Not even right.

A cruel hoax

We have had cycles of global climate change (GCC)for millions of years. Its roots are complex and interactive. For example, variations in solar output, the shape of earths orbit, the tilt of the earth's axis, global dimming due to atmospheric aerosols and particulates (from volcanism, meteorites), abundance of green house gases (methane, co2, water vapor), etc. The rank importance of these factors has probably changed at each prior episode of GCC. Enter human's explosive growth and impact in the past 10 thousand yrs (ca. 7 billion people). Humans are changing the atmospheric balance of GHGs due to vast losses of CO2 sinks (trees etc), and enormous outputs of CO2, etc from burning fossil fuels. For example CO2 levels ranged between 180-280 ppm for past 1M yrs, but now is 390ppm. Other GHG's are also increasing. Does human influence on this matter? Wise people ought to urge the precautionary principle. We cannot simply or quickly alter our course should we all finally agree that we have done serious damage to the biosphere's resilency.

You are correct about "biased debate," but you are calling the wrong scientists biased. Have you missed the leaked e-mails, the Himalayan glacier melting negated, the rain forest data based on an article only (i.e. not science)? The biase is by those scientists who have destroyed raw data so no peer review can be performed. Credability of all global warming (that is what they used to say until it became a negative) data has been comprimised and the public sees through it. Unfortunately, our governor does not and WI may find itself driving much more business out of state (as well as many citizens).

Read the article again. The Exxon thing was brought up and responded to. As for the "unbiased scientists" that didn't show, they were invited and didn't feel the need to support their arguments. Wouldn't want to stoop so low as to travel to Eagle River in the dead of winter, no doubt.

The debate doesn't really rage on, except among biased scientists. That's why none of the unbiased scientists bothered to show up.

So, we have two scientist who tour on behalf of the oil companies debating no one?



Then one of them gets a laugh about global warmning by bringing up snow in Tennessee. Educated people know that the more descriptive and proper term is "climate change." Climate change does not mean that the whole world will get uniformly warmer.



Are there any reputable scientists (not shills for the oil industry) who doubt the greenhouse effect? The unbiased scientists have told us: If we continue to emit carbon dioxide, heat will be trapped in the atmosphere. Even, assuming for the sake of argument that the greenhouse gases have not yet started to change the climate, wouldn't it make sense to try to slow the changes we make to the atmosphere before that happens? Not if you are a mouthpiece for Exxon.

Very comprehensive and well done article. I was there and you've done a stellar job of reporting.

Very interesting read. Thank you for attending. It worries me that people are so easily led to adopt a conclusion. When presented with a "we are all going to die" issue we jump in lock stock and barrel, add to that a politically backed agenda, and the walls go up. It's left, its right it's war. If Americans do not figure out that what drives those behind the Global Warming has nothing to do with saving the world, we will be doomed! Do intelligent people really think changing light bulbs and working to regulate certain omissions in the name of tax dollars will save the world? If by 2050 we will be seeing a vastly altered planet Earth, or by 2030 unbelievable changes in water levels and additional life shattering occurrences
why do we have 5 to 10 to 15 or 20 years to implement new regulations that may ease the certain coming disaster? What effects will our efforts accomplish if more then half of the rest of the world does not buy into this scheme? If the sky is falling very soon, don't you think we all should pay attention now? WHy have over 32000 Scientists worldwide (over 10000 PHD;s) sign a document stating they do not believe the data that has been presented on Global Earming. Just ignore them and buy into the hysteria side? Can we not think for ourselves anymore?
NEWSFLASH"It's not happening. The news is reporting on the corruption daily and it is good news. We are not going to die in a few years. They were wrong. Why are we not celebrating?

We had a debate on the same subject in Brisbane, Australia last Friday. Over 500 people turned up at $130 per head for the lunch debate and many people were turned away. Lord Moncton and Prof. Ian Plimer spoke for the sceptics and Prof. Barry Brook and a local environmental journalist spoke for the warmers.

It was an interesting exercise as the warmers had little to say except to continually refer to computer predictions and (in the case of the journalist) "play the man" and not the subject.

It's fairly obvious that, ideology aside, the warmers don't have much of an argument.