I would encourage all Americans to familiarize themselves with exactly what the Heartland Institute is, what their agenda is, and where (and who) their funding comes from; to the extent possible since they have refused to disclose most of their financial information (...reminiscent of the financial secrecy of organized crime).

These are the people who are funding the mere handful of "scientists" willing to sell out and work to cast skepticism and doubt on the real scientific work of the 99% of the Earth and climate scientists who are raising the warning flags about the dire consequences of Human accelerated climate change.

After reading this you'll want to take a shower; such is the slime which resides in the shadowy corners of lies and distortions in the guise of the exercise of "free speech" in our country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

After reading Robert's link, read this one.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Reason and science used to rule the day... now it's money and noise.

650 million years, it shows that CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth have only been this LOW twice before. That's right, 70-80% of the time over the past 650 million years CO2 levels and the temperature have been far, far higher than it is right now

Interesting. So you then agree there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature?

And if you agree there is a correlation and our CO2 is rising....you agree that CO2 is contributing to global warming, nice. Thank you for pointing that out.

On a side note, maybe the last 400,000 years is important because that how long modern humans have had to evolve and adapt to current conditions, tell me how many humans were around 200 million years ago when ppm of CO2 was 2000 and there were NO ice caps and less land mass?

I didn't think it was possible for the anti-science crowd to pull their image down any further....

Lots of crazy people are Christians. We've all seen them talking to themselves or shouting at passersby. Does that mean Christianity is nonsense? Silly logic.

Robert in Oregon; can you describe what the generic fallacy is?

The Billboard...Ad Hominem

More idiots to be eliminated from the gene pool. Wow, America, you are eliminating all your assets.

The unibomber also believes in gravity, and that the earth is round, where's your billboard on that? Right wing whackos would have more followers, if they stopped twisting the world to fit their lunatic philosophy.

We do not apologize for running the ad <etc, etc>

Maybe they could apologize for being complete morons instead. Where on earth do these people that try to drag the rest of humanity into the pit of ignorance come from? How do they or any of their supporters hold jobs that allow them to purchase advertizing?

Mr.PheaNiques-0000001

Well I guess the chicken littles win another one

Exactly, scientists are kooks and have been leading us astray for centuries. The biggest hoax is that so called microscopic world that we cannot see or feel; germs and all. I bet you've got the horse sense of not wasting good time and money washing your hands.

The "scientific community" which I'm supposed to believe has "reached a concensus" concerning global warming...so what? Science has nothing to do with concensus; science deals with facts. As an earth scientist with a couple of degrees in the field, I challenge you to show me the facts. If you can, then I'll jump on your wagon. Until then, it's all theory....unproven theory.

@Spider "earth scientist with a couple of degrees in the field" "I challenge you to show me the facts.--"

Ok try LMarkTs link above for a starter. Ok,What are your degrees exactly and even more important, who do you work for? A post like yours is pure hypocracy--you want facts but offer none of your own. There are some remarkably dense people with degrees running around, and they usually fall back on their degrees when they can't make any sense. Maybe you could start by explaining the extreme slope of the CO2 concentration since the middle of the last century. What natural phenomena would cause that?

As a scientist and engineer I disagree with your statement. In most cases where there is a theory put forth and scientific data starts accumulating to back a theory the scientific community starts reviewing the data and gives feedback and opinions - as the scientific method is supposed to. Concensus is just part of the process of scientists analyzing the data and accepting or in some cases rejecting it. Take the case of Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift. During his lifetime he presented large amounts of evidence to back his theory but was actually scorned by the status quo. In the 1950s he was proven right. What I am describing here is the fact that with a lot of scientific theories it is not 100% black or white from the word go. The process of concensus whether correct or not part of the process of validation. There are plenty of facts supporting global warming and if you as a scientist do not believe them to be valid then that is your opinion. I believe that there is a concensus in the scientific community that believes there is global warming and wants to do something about it before its too late. This is my opinion also.

Spider, real scientists set about seeking facts they don't sit there and demand the facts be presented to them for perusal and consideration. The concept of scientific consensus is a very legitimate one which you would be aware of if you are a scientist, consensus opinion is designed to allow the extension of theories which rely on the outcome of preceding theories. Your final point is the most inane, your test of whether a theory is proven or not is whether YOU personally have been shown the facts and deign them to be true.

A person living in the silt basin of Illinois could agree the climate is ever changing. Not being covered with a mile of ice, is quite the relief. But, it did take Al Gore to point that out, or no one may have noticed. All through history, there have been scholars, witch doctors, sorcerers, and high priests to create fears of the climate to further control and exploit their subjects. Not everyone understood astrology, and were mystified how events could be predicted. The aliens at area 51 worked. Why not a little panic to further a new agenda? Or would it really be not so new?

Spider, real "scientists" (unlike the anonymous, on-line pretenders in discussion threads) do not confuse the word "theory" in its common context with its scientific context.

Pretenders use the word "theory" as a pejorative dismissal ("just a theory") whereas real scientists are aware that a scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and rigorously tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.

I suspect that any anonymous on-line pretender who says he/she is a "scientist", and then uses the word "theory" as a pejorative term, to denigrate and undermine a prevailing scientific set of principles, has an agenda. And it isn't the pursuit of science.

