Am I surprised, or what!?! Another response to a point of view (based, one might add, on overwhelming data produced by scientests all over the world, and agreed upon by the overwhelming majority) which attacks the messenger and ignores the message. Strange, isn't it, that an issue like global warming, which, based on science, ought to be apolitical and yet is adhered to by the left and decried by the right. Why do you suppose that is? How old did you say the Grand Canyon is?

Don't forget about Newsweek's 1973 article on the coming Ice Age

You didn't just break the law linking to a download of a copyrighted article, did you?

Should we apply the same rules of breaking the law as you guys want to apply to illegal aliens?

whatever, Paul.

Dr. Sid, I don't think many conservatives disagree that there is a global warming occuring. We just don't believe that capitalism and America is responsible for it.

Don't you find it interesting that in all these studies about global warming, the SUN is often forgotten?

This a perfect example of what happens when an important message is presented by a really inept spokesman. Gore may be doing his chosen cause more harm than good.

Okay Paul, do you want to comment on the Ice Age article?

Derek Jeter.

In MY cab.

Gee, aaron, I'd say the sun is pretty much a constant over the past century, wouldn't you. Which takes it out of the equation. Or are you saying the sun is heating up?

And see, you take talk of global warming as some sort of political tirade against capitalism. I love capitalism. It works. All countries pollute. And the US is, no matter what your political view, the prime producer of greenhouse gases. As the most inventive and successful economy in the history of mankind, if anyone could solve the problem, it ought to be the US. And talk about capitalism: if you figure it out and you're an American, you'll make Bill Gates look like a pauper. So let's stop the paranoid view, and the knee-jerk need to defend America. Let's look at facts, and deal with them. It's just bizarre to see it as some sort of anti american view to raise the alarm. It's survival. Yours more than mine, young fella.

Aren't some studies saying the sun actually may be repsonsible for global warming?

Funny how when it's the sun's fault, the righties suddenly admit the earth is warming.

Can somebody link to this famous study that says the sun is heating up? I've never heard it.

I am not saying man (or "humyn" as the feminists from college spelled it) doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses.

Dr. Sid, if you don't believe that the enviro movement has been hijacked by anti-capitalists with a political agenda, then you need to read a bit more about the subject.

One of the founders of Greenpeace quit the organization because of the politicization and the non-scientific hysteria over the issue.

Also, there is a lecture by the dude who wrote jurassaic park on C-Span where he discusses the religiousity of environmentalism. Earth worship has become the new religion of secularists.

And the sun has not been stable at all over the last 100 years.

By definition, if you're religious you're not secular. And people who really espouse deep ecology as a religion are most liekly looking forward to all the human death that global warming is going to bring with it.
Micheal Crieghton is a novelist, not a priest or a scientist and I don't give a damn about Greenpeace.
But global warming is happening, human activity is the primary cause and scientific expert not wholly owned by the energy industry agrees on that. You're starting to sound like a creationist who invents a pseudoscience that disagrees with then demands that we "teach the controversy". Well there isn't any controversy, so oull your head out of the sand or wherever you have it stuck and stop ctrying to cloud the issue. I have to live on this planet for the rest of my life and probably for several more lives, and I don't want it screwed beyond repair.

Please direct me to info on the suns changes in the last 100 years.

Michaeal Crighton is not exactly a scion of good science.

The behavior and/or of a particular environmental group hardly makes a case for or against the concept of global warming. Once again, you seem only to be able to attack messengers -- and in this case, quite peripheral ones at that. What I'm talking about is literally thousands of reputable scientests around the world. The issue is not politics. As you so kindly said to another poster in another thread: get over yourself. As if that's dialogue.

There was something on TV about how the activity of sunspots MAY indicate increased energy being emitted towards earth and this may contribute to temp. change here. It didn't seem they had it nailed down very well, I forget where I saw this.

On Nova yesterday there was a show about how pollution particles lead to increased cloud formation, COOLING the earth, which may mean global warming by greenhouse gases is partially hidden and could be worse than we thought.

My view is it's too late, we ain't gonna fix it anyway, so live it up.

Michael Crichton is has a medical degree from Harvard. He's no slouch in science and certainly more qualified to discuss the issue than Algore.

More qualified than Al Gore? You want battling Harvard degrees? (Al has one, too, in case you forgot). I have a medical degree, too. In what way does that annoint me expertise outside of medicine (Answer: we didn't spend a lot of time on global warming in medical school). Stack up the work done by the two specifically on global warming; add up the hours devoted to learning about it by Dr C and Mr G; organize a debate, even. Really, you reveal so much about yourself in a statement like that, and it ain't pretty. Credulous, yes. But pretty? Not so much.

If degree's are the issue, every liberal who disagrees with you on this site is more qualified than your dropped out ass.