Maybe there is mercury in the fish I guess there would be mercury in the seals too nevermind we are all going to die and so are our children

As if average life spans of humans aren't many times higher now than just the recent past. As if higher standards of living in the developed nations hasn't stabilized populations there.

As if the only real way humanity is going to survive long term is to get off this planet, because eventually it is going to be obliterated by our sun as a red giant. Though before that it's surface might get obliterated by an asteroid impact. Though before that garage bio-hacking might lead to bio-terrorism and wiping out of humans. Etc.

It won't get any better than being able to shoot seals from the stability of an oil rig - a win for all.

"The winter sea ice that defined Greenlander life for millennia is melting, and it's the southerners who did it, as Malaurie's Inuit foretold long before science showed industrial emissions were warming the planet."

I seem to recall that Greenland was named after something when it was settled by the Norwegians......... oh yeah, it was GREEN! Thus the sea ice would have flowed along the same lines, get it?! What a complete load of BS article- thanks for sharing! Yes, changes in the Greenland climate will impact the people, but come on with all of that "industrial emissions" BS you can't seem to keep spewing.

Joe, actually, you have it backward. Greenland was covered in ice and Iceland was green. As I remember, the settlers of Iceland wanted to keep their island a secret and wanted to divert other people away from the island. So please look up your facts before you proclaim to know it all.

@ sanescience - whenever a poster has a name like sanescience, voiceofreason, RationalOne, etc. their posts are invariably the exact opposite of what their name implies - you are no exception - Purnell TheObjectiveOne Meagre

JoeNY: it was named "Greenland" to encourage people to move there, just as Iceland was named to keep them away. Sometimes there's something to a name, sometimes there ain't.

You forgot the "Jr."

"It won't get any better than being able to shoot seals from the stability of an oil rig - a win for all."

Well, maybe not for the seals.

JoeNY get your facts straight before you open your pie hole. Iceland green Greenland ice.

I agree with JoeNY. The facts, not the school girl emotion, show that our planet has gone through hot and cold periods many times through it's history with a variety of reasons or theories for those changes.

Funny how the Left lauds science but never mentions the limitations of science and scientific "theories". There are numerous examples of scientific thinking that were once held in high regard but still found to be in error later by the same scientific community.

Believe and trust science to a point. Always stay open minded to new ideas, new evidence and new solutions. The Left seems to be absent each of these points.

What's the problem? I believe that the oil business is far more profitible than seal hunting. It does not look like they are starving (they all seem to be real fat a$$es from the pic's) and I am sure the houses that they live in now are far more comfortable than a tent or igloo. Hell, they even have electricity and indoor plumbing now. If they really liked living "primative", why don't they live in tents, use boats made out of skins and bones and row themselves manually instead of using a motor. It looks like to me that they are just as guilty as the rest of us.

Lovely -

Joe, actually, you have it backward. Greenland was covered in ice and Iceland was green. As I remember, the settlers of Iceland wanted to keep their island a secret and wanted to divert other people away from the island. So please look up your facts before you proclaim to know it all.

Perhaps you should look up yours! This from http://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html :

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

Greenland was once green. Quit buying into the media hype, folks, and do some honest to goodness research. And I do not mean on Wiki, or the Huff and Puff Post, or whatever liberal version of the National Enquirer you prefer to read. This planet goes through cycles. Ice ages come and ice ages go. There isn't a thing we can do to change it, and humanity is not the catalyst.

Wouldn't that be ironic - Drill for oil to help speed up the process of warming the planet.

Actually, this is similar to the period when the Vikings settled Greenland, but when the climate changed back to cold again, they left or died off. It would appear that the Earth goes through climate cycles, so is this just another temporary warming cycle?

One thing to keep in mind is that, historically, warming trends have brought great benefits - ie; the Renaissance, while cooling cycles have brought much famine and misery - ie; the Little Ice Age.

JoeNY

I seem to recall that Greenland was named after something when it was settled by the Norwegians......... oh yeah, it was GREEN! Thus the sea ice would have flowed along the same lines, get it?! What a complete load of BS article- thanks for sharing! Yes, changes in the Greenland climate will impact the people, but come on with all of that "industrial emissions" BS you can't seem to keep spewing.

Your comment is the exact kind of simplistic garbage that sends a casual reader off on your absolutely wrong track.

There are many references to chose from that indicate why it's called "Greeland", but your account is in NONE of them... try this one account... there are many more. Stop with your lies and come up with something worth reading for a change.

Re: Erik the Red:

He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading. Some parts of Greenland, especially the parts the Norse settled, really are green, as these pictures from the tourist board attest (www.greenland-guide.dk/outdoor_life_photo.htm).

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1965/shouldnt-greenland-be-known-as-iceland-and-vice-versa

Ignorance and stupidity are not blessed. These fat women sitting at a table full of food do not seem to be starving. Time to change the old ways....people. Get civilized and stop killing the animals.