@Mike4703

RE:"What are your degrees exactly and even more important, who do you work for?"

I never realized just how loud "Crickets" could be ;)

Actually I guess that applies to all of your questions for Spidey

Conservatives @ Newsvine will never tell you where they work. They also have no idea why they like to confront (either physically or mentally) other people - they don't like the color of your house, the car you drive, your kids hair cuts, the fact your wife actually likes you......... Once they buy into the hate cycle - they are a lost cause.

I have been reading spiders posts for years - I have no idea what he stands for - but can find hundreds of his posts on what he doesn't like. When you go out of your way to be that antagonistic - the problems start in the mind, not in reality.

Earth cycles show the planet does warm and cool - only in the past there wasn't billions of slobs dumping their trash all over the land. Billions of tons of toxic waste fermenting in the heat, doesn't require a scientist to tell you it will on come back on the slobs who put it there. Pollution was once forefront on the minds of humans, now stuff like climate change is talked about so that we won't catch on to bigger problems - and who made the toxins.

I almost forgot the best part - go read Ted K's manifesto - there are no bigger haters of Liberals than old Teddy boy. It looks like this "Institute" didn't bother to research Ted before they put up the billboard.

I guess their thinking is; it's better to get negative attention, than no attention at all.

Good grief, howard. Look at the times! I imagine spider went to bed, or did you expect him to stay up to the wee hours just to respond to posts?

@Spider with a couple of Earth Science Degrees

So I guess you missed the paper in GSA Today, Feburary 2012, A human induced hothouse climate? Kidder, DL and TR Worsley? Summarizes everything in 8 pages. Illustrates the well-proven theory of anthropogenic climate change. Strange you missed that one, being up on the earth sciences.

Caio!

Arsenic

BS Geology, 1986, MS Geology 1988, PhD Geochemistry 2001

What the right-wingers have is money, what scientists want is money, so the right-wing has used money to corrupt many scientists who have come out and speak against climate change.

...but do the insignificant humans have such an impact on the entire mother nature? Humans are so insignificant in the entire universe, their activities are so insignificant also.

Has anyone considered that 'global warming' might be a GOOD THING?

The last time global temperatures were this high was about 900 years ago (long before the Industrial Revolution), and it brought great benefits to mankind and great increases in food and population, as temperatures were about 3 times higher above the long term average as now - for about 300 years. It was called the Medieval Warm Period.

Unfortunately it was followed by the Little Ice Age, when tens of millions died from starvation and disease.

Actually, the 'climate experts' say that the temperature levels and ocean levels over the next 90 years will be only about the same as we have already experienced over the last 150 years already - How did we ever survive?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore can take his 'carbon credit' scam that he's used to become rich and use it to grow mushrooms - You know, where they keep it in the dark and feed it BS.

@spider -

"As an earth scientist with a couple of degrees in the field,"

No, you're not - and no, you don't

@RoyWilson -

No

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

I challenge you to show me the facts.

Google is your friend.

then I'll jump on your wagon.

No, you won't

Until then, it's all theory....unproven theory.

You obviously don't know what 'theory' means.

Roy - somehow the text got jumbled, my reply to you was supposed to be at the bottom of the comment and was only this:

@RoyWilson -

No

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

None of the comment applies to you except that, the rest was a reply to Spider.

Zen609

Here's my chart on temperatures, and it shows the temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period well above now - for several hundred years.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie

The point is that high temperatures and low temperatures seem to have cycles that are unrelated to the activities of mankind.

But my point that elevated temperatures in the past have been associated with great benefits for mankind, while cooler temperatures have been associated with famine and disease. With over 7 billion people to be fed today, even the alarmists at the United Nations have admitted that 'global warming' will likely lead to an increase in food production.

I looked last night. The Earth is flat and the Moon is round.

Check it out.

Do your research. Ever heard of APCO Worldwide, TASSC(The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), Exxon, Phillip Morris? APCO is a marketing firm specializing in the art of doubt. Hired by Phillip Morris to combat the negative image of tobacco. APCO wrote mission statements and helped start several "grassroots" organizations on behalf of Phillip Morris. Using this tactic, Phillip Morris could funnel money into a disinformation campaign casting doubt on whether tobacco is bad. One of the "grassroots" groups APCO started is TASSC(Heartland is in the family of spin offs). In addition to money from Phillip Morris, APCO encouraged all its pseudo-organizations to "seek other sources of funding".

TASSC did. If found another partner in Exxon, and several oil companies. Their product, doubt that the science behind AGW(anthropogenic(thats manmade) global warming), is not conclusive. In almost every source on the web or in literature, that tries to dispute AGW, the source of research or funding is tied in some way to these quasi-science groups, these false "grassroots" organizations. TASSC being the predominant player. Once false data is on one website, it gets copied and cited to others, many source back eventually to junkscience.com, a TASSC(among others) funded site. All of this info is public data, a few simple web searches shows how verifiable this is.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

Excluding armchair climatologists, only including people, scientists, that actually know what they are talking about. There is more than consensus AGW is real.

Joseph-1686110 "well it is getting warmer...lmao"

So put on a bathing suit and soak up some Vitamin D and plant a vegetable garden.

