like political rhetoric to me. If we have "global warming" occuring, we can argue about it or we can do something about it. Sounds like some of us just want to argue about it and do nothing about it. In the meantime, we can expect to see more "global change." "

" Looks like LJK is one of Al Gore's believers. Not surpising from someone living in Ba-a-ah-ston. So it's 70 degrees today, two years ago 4 feet of snow - people in North Dakota call that weather. I mock you, LJK, but I am concerned about this issue and I want to do what’s best for our planet. But this is a GLOBAL issue, and it will do absolutely no one any good anywhere for the world’s most powerful economy to weaken itself with superfluous, punitive environmental laws that will destroy wealth, and ultimately hamper our ability to develop the technology that will free the world from its dependence on fossil fuels. "

" Folks- some things are more important than saving a couple of bucks in the present tense. If it means providing our kids & grandkids a decent place to live, then yes it's worth it pay more now. Otherwise they'll wonder how we could have been so thoughtless. Get going on the wind farms and cut the dependency on coal and oil. We can't just think about ourselves. "

" One more thing North Dakotans - most of your electricity comes from coal. If Congress passes global warming legislation, that means the price of your electricity is going to go up. I'm sure Beltway Byron will vote to raise your rates, but there's a chance Kent Conrad will listen to reason. If you don't think Congress should try to control the weather and you don't want your rates to go up, I'd urge you to let your Congressional representatives know how you feel. "

" We're nearly at 70 degrees today. In January. In Boston. That's not "unseasonably warm" it's a record high. Two winters ago we had 4 feet of snow in one storm. Also a record. It's not only about warming temperatures, but the rapid swing of extremes that are sign of an impending problem. None of this reflects a normal climate shift. "

" For those who haven't studied this issue, here's what Al Gore and the other global warming alarmists want us to believe: The recent warming is occurring because humans have caused the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in our atmosphere to increase from 3 out of every 10,000, to 4 out of every 10,000. And in the next century it might increase to 5 out of every 10,000. I don't disagree that higher CO2 concentrations are probably a factor, but I have to believe there are other reasons the planet is getting warmer. What about the sun's radiation, variations in the earth’s orbit and its ocean currents, deforestation, urbanization and other land use changes, underwater volcanic activity? Are these possibilities irrelevant, or is the debate over? And while I'm asking questions, will someone tell me the reason for the last ice age? Bismarck was covered in ice 10,000 years ago. Does anyone know the source of the warming 65 million years ago when Tyrannosaurus Rex was romping around in our tropical climate? I just can't blame this all on carbon dioxide. "

" Frank, with all your qualifications and resources then you must have a full spectrum of reports on the activities in our solar system. Note the levels of solar activity. Note the affect of the EMP's and CME's of the surface of the earth. Note also the sudden (in a matter of minutes) changes of temperature in the oceans which in turn triggered abrupt changes in weather patterns such as a hurricane in Alaska. Also note how a glancing blow from an EMP wiped out the power grid for the NE. If you want to solve the global warming problem, look up. "

" as if anyone will listen to me... but let me correct some things. 1. volcanoes eruptions lead to global COOLING not WARMING 2. solar flare reaching the earth? not possible. 3. water vapor is indeed a key greenhouse gas and functions as a positive feedback mechanism. 4. Anthropogenic sources have clearly resulted in an elevation of key greenhouse gasses. 5. global warming will lead to more extreme weather events... be it MORE hurricanes in 2005 or much FEWER in 2005. There has been a clear trend in the last few decades that global extreme weather events are increasing. Water vapor is a key player in that regards. It provides alot of atmospheric energy in terms of latent heat. 6. It is impossible to point to any single meteorological event and say that "that" was directly caused by global warming... all events taken as a whole however can. my qualifications for my comments? HS science teacher in Chemistry, Physics, Ecology, Meteorology, Astronomy, grad school in meteorology, currently part of a Themis/GEOS national Northern Lights monitoring project, currently NWS cooperative weather observer. Believe what you wish though. "

" I think what we need to keep in mind about global warming is balance. While it may be true that a Volcano puts more CO2 into the air than humans do I think it is helpful to look at it as a cycle. The oceans are able to absorb a certain amount of CO2 and significant volcanic eruptions are relatively rare. The Oceans are able to keep up with that and keep things relatively stable. What humans have done is flood a system that has been in effect for billions of years within the last 150-200 years (or less). The kinds of things that are able to absorb CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases are overwhelmed and are not able to absorb more when a volcano does erupt. Also, for those who love pointing to the "Chinese" and Volcanos as the real problem, these are things that we cannot do anything about. We can change our own behaviors. I don't know of any way to prevent a volcano from erupting (but I am open to suggestions) and just because the some may not be doing their part it is disingenuous for us to say "We shouldn't have to do anyting about it because they are not doing anything about it we shouldn't do anything about it." It is illogical to say that we shouldn't have to change until they change so they are the problem and not us. I do believe that there is global warming and that this will cause significant problems in the near and distant future. I also believe that there are some who take this too far, just like everything has some that take it too far. I don't know what would qualify as proof. The fact is that there are relatively few things in science that are 100% agreed upon (and many of those turn out to be wrong) or certain. "