So Roy, now you condone the warming? Like trying to sell a major flaw in a product as a "new feature" with unbelievable benefits? lol

Actually, this ISN'T similar to when the Vikings settled on Greenland. It's always had the massive ice sheets during our short history on earth. It did get colder while we were there a few times... reduced human settlements to near zero.

The issue is the RATE of warming, the CAUSE of warming, and HOW THE HELL TO STOP the warming. This is just another continuation of our destruction of our own living conditions... you can see it in the gulf, you can see it in coral in Tahiti, you can feel it in Southern California. Dead waters, dead fish, dead coral, red tide, changing migrations, etc.

Nice "feature" we have here. Want to buy a bridge to nowhere?... same principle.

The elderly consider the present and think back to a different time. The younger generation, mid 20s to mid 30s do not have the memories the elderly have...namely ice so thick you could dogsled all the way to wherever that was.

I know that ice ages come and ice ages go....or cold trends come and cold trends go, but science declares itself the all-seeing and wisest of all. Is global warming a complete myth? And if it is not a myth, but just a cycle, what role does fossil fuel emissions play in the cycle? Could it be that the warming trend is too soon, and we are the cause?

I read recently that the average temperatures on earth have risen 30 degrees since the 1950s. The Bible says that fire will be the element of fire destruction of the earth (no worries; that's a LONG way off, and people will most likely be gone by then). Until then we'll do what people always do. We'll adapt.

LMarcT -

First, let me say yet again, Wiki is NOT a relevant research site!

See my post above, with the link to livescience.com. Or how about this one - you libs love Harvard! - http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html which states:

Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Do real research - not the lazy kind :)

CBea: There's been no change in the last decade about the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming. The vast majority of scientists (98% in the survey I saw) still believe the evidence is overwhelming. There's nothing to fear from knowledge (or schoolgirls).

Levi777, I don't know how old you are, but I've been around since the '50's and the tempertures have NOT risen 30 degrees, or even 20 degrees. I live in Texas and yes, at times it seems slightly warmer (especially recently) but we've had snow here (Houston) more in the past 10 years, than the 50 years before. Not sure of your source, but it sounds a little flaky to me.

Just remember one thing, scientists can and do say anything they want if only to get acknowledged. This includes skewing their data whichever direction they want it to. The vocal ones pushing global warming (the slant on this article) are after one thing; MONEY, for funding their research, as it is, to continue staying in the limelight. Look at their moron spokesperson - AL Gore. He's cashing in on the insecurities of the gullible, but just what is HE doing to help? I don't see him giving up any of his gas guzzling SUVs or private jets, trying to reduce his carbon footprint (he just buys credits). You can bet that any political "solutions" to do with global warming will primarily enhance his, Pelosi's and several others pocketbooks while doing so depletes ours.

LemarcT

If you think there is anything science or mankind can do to stop the warming trend than your worse than the people that totally discount climate change. The worst disasters in mankind's history are from when we are convinced we can play god. We can do little things to lessen the blow, but trying to stop climate change would be a disaster and a fool's errand. The earth changes and we must focus our attention on changing with it.

Smoothie,

In a warming world there's an increase of water in the atmosphere. When the conditions are right it will snow. It doesn't have to be 10 degrees outside for it to snow.

If a scientist publishes a paper for peer review and he's found to have "skewed" the data he'll be laughed and ridiculed out of town. And I can pretty much guarantee you Al Gore is NOT a spokesperson for all scientists. He's a politician. Period.

In this current atmosphere, the folks getting laughed out of town are those who question popular belief, not those who support it!

Google "scientists speak out against global warming" and see what you come up with. You will see that there are numerous scientists who don't buy it. But the press eats them up and spits them out because they don't fall in line with popular mythology.

There's always going to be those that question the mainstream, that's how science works. It's not just climatology, it's practically all fields of science that raises questions. If someone can show enough evidence to back-up their claim then it will be put up for review. It is then accepted or dismissed for one reason or another. So far the dismissal of humans having a direct impact on the global climate has not been dismissed in the least bit.

wouldn't need a rifle if there was ice. Your not to brite are you.

We like your authentic American attitude

Its spelled "bright", and it should be "you're", not "your", wouldn't hurt to capitalize the first word in your sentence either. If you are going to call someone dumb, probably would help to use proper grammar and syntax.

I am not the one complaining about losing my way of life, when like others have posted, I am enjoying the fruits of modern industry. The point is things change, his way of life, and the thickness of ice. It was warmer there in the past and the sky did not fall, as evidenced by there still being Inuits living in Greenland - they did not go extinct.

you're so out of it, you don't catch the irony........

The arguments of why the ice is melting will rage a long time. Is it "natural" or is it "natural with man's influence tipping the scales." Regardless, the ice is melting. These folks will need to adjust their ways of life to adpapt. It is looking like many of us in the world will "need to adapt" if you have noticed all the changes. "Middle class" and "lower class" Americans, for example, are facing bleak prospects. Other countries in the world are scratching their chins trying to figure a way to settle global circumstances. Bottom line: We will adjust.