Actually, The climate change alarmists did it just to sell a book. The original alarmist, Mr. Loverock, admitted that he and Al Gore started the alarmist climate change to sell their books.

Al Gore started climate change to sell a book?? Climate change evidence can be traced back to at least the beginning of the 20th century when evidence that CO2 could cause a green house effect.

moron.

Robert:

Mountains of evidence, every single reputable scientist in the world who is qualified to speak on the issue, and a massive study funded by a group with a stated goal of debunking man-made global warming all have concluded that it's real. What's more, all you have to do is look out the window at the FIFTH consecutive year we are seeing record-setting heat waves during summer in some parts of the nation to realize that the effects are already becoming pronounced.

Global warming deniers have gotten great at using half-truths to try to discredit people but the fact is that they have never been able to successfully discredit the actual data. But hey, if you honestly are delusional enough to think that thousands of years of humanity reshaping the face of the planet isn't going to have some kind of impact, then feel free to go ahead believing that.

That said, if you're right and we act like global warming is real, the end result will be a cleaner planet run on cheap renewable energy. And if me and the experts (AKA the only people who's opinion should actually carry any real weight here) are right and we act the way you would prefer, we face an environmental catastrophe. How is it that doing things your way makes sense again?

You are wasting your breath. It's like denying evolution because you don't have the education to understand the scientific principle upon which the evidence is based.

These climate deniers are just too backward and poorly educated to understand what they are being told other than by the loudmouthed talk radio guys who color with the big fat kindergarten crayons. They are so deeply in the pockets of big business they don't care if the planet is going to hell and they've manged to convince their sycophants with scabrous sores and oozing pustules to follow blindly while bits and pieces of their bodies fall off and the water they drink can be set on fire.

Give it up. Most of these detractors have no control over anything. Don't bother wasting your breath. Let them ramble, shake your head and hope like heck they don't breed.

Heartland = ZERO credibility

Teabaggers = ZERO credibility

Fat Limpballs = ZERO credibility

GOP = GrandeOldePIGS

OBAMA 2012/ HILARY 2016/ DEM majorities in both houses of Congress and Supreme Court because of the WACKOS on the Right. AMEN!!!

All of you--please! Write "Never trust a politician!" 1000x

Rush wrote:

OBAMA 2012/ HILARY 2016/ DEM majorities in both houses of Congress and Supreme Court because of the WACKOS on the Right. AMEN!!!

THEN you'll be happy, right? I suspect not.

Glaciers are growing again in the northern hemisphere, sea ice is expanding. They never receded in the southern hemisphere. We are entering a cooling cycle, not a warming cycle. It is a solar cyclical phenomenon. Note sunspot activity, it is calm now. The solar cycle is 22 years long. Other planets in our solar system responded the same, with polar caps melting (Mars) etc..

Elder Ed

Glaciers are growing again in the northern hemisphere, sea ice is expanding. They never receded in the southern hemisphere. We are entering a cooling cycle, not a warming cycle. It is a solar cyclical phenomenon. Note sunspot activity, it is calm now. The solar cycle is 22 years long. Other planets in our solar system responded the same, with polar caps melting (Mars) etc..

Other planets are responding the same? Mercury has glaciers? What type of cycle are you entering? Not a good one it's plain to see.

Heartland: "I refuse to believe hard, proven facts, but totally believe in a God that has no proven existence besides ' look at the world around you'".

Nutjobs.

Hey AC

I love it, one post clamoring about out of date data, and the next one citing a paper from 2006 that used data from 2000 to say that something hasn't appeared yet in 2012. Obfuscate much? Me thinks so.

Read "A human induced hothouse climate? in the 2/2012 issue of GSA Today. 8 pages that refutes every one of your intractable problems. I not that you don't mention measured sea level rise over the past 50 years. Why not? Too 'real' for you?

batlacit "Mountains of evidence, every single reputable scientist in the world who is qualified to speak on the issue, and a massive study funded by a group with a stated goal of debunking man-made global warming all have concluded that it's real.

I suspect that's somewhat of an overstatement - otherwise journalists wouldn't use the term 'concensus', which only means that more than half agree.

And while I agree that man is causing at least part of the general increase in global temperatures, I still have to ask "SO WHAT"?

Past episodes of global warming "Medieval Warm Period" brought great benefits to mankind, while the subsequent "Little Ice Age" decimated mankind with starvation and disease.

Perhaps the proposed 'cure' is far worse than the 'disease', and what if the current 'global warming' is actually preventing the 'new Ice Age' that a 'concensus' of climate scientists was projecting about 35 years ago?

frank anderson "Elder Ed Other planets are responding the same? Mercury has glaciers? What type of cycle are you entering?"

I don't think Elder Ed said that ALL other planets have glaciers, so why are you bringing up Mercury? The only planet that he mentioned was Mars, which does indeed have polar caps that advance and recede with the seasons.

batlacit "That said, if you're right and we act like global warming is real, the end result will be a cleaner planet run on cheap renewable energy. And if me and the experts (AKA the only people who's opinion should actually carry any real weight here)"

Such modesty - Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

PS - When that 'cheap renewable energy' gets to be as cheap as fossil fuels, I'm all for switching over - until then, I'll use my savings to live a better life.

Mars has a atmosphere that is 95% CO2...