" Let's face it: we aren't going to destroy the Earth, we're destroying our species (and many others). The Earth will still be in orbit whether or not we're on it. Solar flare- Wow. I actually consider myself to be fairly informed having studied a lot of astronomy and physics. I'm not sure I follow your logic- what difference would it make for people to jump out of windows if they were going to be toasted by a massive solar flare anyway? The odds are that what we are doing is far more damaging than what ol' sol will come up with. At least until it goes nova and that's about 5 billion years off. I'm still curious where you're getting your info, though. "

" Yeah your right there is a world outside of ND and the US. Looking at the world as a whole I still have not seen anything that says we are in danger. (except maybe the polar caps supposively melting). A .5 degree C increase in temp over 100 yrs big whoop sounds natural to me. Sure you point to your flawed climate models all you want but they don't have all the data entered in as far as world altering events for the last 100 years i.e. Volcanic eruptions ect... and no one has ran an experimental model with out human pollution to compare. (at least I don't think they have). I would like to see one if they have. 2-3 degree increase in a century I would say we are in trouble and man most likely caused it. So far no one is predicting a change that rapid that has been supported. I agree something need to be done about the rain forest 100% and that is defiantly not helping the Co2 levels. It should be interesting to see what comes out of the studies they are doing with CO2 and plants in Yellowstone. Don't get me wrong I conserve as much next guy (minus my gas use). I have a low flow shower head, florescent bulbs in every light i can, recycle cans and my old oil, but I do that to save me money. We could debate this until we die... I'm just saying I'll believe it when either I see it or its proven. "

" For some reason you seem to think that there isn't a world outside of ND. Global warming is just that, an overall trend around the world. Picking a small piece of the earth and using that to try to justify your opinion won't work. There will continue to be localized record highs and record lows. The earth as a whole? It is warming my friend. Again, do we have definitive proof that it is being contributed to by man? No. Does science and good old common sense seem to indicate that man could be contributing (see posts below)? Yes. For those who need definitive proof before taking action, the bad news is that by then it will be too late. Here is the good news. The things that we'd need to do to stop man's influence on global warming (if it does exist) are the very same things we should be doing for the long term health of the planet anyway. Will global warming affect you or me? Maybe some (depending on your age), but probably not significantly. Long term, that is the scary part. Personally I have no children/grand children and I don't plan to so why should I care. How about you? "

" I lived the last 4 years in northern ND. (Williston and Grand Forks) I know for this part of the state it has been warm in the winter and dry but that has not been the case in Williston or Grand Forks where they have been having average or below average temps and above average snow at least in Grand Forks with the snow. I would says besides this partof the state it has average where I have lived. Doesn't any one remember the late 80's and the drought then this is no differnt(think it started in 88). Personally I think this is just a scare by tree-hugging hippies to get us to stop using fuel. I agree the fact that cutting down the rain forests arent helping polution any. No one has proven to me that my truck is causing this so I will drive it whether you hippies like it or not. :p "

" Instead of being uninformed and slamming Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" why not spend the few dollars it costs to rent it and the hour or two it takes to watch it so you can see what the claims are for yourself. In my opinion, there is little worse than people who choose to have an opinion on something while having no first hand knowledge of it. If, after watching it you still feel the same, at least I have a reason to respect your opinion. "

" No, it is not normal for 10 or 20 years ago but there has been a definite trend for warm winters and warmer summers. It is ridiculous for people to try to take a cold spot here, a cold winter there and argue that this indicates that there isn't anything to global warming. What is causing it? The over all trend in both global warmth and CO2 levels is a rise. Isn't it amazing that we continue to grow our emissions while at the same time reducing the tropical rain forests (the one thing that can remove CO2 from the air while replacing the O2) by hundreds of acres a day. Modern man is stupid. Regarding Gore and the internet, he never said he "invented it". That is just another Republican lie. Google "Al Gore Internet" and you'll discover that what he did do was play an instrumental role in the internet's growth and development. We all owe him a depth of gratitude for that. "

" Believe it or not the PBS website has a pretty even handed debate page about this topic containing interviews with leading proponents and skeptics. Read 'em all and make up your own mind. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/ "

