Your opinions:

Do you drive a hybrid, recycle, use absolutely no electricity? Do you live without refrigeration, walk to work, use just solar energy? Do you use only biodegradeable detergent, do you eat meat under absolutely no circumstances? You better not fly or use public transporation either. Plastic, ooh BIG nono. Lose that furniture and that computer your typing on as well. Better stick to cloth diapers and cloth garbage bags for what you can't recycle. Got any "waste"... compost it. Grow your food in it. (Without causing salmonella, Good LUCK!) These are just a few steps YOU can take to "solve global warming..." So what do ya say, are you ready to surrender your lifestyle, today, right NOW!?! No, ahh well nevermind, just go back to telling the rest of us how to live our lives and emmitting that terrible carbon gas every time you open your mouth. After all, it's not YOU that ever has to sacrifice, it's always somebody else. Shame them, ridicule them do anything to hold them accountable for their selfish acts. After all if THEY do there part, then YOU won't have to. And there we find the root of all of this hysteria. People scapegoating the unpopular for the sins of themselves. Some things NEVER change. But hey, at least Al Gore can make another buck or two at our expense. Now there's a cause worth fighting for!

Really? Global Warming is real? Do you really think so.....then why is the Ocean actually cooler now than then??? Lorne Gunter: Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong Posted: March 24, 2008, 6:27 PM by Yoni Goldstein Lorne Gunter They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans. Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it. These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage. It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.) When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors. So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong. In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings. Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming. A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire. Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR. Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss. The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere. But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong. The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space. Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations. In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation. I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.

Climate change and Global warming are NOT the same thing. (Climate always changes due to sunspot activity, El Nino/La Nina, etc.) If you can't understand that, then I'm sure you don't know the difference between carbon dioxide (good=It makes plants grow, WOW! Shouldn't we encourage that?), carbon monoxide (i.e. pollution=bad; And ironically NOT regulated under this scam!), or even sodium chloride. (Anybody wanna ban salt! The oceans are full of it... The Horror!!! The Horror!!!) Whay aren't we trying to tax pollution instead of something that promotes plant growth? Anybody wanna take a crack at that one??? Nah, it's easier to just throw insults at each other and not look at scientific evidence, in place of whatever the media, or the interest groups (who rely on private money) and non-governmental orgnisations tell us what to think on any particular day.

The scariest thing about this whole deal is that people have not learned their basic scientic facts to actually see the truth of the matter. CO2 is not a bad thing....plants thrive on it it.The air temps are going down folks...pay attention. Continue to conserve your energy, recycle and teach you child to be wise as well....we have a footprint and it is not carbon.

Not even one of these super smart liberals can predict the weather much more than 5 days out.The Vikings grew grapes in Greenland a thousand years+- ago. I wonder how much ice was at the north pole then. So just to humor these libs, just suppose that we could stablize the Earth's "average temp". Should we stablize it at todays temp? 1950's temp? The year 650's temp? And a little more fly in the liberal ointment...do you libs know about ...the scientific method? Scientific method is not models made up by believers. Scientific method does not use "a majority" of scientists (whose livelyhoods depend on GW funding) opinion. Science is not up to a vote. To be real science you must be able to repeat time after time and get the same results. Hey libs the joke is on you and your kind!

The fires in California have a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars combined in California. I suppose you think the forest fires and volcanoes over the past thousands of years prior to human kinds emergence on earth had nothing to do with spewing out carbon. That is why the global warming models are so far off in their predictions of global warming. The weather system of the earth has so many variables and unknowns that no model that a human being can develop will ever be able to input in all of the factors fully or accurately. End of story except for the fact there are millions of people that have been conned into believing this B.S. People willing to destroy the greatest economy in the world all on the basis of flawed and incomplete data. Flawed and incomplete data from self interested so called scientists who make their living from government grants that will run out if they come up with any data that disproves their claims, so they don't.

Supercomputers are only as smart as the people who program them, and many of the algorithyms are based on, guess what? Theories! Supercomputers can't even predict the weather accurately one day out. Your point mean nothing. There's simply way too many factors, known and unknown, understood and misunderstood, in our universe to rely on supercomputers to accurately predict things like AGW. We've barely begun to scratch the surface in our understanding. New discoveries such as sunspot activity and a warming ocean increasing atmospheric CO2 (not the other way around) on global temps are casting huge doubts on the outdated AGW theory. But those with political motivations have latched on to AGW as if it's the undeniable truth. As far as the "deniers" writing their own papers, this type of research, including the fees to use supercomputers, require large sums of funding-- not usually typically for your average scientists. Remember, most scientists are paid by public and private grants. And any research funding by energy corporations is always dismissed as "slanted" and therefore unreliable (how convenient!). However, the money funding the UN-backed scientists is nearly endless. So the "deniers" have been left to simply writing extensive disagreements with the AGW theory, basing their dissention on sound, scientific principals and pointing out the flaws done in the research. That should be enough.

Mars is slightly warmer so maybe it's the Sun, imagine the abundance of food if Siberia and Northern Canada became grain belts, in the past they were tropical, hence the ammount of oil there.