The so called ice caps are solid CO2, not H2O...

BTY - The atmospheric temperature on Mars is also INCREASING. According to the Mars Rovers...

I'm out of here - Good-by BKK, I'm back to the real Thailand & Laos...

Do your research. Ever heard of APCO Worldwide, TASSC(The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), Exxon, Phillip Morris? APCO is a marketing firm specializing in the art of doubt. Hired by Phillip Morris to combat the negative image of tobacco. APCO wrote mission statements and helped start several "grassroots" organizations on behalf of Phillip Morris. Using this tactic, Phillip Morris could funnel money into a disinformation campaign casting doubt on whether tobacco is bad. One of the "grassroots" groups APCO started is TASSC(Heartland is in the family of spin offs). In addition to money from Phillip Morris, APCO encouraged all its pseudo-organizations to "seek other sources of funding".

TASSC did. If found another partner in Exxon, and several oil companies. Their product, doubt that the science behind AGW(anthropogenic(thats manmade) global warming), is not conclusive. In almost every source on the web or in literature, that tries to dispute AGW, the source of research or funding is tied in some way to these quasi-science groups, these false "grassroots" organizations. TASSC being the predominant player. Once false data is on one website, it gets copied and cited to others, many source back eventually to junkscience.com, a TASSC(among others) funded site. All of this info is public data, a few simple web searches shows how verifiable this is.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

Excluding armchair climatologists, only including people, scientists, that actually know what they are talking about. There is more than consensus AGW is real.

Well let me ask you this "Sanity".

DO you drive a car and use electricity and running hot and cold water?

Do you refrigerate your food and your home?

Do you buy products such as plastics and household cleaning supplies?

Do you eat out at restaurants?

If you do any of these thangs and MANY more.

You are not trying to save squat.

NOTHING man can do at this point will reverse anything.

Besides, it is not mans doing.

Perhaps a VERY small amount of it is.

The earth is a whole lot bigger than man.

And weather patterns have been changing on her surface LONG before man and will continue.

Get a pair of shorts or a new coat, or a boat, and just get used to it.

We are NOT making our air dirtier we are making it cleaner. Either you've been in a coma for decades or you are too young to know what dirty air is. There were times you couldn't breath in the LA basin, and that was with a lot fewer people and cars. One of the great lakes was dead and the others badly polluted. Now they have salmon fishing contests in Chicago, (salmon is a very pollution sensitive fish).

Cars continue to get more efficient, gas usage has been falling, solar and wind installations continue year after year, etc. We are ALWAYS making progress.

And that progress is because environmentalists and scientists have stood up for the facts. The corporate guys didn't want to regulate their emissions so they fought hard against clean water and clean air. We would still be sucking fumes if not for the scientists and activists. Today we see the continuation of the corporate rhetoric. Climate science is a "hoax." This is the same BS that tobacco used to convince us for decades that cigarettes don't cause cancer when the scientists insisted that it does. How did that turn out again?

These people are liars at Heartland. The fact that their entire argument rests on calling scientists terrorists should say something about the strength of their "science." Appalling.

Valhalla Phil,

It's getting cleaner not because of benevolent corporation. It's because of EPA federally mandated emission limits. Big Government in action.

I try to minimize all of the items you mentioned.

But you are right lets just deny and do nothing, you and I will be dead before any serious consequences come to pass. Who cares right?

Well Valhalla, if you and yours had your way, none of this would have been possible.

No little piggy that would be the left...as in earth day in Pig Park San Francisco. You people talk the talk but are incapable of walking the walk and far too obtuse to recognize your own ignorance and hypocrisy.

Oh I get it, a joke about hippies being dirty! Original. But what does that have to do with science and this appalling lack of civility demonstrated by the Heartland institute and their corporate backers?

Do your research. Ever heard of APCO Worldwide, TASSC(The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), Exxon, Phillip Morris? APCO is a marketing firm specializing in the art of doubt. Hired by Phillip Morris to combat the negative image of tobacco. APCO wrote mission statements and helped start several "grassroots" organizations on behalf of Phillip Morris. Using this tactic, Phillip Morris could funnel money into a disinformation campaign casting doubt on whether tobacco is bad. One of the "grassroots" groups APCO started is TASSC(Heartland is in the family of spin offs). In addition to money from Phillip Morris, APCO encouraged all its pseudo-organizations to "seek other sources of funding".

TASSC did. If found another partner in Exxon, and several oil companies. Their product, doubt that the science behind AGW(anthropogenic(thats manmade) global warming), is not conclusive. In almost every source on the web or in literature, that tries to dispute AGW, the source of research or funding is tied in some way to these quasi-science groups, these false "grassroots" organizations. TASSC being the predominant player. Once false data is on one website, it gets copied and cited to others, many source back eventually to junkscience.com, a TASSC(among others) funded site. All of this info is public data, a few simple web searches shows how verifiable this is.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

Excluding armchair climatologists, only including people, scientists, that actually know what they are talking about. There is more than consensus AGW is real.

presenting people with facts and telling them they are wrong is not being intimidating. its explaining the facts. you can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

There are facts and there are facts. The raw data is a fact, the fear mongering based on the raw data is pure propaganda.