" All Al Gore did was repeat what everyone else was saying after Katrina/Rita. Besides why are you listening to guy who also said he invented the internet. Last time I checked he was a former US Vice Pres and now an Enviromental Activist... What does he know about weather predictions?!?! Let alone GLOBAL climate patterns. And you're right I never have been in LA or any other city except St. Paul never wanted to either thats why I live in ND so I dont have to sit in my car for an hour to make a drive equivalent to driving to Mandan. A traffic jam here is having to wait for the old lady at the Stop sign until there are no cars in sight. "

" To D yeah your right it has been warm this season, that's not normal you'll agree with that. Right? ND never has had 'normal' weather. According to the forecast we are in for the below 0 highs in the next week or so. "

" To JD WRONG AGAIN. Do I need to name them for you? 5 hurricanes in 06 1. Hurricane Ernesto August 24, Cuba 2. Hurricane Florence Sept 3 between Africa and the Lesser Antilles 3. Hurricane Gordon Sept 12 NE of Lesser Antilles 4. Hurricane Helene Sept 16 Africa 5. Hurricane Isaac Sept 30 Bermuda Look it up!! Oh and Tropical Storm Alberto Made land fall in the US. Alberto made landfall midday on June 13, about 50 miles SE of Tallahassee, FL. Sorry I had to make you look dumb here. "

" Gore said this would be the worst hurricane season ever and not even one made landfall in the US. By the way, they were tropical storms, not hurricanes. "

" If Al Gore says its getting warmer because of man, its getting warmer because of man. No more needs to be said. "

" I just don't understand how people have such a hard time believing that there could be a strong likelihood of man induced global warming. I have to wonder if they have ever been outside of LA or Denver and seen the brown haze that hangs over them? I have to wonder if they have ever sat in a traffic jam 12 lanes wide and 20 miles long moving along at 5 miles per hour with tens of thousands of cars belching their pollution into the air and then realize that there are thousands of cities around the world where exactly the same thing is happening? I have to wonder if these same doubters would be willing to sit in an enclosed garage with a single running car for 15 minutes? Do we have 100% definitive proof that it is happening? No and we probably never will. Does it take a scientist to recognize the likelihood? I wouldn’t think so. "

" Well let's see. It is now January in Bismarck and it seems that the temperatures have been in the 30's anf 40's. That seems to be quite a bit warmer than 30 below doesn't it? "

" First, JD must not have watched the weather channel there were 5 hurricanes this year just none hit the US. Second, I want to thank Al Gore and the other tree hugging hippies that drive their hi-bred cars allowing me to use the gas and emissions they save to run my lifted truck. Third, I have always said bring the scientists to ND in January let them stand outside for 5 minutes on a -30 degree day and see if they say anything about global warming... My bet is they will start in on global cooling like in the 70's. Once someone proves to me 100% that man created global warming and my truck is partly causing it then I will stop driving it until then I will keep pumping 65 bucks worth of gas in it a week. Have a good day Hippies :p "

" If Alfonse Gore is certain enough of his gasoline-on-fire speculation I'm happy to speculate with him. I'll set the over/under of Cat 3+ storms that hit the U.S. during the 2007 storm season at 3. Let Al speak up, of forever hold his rhetoric. "

" To: LJK wrote on January 03, 2007 4:01 PM:"To solar flare. You are in "La-La Land" if you think N.A.S.A. is going to inform the public about a gigantic solar flare arriving on Earth in five years or less. N.A.S.A. lied to us for many years about the idea that there was no water on Mars and they knew that there was water on Mars - 25 years ago. And now, lo and behold, if the Mars search satellites did not find water - lots of water - on Mars. What do you think the people of Earth would do if they were told of a messive solar flare destroying over one half of the Earth's population? Think about it! What did many people do when the stock market took a plunge in 1929. Many committed suicide, some jumped out of buildings just because they thought the world was going to end. You are not well informed. The truth is out there - look for it - get educated! "

" There are alarmists of all kinds out there. The overpopulation arlarmists, of the 50's, the "world is coming to an end" alarmists and as we see here, the global warming alarmists. Call them whatever you like. Then there are the Tax Fanatics. Global warming? Just tax some more and it will go away. "

" Definition: ? Who are the zealots and who are the heathens? The ones who don't regard their bodies as temples or their planet (which was a gift) as anything other than a thing that can be polluted and destroyed for personal convenience or societal gain? Your ramble is as confusing as the writer of the letter being discussed. Maybe my next comment will be filled with definitions such as: 1)Clueless 2)Disrepectful and 3)Ignorant. "