Listen, people: you have to BELIEVE that global warming is real; you have to have FAITH. For without faith, we'll never get this new religion properly up and running.

Exactly what power source do Liberals want America to run on? Oil? Nope, Harry Reid says it makes us ill. Coal? Nope, despite the fact we have a 300 year supply. Oil Shale? sorry, it might be hard to mine. Nuclear energy? Nothing cleaner while delivering as much energy, but they won't let us build reactors. Ethanol? Well they do want this, but it costs 3 times as much as gasoline for the same energy delivered, while starving the poor in the process. Solar? Yup, but it won't run our cars or work in most states of the union. Wind? Sure, but the turbines are very high maintenance and Liberals also won't allow any of them to be built because they think they are ugly. Wood? No, the trees are screaming... It seems we are left with what we had in primal times, cow dung. Elect a Democrat--they want to drive America with cow dung.

Truth?...from Al Gore???,

In the fall of 1968 Al Gore claimed that he'd influenced the nomination acceptance speech of Hubert Humphrey through conversations with a Chicago Sun columnist. Al Gore asserted he was Humphrey's ghost writer, but the columnist said that he had nothing to do with that speech. Al Gore's claim wasn't true.

In 1987 Al Gore told the DesMoines Register as he began his Presidential campaign that his youthful reporting had led to the indictment and imprisonment of several people, but that wasn't true.

In August 1987 the Los Angeles Times reported that Gore had bragged that half of his Presidential Campaign staff were women, but it wasn't true.

In February of 1988 the Washington Post quoted Al Gore that he been shot at in Vietnam. It wasn't true. That claim was shot down by Newsweek in December of 1999.

In April 1988 Al Gore told a League of Women Voters gathering that he had written the law of Superfund. Recently he changed his story because the real author of the Superfund law was James Florio.

On October 30, 1992, Gore denied that there was a dump on his father's farm, but national television showed the pictures.

On December 15, 1997, Time magazine reported that Al Gore claimed that he and Tipper had served as role models for the Eric Segal novel, Love Story. That wasn't true.

On March 9, 1999, Al Gore told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." It wasn't true. The Department of Defense got the Internet underway in 1969. Al Gore was 21 in 1969.

On April 25, 1999, Al Gore told the Detroit chapter of the NAACP that his father was a fighter for civil rights, but he didn't tell them that his father had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On June 1, 1999, at a Women for Gore event, Al Gore said he'd always been pro- choice, but that wasn't true. As a Congressman he had voted pro-life on many occasions.

On October 14, 1999, Al Gore's website proclaimed that he'd worked for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty for 20 years, but that claim wasn't true.As late as 1992 Al Gore had opposed that Treaty on the Senate floor.

On November 1, 1999, Time magazine reported that Al Gore had claimed to have authored the Earned Income Tax Credit. That wasn't true. The Earned Income Tax Credit was passed into law in 1975 and Al Gore didn't even enter Congress until 1977.

On November 24, 1999, The New York Times reported that Al Gore claimed to have been a co-sponsor of the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. But Al Gore never served in the Senate with Senator Feingold. It wasn't true.

In June of 2000 Al Gore said "I introduced the very first free t.v. legislation in the Senate in 1988," but more than 150 bills on that subject had been previously introduced in previous Congresses. It just wasn't true.

At a convention of Teamsters on September 18th, Al Gore said that one of the lullabies of his that he'd been sung to as a child had been a union song. Then he sang a few words of it, but the song he sang wasn't written until Al Gore was in his 20s. It simply wasn't true.

On September 22nd Al Gore told the Associated Press that he'd been part of a discussions on strategic petroleum reserve since the days it was first established. But that reserve was established in 1975 and Al Gore did not enter Congress until 1977.

In a presidential debate, Mr. Gore said that he'd accompanied Jamie Lee Witt, the head of the federal government's emergency response team, to catastrophic fires in Texas, but that wasn't true. He didn't accompany Mr. Witt and he didn't go to those fires. He made it up. It wasn't true.

The New York Times quotes a professor of psychology in saying that Al Gore's record is "like the false memory syndrome where people end up believing that they were abducted by aliens." The head of the California Democratic Party says that he cannot explain Al Gore's behavior because he is not a "psychiatrist." Now, Al Gore presents us this film which is filled with many more examples of his pathological penchant for making things up and lying. Gore refuses to debate any climate scientist not on his payroll. One thing that will disabuse any thinking person of being sucked in by the man-made global warming scam is this: Volcanoes have caused more atmospheric pollution than all of human created CO2 in history...sometimes with a single eruption cycle! The natural filter of ocean algae converts CO2 into oxygen. When there are large amounts of CO2, more algae thrives. Human activity causes only minimal amounts of CO2...0.001% of the atmosphere...not enough to get excited about unless you want to make people feel guilty so they will give you money and the power to tax and control evil capitalists... Temperature variations of earth's climate are mainly caused by the sun...but this fact does not fit the agenda of Gore and his followers.