Even the IPCC has admitted they greatly overestimated the effect of CO2 on warming. It is that mistake that generated all the absurd projections.

Sara - Au contraire. The billboard confirms that the climate change deniers at the Heartland Institute and their fellow flat-earthers are exactly that - crazy and stupid. LMAO

Scientists are always considered to be "MadMen". Look at the end 15th centuries, it would be so crazy to use a tube to look at the sky and then tell people that the Earth is revolving around the Sun.

But hey, if the major populates can't see it, I guess it must be the work of "MadMen".

This billboard proves that Heartland's conference will be about politics and fear mongering. Instead of talking about science and facts, the presenters will be demonstrating how there is a supposed conspiracy of all the world's scientists from 100's of nations which is organized by curly lightbulb makers to weaken the US economy through environmental regulation so that a New World Government can be formed with Al Gore at the helm. I think Reynolds Wrap is sponsoring, but I'm not sure why...something about hats...

It sounds stupid, but go to their site. This is essentially the rundown of presentations.

Here are a few of the FACTS about the IPCC & AGW supporters;

1. Mann's 'hockey stick' hasn't materalized. He based his research on tree rings in the UK, even when the original researcher, stated the data could not be used to support temperature trends. Mann’s hockey stick does not match reality... see
Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 10 February 2005 -- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko & Wibjörn Karlén) (This is the red line shown in Figure 1-4 in Part 1. of this document) [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html] and [http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf]

2. The Himalayas has lost no significant ice over the past decade, according to a new study, that found melting ice from glaciers is having a much smaller effect on sea levels than previously thought... see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9071908/Melting-glaciers-on-the-Himalayas-not-contributing-to-sea-level-rise.html

3. Data references for Greenland ice levels:

A. The latest - Rutgers University keeps track of snow cover around the world. Their data show as slight, but steadily increasing snow cover in Greenland since 1966. See graphs for the northern hemisphere as a whole here.

B. Three years ago a decade long study in Greenland indicated a TOTAL 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume. Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss. "Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."... Or about 0.020" a year or 0.2" since 2000...

C. Greenland had a multi-year survey conducted that concluded that its ice volume was 703,424 cubic miles or 2,931,000 cubic kilometers during 1999. This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume mave have INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf

4. The latest data on Antarcta ice levels...

A. A new surface mass balance (SMB) map of Antarctic shows no significant trend for the period 1979-2010. Note that this is a modeling study, but the authors claim it is in good agreement with 750 surface measuring stations. See full paper and graphics here.

B. Antarctica reached the highest levels of ice coverage and volume ever recorded in 2007. And the average Antarctica temperature has DECREASED during the last 40+years... According to; NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, & SSMI...

C. The lastest sea ice coverage for Antarctica is ABOVE the normal for the last 30+years and has been for months. see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png/

D. The GRACE data has indicated a ice volume LOSS of 24+cubic miles of ice a year for the last decade. Out of a TOTAL of OVER 5.4+MILLION cubic miles of ice

5. Even the Arctic Sea Ice Coverage has returned to NORMAL ranges during Apr 2012...

reference - http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

6. James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement

with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

'I made a mistake'

As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.

Here is the MSNBC reference - http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change#.T5WJZfZrYcs.twitter

Here is a reference for hundreds of top scientist that have come out against AGW -

"The Deniers", Subtitled, "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud," is a 2008 book by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environmentalist and writer.

For a review and overview see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_against_global_warming_hysteria,_political_persecution,_and_fraud

I'll base my conclusions on the SCIENCE and the opinions of the researchers that have studied for DECADES the worlds environments. NOT the Media or Gore and his POLITICAL SCIENCE...

The same tactics in every venue. The far right uses the fear of darkness and their scare tactics. If they get thier way you will work for pennies and when old you will be cast aside to die. Maybe we will go back to the company store. They pay just enough to keep you alive and you spend at thier store. Oh wait! Its in the works now. The rich will eat, get an education, live in luxury, and have all the health care THEY need. You know. The ole "Let them eat cake" thing. Don't you just love the far right. They Will however let you go to religious gatherings. As long as its the religion they choose for you. I am already praying they do not get their way. They own most everything now.

We need some of this ice down here in Bangkok. Where we are breaking 30+year temperature highs...

But NO ONE is talking about the 3x INCREASE in population (13+million now), extensive expanses of concrete buildings & roads now, and EVERYONE has a icebox & A/C running 24/7...

The classic example of a 'heat island,' while 100+kilometer outside of the city the temperatures are high, but still in NORMAL ranges...

My house in Udon Thani, has a small room A/C, which only runs an hour or so during the hot part of the day. Most houses have NO A/C and do not want or need them...

Sara, what about this outrageous, 100 ton LIE do you find so appealing:

"because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming."

A C Robertson is back here spouting lies again, as well.

Pathetic.

reterry,

Talk is cheap, show your PROOF & REFERENCES...

Prove the latest data from NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Rudgers, and others are INCORECT or LIES as you state...

AC Robertson,

You said, "I'll base my conclusions on the SCIENCE and the opinions of the researchers that have studied for DECADES the worlds environments. NOT the Media or Gore and his POLITICAL SCIENCE.."