" fa·nat·ic –noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. –adjective 2. fanatical. —Synonyms 1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Everyone seems to forget the religious zealots and fanatics that swept through North Dakota and the nation as a whole in 30s, 40s, and 50s(earlier in other parts of the country). These people were not of established religion(don't confuse it), set up traveling tents which "healed" the sick, promoted almost complete bans of music, etc. all for "our own good". I know many families that had great musicians turned into standard Joe and Janet Schmoe anybodys that gave up their gift. These people trained at conservatories around the country, performed in major cities, only to be brain-washed into thinking it was a un-godlike activity. The reality is these people having the revival meetings were just fanatics. Inciting movements to simply benefit themselves, namely their pocketbooks at the expense of others. I see no difference in those promoters of "salvation" and the new modern-day "global warming" and "anti-smoking in bars" crowd. No, there is no civil discussion of the issue. No, there can be no more debate. We must pay the price of our "heathen" ways. These people are just a bunch of fanatics and zealots promoting themselves such that we are their humbled servants. "

" Al Gore's film told us that 2006 would be the worst hurricane season ever. How many hurricanes were there this year? None, yup not a single hurricane in 2006. Gore really knows what he is talking about doesn't he. I have seen enough clips from his film to know that it is a doomsday film filled with scare tactics and a publicity stunt by Gore. There is some truth to it, but more lies and half-truths than anything else. "

" To solar flare: Can't tell if you're joking or not. I'm going to bet on the "not" since this five year prediction and the severity of a solar flare doesn't add up. Especially not for a G class star like ours. If you're not joking- what's your source, because it certaintly isn't NASA. "

" Yes, natural cycles do occur, but not at this rate. Unfortunately by the time everyone is convinced, it will be way past too late. We would have to pull together pretty hard to get CO2 levels back to where they were in 1990, let alone anything before that. This isn't about stopping nature, it's about destroying it. "

" All these blogs about the global warming or not, it will seem insignificant once the sun decides to blast the Earth will a solar flare that will wipe out over half the population on this planet. This will happen within the next five years or sooner. My advice: watch the sky and then when you see a flash - bend over and kiss your posterior goodbye. "

" The global warming issue is too important to let this type of misinformation go unchallenged. The author is critical of Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth", but the fact that he doesn't name it suggests that he hasn't even seen it. I viewed it recently and feel that everyone should see it. The author uses "LibertyMatters" and Reuters as his sources of information. I wonder what other web sites he listed. Give me a break! "

" I would say the most sensible course of action would be to do nothing about global warming until half of Florida is under water. Then maybe the "world-is-flat" crowd will get it. "

" The UN, US liberals and liberals throughout the world want US to turn our country into an emmission free zone, while letting China, India and all 3rd world countries to keep pumping CO2 gas's into the atmosphere. Only a liberal would think this is cutting pollution. "

" D, to write a 3 page comment on one dot on several pages of data would be a bit ridiculous wouldn't it? Our part in the global warming is so minor that it is hardly worth a comment. Polluting the air with various contaminants is a bad idea, but let's look at the problems such as lung cancer those contaminants cause, and quit blaming global warming on them. The science is easily checked out. Look at the sun for one source of global warming because it has been "hyper active" for several years. Coronal mass ejections have exceeded all previous records by as much a 30 X the norm. One volcanic eruption will put out more troublesome emissions than all industrial emissions for all recorded time. Science is not difficult, but manufactured "problems" to mislead and thereby control the people is quite another problem. Misleading (herding) the people is a muti-billion dollar industry. "

" You hit the nail on the head Dan - no scientist can agree on what or who or why global warming is happening, but the fact remains that it IS happening. I don't care to discuss anything about why or who or what is causing it. I just choose to do my part by following the 3 R's. If it works, rock n roll, but if not, well, we all just die, or move in land, or whatever we do as a species to adapt and survive. I am not wasting a second of my life worrying about either scenario. Letters to the editor like this do NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to combat the issue as it stands. He's a non-scientist trying to rile up other non-scientists to join his agenda. That's why I *yawn*'d. It's so over played. And now I'm sure Don Hannu is going to write a letter in support of this letter, and thus continue the cycle of non-scientists and wikipedia scientists expousing on matters in which they truly have no depth. "

" Deb, wake up sweetie. The man is right. Earth's natural cycles have been occurring for billions of years. The poles have been tropical, and the tropics have seen ice. These cycles have happened hundreds of times, long before the Big Bad Polluting Americans came along. A single volcanic eruption puts more junk in the air in a couple days than mankind has managed to do in our brief history of global domination. Polar ice core studies have proven this beyond argument. The Earth is a dynamic planet, constantly changing. Global warming and cooling will occur regardless of how hard the tree huggers try to stop it. While I firmly believe we should ALL do what we can to reduce pollution and recycle, (ALL extends beyond the borders of the Evil Empire in which we reside) we need to be realistic about just how much we can do to stop nature. "

" *yawn* "

" Dr. albright, have a nice day. "

" Am I missing something? The author did nothing to discount the effects of human behaviour on global warming or provide any instances where scientists disagreed. A common group often referenced by "the head in the sand" group is the Oregon petition. I'd suggest anyone who wants to use that as an argument to go to wikipedia.com and do some research on it. "