No one is asking you to base your opinions on Al Gore, that's your own bias at work, not ours, it shouldn't be that political. It's not about him, no matter how many people try to twist it into a right and left issue. If you really want to base your opinion on Science, why are you only looking at one side of the aisle: the naysayers and pretending the yaysayers aren't there? There are countless scientists, who follow Science, that agree with the notion of Global Warming, but you won't accept them? Some of your links don't work by the way, but I found one that you might want to look at. It seems to use Science to back up the assertion of Global Warming. Don't take Gore's word if you don't want to, that's fine, but if you really agree with Science, why be so biased against it?

climate.nasa.gov/

evidence/

No God. No Fear!

You are all going to die... because Nature Don't Care & Gravity Rules.

Shannon78,

Funny they work when I pull them up, using the provided reference in my comment...

I give you the latest data and you give me (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) an out of data - grade school lesson, from the same agency...

Which is more creditable???

Hey AC --

All the "facts" you reference have caviats attached to them that you don't seem to notice or they are just plain single observations that mean nothing. For instance the data on the Himalayan glaciers does show some glaciers not shrinking or growing some, but these are preliminary findings that do prove anything about the larger picture. For instance it was noted that the glaciers in the Himalayas are different in that they have a thick rocky layer that may insulate them more and are at higher altitudes. Do not jump at individual exceptions to "Gobal Warming" as that does not mean all locations are warmer, as you well know. The admissions by Lovelock concern the fact that he succumbed to some dramatization and caution which is understandible considering the hostility of the Bush administration. His regret is that this might be used by deniers, exactly as you are doing. He never stated the data was wrong. The climate is complex is all that you are proving. Al Gores purpose in writing his book was to bring attention to the problem and motivate people. He is not a scientist, but an activist. Again proves nothing about the science.

Hey AC Further food for thought re the discussion about how climate denial works when a scientist who may not be the be the best communicator nor used to the continuous misrepresentation of his work by the anti AGW machine gets quoted as anti-global warming when in fact he is not:

"Not only is Geoks 11 year too late with his complaint, any scientifically literate person will be able to tell him that AGW does not depend on the historical reconstructions by Mann, Jones, Briffa et al.

Now, back to the topic at hand: blatant misrepresentation of a scientist by certain media, and the cheering by the scientific illiterates over at WUWT. Anyone note how they try to dismiss the clarification Hulme has posted? It's eerily similar to their cheering when arctic sea ice melt took some time to get started this year, and their current attempts to dismiss short-term observations as useful.

Well, let's take the long-term trend then! (oops)"

Also this Lawrence Solomon is a writer and environmentalist who is not known for his grasp of complex facts. He is not a scientist but a journalist.

Are you one of those people who just get off on the attention to had by being argumentative? At the end it seems you advocate alternative energy and conservation anyway.

More jaw flapping - NO references...

I agree with Sara, "People who believe in climate change are awfully confrontational and try to bully and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them."

I also REALLY don't like Jehova's Witnesses in my neighborhood.

Same type of irritant.

Do your research. Ever heard of APCO Worldwide, TASSC(The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), Exxon, Phillip Morris? APCO is a marketing firm specializing in the art of doubt. Hired by Phillip Morris to combat the negative image of tobacco. APCO wrote mission statements and helped start several "grassroots" organizations on behalf of Phillip Morris. Using this tactic, Phillip Morris could funnel money into a disinformation campaign casting doubt on whether tobacco is bad. One of the "grassroots" groups APCO started is TASSC(Heartland is in the family of spin offs). In addition to money from Phillip Morris, APCO encouraged all its pseudo-organizations to "seek other sources of funding".

TASSC did. If found another partner in Exxon, and several oil companies. Their product, doubt that the science behind AGW(anthropogenic(thats manmade) global warming), is not conclusive. In almost every source on the web or in literature, that tries to dispute AGW, the source of research or funding is tied in some way to these quasi-science groups, these false "grassroots" organizations. TASSC being the predominant player. Once false data is on one website, it gets copied and cited to others, many source back eventually to junkscience.com, a TASSC(among others) funded site. All of this info is public data, a few simple web searches shows how verifiable this is.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

Excluding armchair climatologists, only including people, scientists, that actually know what they are talking about. There is more than consensus AGW is real.

Bob - Since when did "econuts" view the shrub from Texas as their god?

"The Deniers", Subtitled, "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud," is a 2008 book by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environmentalist and writer.

For a review and overview see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_against_global_warming_hysteria,_political_persecution,_and_fraud

Clowns to the left of me

Jokers to the right

Here I am,

Stuck in the middle with you...

Zing.

The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...

1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs'.

2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate, professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010 essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” — in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)

3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr. Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

He has published more than 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2. One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO₂, determine climate, 21st Century Science and Technology.

5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived by science and the scientist involved.'

For a book containing the hundreds of other prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see

"The Deniers", Subtitled, "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud," is a 2008 book by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environmentalist and writer.

For a review and overview see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_against_global_warming_hysteria,_political_persecution,_and_fraud

tp://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html

The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...

Energy conservation and minimal environmental impact, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...

Here is a Nov 2011 article concerning the Antarctic ice melting and the CO2 levels...

By analysing ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples, Professor Matthew Huber and his colleagues determined that the mile-thick ice which now covers the south polar continent formed around 34 million years ago. At that stage the atmosphere held much more CO₂ than it does now, some 600 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to today's level of 390 ppm.

There is often concern that the Antarctic ice sheet might melt due to global warming (though in fact, despite much publicity over losses of ice from the Western peninsula, Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing in extent for the last 40 years). It would seem that this is highly unlikely given current and near-future levels of atmospheric CO₂: at current rates of increase it will take a century at least to reach 600 ppm, the level at which the ice sheet formed itself, and higher levels would be needed to actually start it melting.

According to Huber, "If we continue on our current path of warming we will eventually reach that tipping point. Of course after we cross that threshold it will still take many thousands of years to melt an ice sheet."

The new research is published in premier boffinry mag Science, here.

You think that fossil fuels have had an impact. We are waiting until you can provide proof.

The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville:

1. The global temperature anomaly has been released for the month of February, 2012 and the average global temperature has cooled by 0.12 degrees celsius...

2. The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for January, 2012 has cooled by 0.09 degrees celsius, not totally unexpected for a La Nina January...

The global temperature average from the lower tropospheric measurements, avoids the ERRORS associated with; 'heat islands', missing data from certain regions, calibration variations, etc, etc...

reference - All the data products can be downloaded from the UAH server.^[4]

Moonridre12:

The only thing that it is indicative of is that the U.S. had a La Nina winter. But I would not expect you to know that.

Look where the jet stream flowed this winter over North America and compare that to the jet stream flow over Europe. Didn't Europe experience one of its coldest winters on record this year?

@Toasty: well, they have to make something since they don't make sense. ... though it is a curious choice seeing as how they don't seem to all that good at reading.

The same reason they shout on the radio and TV, because if they say it loud enough ignorant people believe it is fact. Most people cannot understand scientific reasoning, so emotional arguments win out. If we had a better education system, maybe people would understand critical thinking...sigh...like that will ever happen.

Some of us scientists are waiting to see some real science instead of computer model speculation.

Wall, you're not a scientist. If you were, you'd already know how models work instead of a grown-up having to explain it to you.

As many reputable scientists have said, CC is a fact, it's the fear mongering that goes with it that's fiction. Their admonition, if fear mongering is associated with climate change, follow the money.

Court rooms are not part of the scientific method. Doppler radar and breathe tests do not have billion dollar industries fighting to prevent them from being used. Theories do not have to be proven in court rooms. Overwhelmingly, the data supports man-made climate change - even if we ignore any work that has been called into question by politically minded big business funded think tanks. ALL of the evidence against man's influence on climate rests on radically misinterpreted and cherry-picked statistics. If you think the supporting evidence is problematic - the opposing work is an horrendous @!$%# show. All other forms of evidence are political hack attacks, which do not amount to a hill of beans when considering empirical evidence.

If we follow the money where will it take us? The paltry sums will bring us to small academic labs and institutions diligently working for the benefit science. The outrageous heaps of cash that flow like the river Nile lead to the corporate polluters, their think tanks, propagandists, and politicians. Please, yes, follow the money!!

The slight inconsistencies in a few email trails did not amount to wrongdoing or ethics violations and are simply the process of making sausage that runs throughout all scientific fields. Except in the case of climate change the academics find themselves beset upon by thousands of frivolous FOIA requests designed to halt their work, billions of dollars of ad campaigns by polluters, hacking strikes, and a constant barrage of threats, and slanderous @!$%#s like the people at Heartland.

Get the profiteers and politicians out of it, let scientists across the globe study it and compare findings and ascertain some facts for everyone to make up their own minds, not regurgitate propaganda.

EXACTLY!!!!!!! Polluters, the think tanks they run, the propaganda stream they foment, and the politicians they have purchased need to shut the @!$%# up and let the scientists alone.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that the ONLY factor that account for the warming we see is human release of greenhouse gases. All other factors can contribute at most less than 10% in any given year (except for sporadic volcanic events that last about 2 or 3 years), and tend to average 0%.

It has been proven to NOT be due to variations in the sun, or earth's orbit, or cosmic rays, or volcanos, or any other proposed factor. Meanwhile, the warming closely matches what is predicted from basic physics. Models that incorporate AGW do a good job of describing the past 130 years of climate. No model that excludes AGW has come anywhere near to being correct.

What more do you need to be convinced? (How about a statement from EVERY national academy of scientists in the world?)

JimCA,

Reference???

Your Volcanic CO2 information is BS...

Humans contribute 3.4% to the atmospheric CO2 Cycle and volcanoes are stated to only contribute around 0.3%. according to the EIA and others see https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth530/book/export/html/1515

For a primer to understand long and short CO2 cycles... see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page1.php

You are nuts...for every bit of crap you show here there are refutable articles/ studies to contratdict yours. Al Gore jumped this wagon purely for profit and he did make a bundle.

1930's was one of the hotest summers ever recorded. In the early 1900's we had the worst, deadliest winters ever...

get a life and just because you say it with conviction doesn't make it so.

The sad fact is the US has been cleaning up it's act, it's the other third world countries that are going crazy. Our carbon footprint has actually shrunk for the last few years and will continue to. China is going through the roof.

If you want to blame someone, go to Tienanmen square and protest. See how far that gets you.

"I can certainly say the air we breath is much more filthier and polluted then years past."

Then you are certainly wrong. All you are doing is giving a great excuse to kill the EPA since they are obviously not doing their job.

Again, we have been continuously improving for decades. We are closing coal plants and installing more solar and wind. Our carbon footprint has declined for years now.

Nice try though.

And how many solar panels do you own? Is your Leaf on order or has it arrived already. I smell hypocrite.

Unfortunately, the little plot of land I live on in New England on the north face of a hill, doesn't make solar panels a viable option. When my lease on a honda civic was up, I bought an '06 elantra, 66k - many miles left in it. 25mpg. bite me vlhalla phil, i volunteer at my local organic farm, i've learned canning, i walk wherever i can, spread the work of Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan, Buddha, and many other loving, caring, earth-loving folk. What have YOU done to help the planet?

97% believe the climate is changing, only 54% believe it is mostly human caused and that number has been falling, particularly after it was discovered CO2 was not the issue they thought it was.

Really, it's exactly the opposite of your claim. Prominent skeptical scientists such as Prof. Muller, after attempting to refute AGW, have come around to saying it is real. He tried to confirm that the "heat island" effect had corrupted our temperature records, but after examining all available data (over 3 billion data points) concluded that the warming trend was apparent no matter which records you used -- good, bad, or indifferent. In the fact, it you restrict your attention to only the "best" temperature stations, the warming seems to be twice as large as if you include the worst.

Valhalla, the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the more someone has studied climate science, the more they are cited by other researchers, the more they have published in related fields, etc., the more they are convinced that AGW is real. Only 1 of the top 50 researchers expressed doubt that humans are causing this, and even he got upset when someone tried to quote him as actually being skeptical of AGW.

But you alarmists throw away all credibility with comments like "the death of millions". To most Americans, this hypothetical problem is not on their list of every day concerns.

WRONG! Science was used to PROVE the earth was flat. Science was used to PROVE the sun revolved around the earth. Scientists repeatedly thought they proved Einstein wrong, it took years to prove they were wrong.

Science changes with time, even Newtons law of gravity is not correct. It is healthy skepticism OF OTHER SCIENTISTS that makes for good science.

You call those billboards "healthy skepticism?"

And what science does the Heartland Institute do? They are a corporate polluters' think tank.

Valhalla, you need to learn some history. Since the time of the first scientists about 2300 years ago, they have known that the earth was a sphere about 25,000 miles in circumference, that the moon orbits the earth and is smaller, that the sun is much larger than the earth and much further away than the moon, and that the earth probably orbits the sun. That knowledge was never lost. Only the Christian church attempted to deny it.

And no one thought they had "proved Einstein wrong". If you think so, find a reference.

It took many years to devise experiments that could actually measure the very small effects he predicted, but that is something very different -- everyone expected the results to be confirmed, as they were.

It is absurd statements like yours that breeds deniers. If you are willing to blatantly lie like that, why would anyone trust anything you say?

Yep Valhala Phil, they just keep spouting one inanity and lie after another. And never bothering to show us the data they readily accept as gospel.

More liberal lies. Tell us why Obama is for clean coal. Couldn't be because of democrats in coal country and the UMW could it? Nah! Tell us why Obama is dragging his feet on our gulf drilling yet funneled $2 billion to Brazil so they could develop theirs. Couldn't be because George Soros is heavily invested in Petrobras could it? Nah. Remember he promised to be a very good customer!

Vote for Romney or Obama will bankurpt us and no one will be able to afford green or anything else for that matter.

Dirty little secret, green incentives are tax cuts for the rich! How many poor people have a Volt. How many have a roof full of solar panels.

It'a ALL about money Phil...nothing more nothing less.

Obama's energy policy will bankrupt the working man if he is re-elected.

I will vote for Obama. We need to get the blood flowing (money) through the whole economy. The rich fat republicans want to cut the money off which will lead to a more coma like state of the economy. Cutting spending will not help the economy now, look at what is happening in Europe. from a former republican

Don't feel too bad Bluecat 55, the party left you, not the other way around. I remember when Republicans were all about fiscal responsibility, not the social conservative agenda they espouse now. I used to be Independent because I liked some ideas from both parties...no longer.

Republicans still are for fiscal responsibility. $1.3 trillion deficits year after year are not.

Democrats are fascists who want to control what you eat, what you drink, what you drive, where you live, what you learn, etc. All for the good of the state of course.

Valhalla Phil, if you would just open a real history book, you would know that the Republicans are almost in lock-step with the fascists. They even plotted to stage a coup to get Roosevelt out of office, and establish a government based on the NAZI's example. Unfortunately for them, the General they wanted to pull it off turned them down. W inherited a budget with a surplus, and reversed it with great vigor. He then allowed the nation to almost collapse, leaving Obama with no real alternative, but propping up our financial sector to keep this recession from becoming a depression. Can you tell me who was thelast Republican President to create a balanced budget, much less one with a surplus.

@Valhalla Phil

Whatever you say, Shock and Awe.

Same here I used to be republican. Republicans think of the future in terms of money. They should think of the environment the same way as money and conserve it. They want to spend every resource and destroy the environment all for money, which they seem to be addicted to.