Robtzu..good point. As the ice recedes they are finding old settlements along the shores that have been buried for centuries. The Vikings made it for years until the ice forced them out.

robtzu

They're/their/there IE: In this day an age of higher education is very glaring how many people use these improperly Homophones: they're, their and there These three homophones often lead to difficulty. Try to make sure that you know which is which: "they're" is perhaps the easiest to remember...

Hey nofollower, why don't you go live off of the land the hard way. Eco-nut sits in his ac infront of computer critises how the rest of us lives, what a FRUAD.

james -

Try to make sure that you know which is which: "they're" is perhaps the easiest to remember...

Perhaps you should try a bit of reading comprehension, then. robtzu's sentence read:

It was warmer there in the past and the sky did not fall, as evidenced by there still being Inuits living in Greenland - they did not go extinct.

Though it might not be the best sentence structure, his use of "there" (per Webster's definition of there as "in that matter") is certainly better than your use of "they're". Your sentence would read, "It was warmer there in the past and the sky did not fall, as evidenced by they are (they're) still being Inuits living in Greenland..."

Did anyone ask the Inuit if they like it better now that it is green? It's starting to look like a nice place to visit.

Yeah they are just trying to make their way like everyone else and rifle or not it ain't easy. Besides you really think technology isn't going to get pushed even in the most primitive of places. I bet when corporate america saw the picture of the undiscovered tribe in brazil or south america they immedietly came up with a plan to get cable out there so they can get commercials on so they can sell them cars and computers and boats and sofas and electronically controlled sexual devices. So back off MAN

problem what problem?

Someone needs to be over there protesting these savages! They're shooting seals! They're killing whales, and God only knows what else. Where's PETA when you need them? Whaaaaaaaa!!!!! JK! Could give a @!$%# less about a stupid seal. They are best prepared al'orange.....simply delicious.

PETA generally leaves the indigenous peoples alone. They don't go on a massive "seal-hunt-a-palooza" killing everything in sight. They will take only what they can carry for their own needs and will use every little itty bitty bit of it and won't waste a thing. Indigenous people have more respect for the land and the animals than the corporate plunderers could ever dream of. We DARE to call THEM uncivilized because they don't have internet or cell phones or 300 cable channels.

@fatcat: No, you are wrong. The almost unanimous consensus of scientists is that global warming is human caused. Stop reading propaganda and do your research. Google IPCC.

Actually the Mayan's did not say the world would end. They said the cycle will end. The media hyped it up to portray the end of all.Though i do think we are to blame for a lot of problems i agree about the arrogance and this could very well be completely natural. Or partially natural. But i think we can agree that things are changing rapidly in a geologic perspective given that most geologic changes happen over thousands of years and climates for that matter. It is time to band together for survival not matter how you look at it! About every 26 thousand years mankind seems to go through a bottleneck in terms of population that time is upon us now. Could be nothing for us with our tech. advances or could get very interesting. I for 1 am ready and done fighting about the subject. Just want to make sure my kids are well at all costs now and into the future..

Meebs,

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 http://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 impart, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...

They're all Republicans and in denial..............

I couldn't care less about the affected people, but I feel bad that they're shooting their dogs!

At least the dogs won't suffer starvation....

FatCat - The most cautious and retrospective of the cautious and respective scientists is the same guy that Big Tobacco used to try to shift the focus away from smoking as a cause of cancer. Now is on the payroll of Big Oil. And if you had really done your homework, you would know that no one questions the fact that natural factors and events contribute to the heating and cooling the earth.

AGRobertson - Have you read the books and articles you cited and evaluated the data that these people used? You give short quotes - can you fill us in on the larger context? Do any of these people receive money from the oil industry?

Why is it that the people who claim everyone else is in denial are always in denial?

Did you know that if you go swimming in denial you might be e3aten by a Crocodile? Or is that just a Croc-O-Something else myth?

AC Robertson great article although it appears you have too much time on your hands. try to keep them short nobody is going to read all that crap you posted.

When it comes to science, there are always competing theories. However, we are fooling ourselves if we don't think that we haven't had a hand in the emissions and accelerated things somewhat. Ice sheets may come and go, but that doesn't discount what's happened to the ozone layer of the earth.

I live in south Texas and it's been hotter than I have ever remembered in my whole life. I know my lifetime so far compared to geological time is only a drop in the bucket, but you've got to wonder, any thinking person would.

These science denying wing nuts in the Republican party want to make global warming look like a hoax, so their sponsors can continue to fill their coffers so they can repeal any laws that protect the environment.

I remember being a little girl watching the commercial of the Indian looking at the destruction of his river, full of chemicals and trash, and he doesn't say a word, just a single tear runs down the side of his face and he walks away. I'm in my mid 40's and that ad still grabs me as being one of the most potent PSAs ever shown on TV. The EPA was created just for THAT reason, by a Republican president no less, because even he knew that's what happens when companies are allowed to run amok and unregulated.

Where is the moral high ground that technology, progress, and cleanliness can coexist?

That's the point...we don't know how we are impacting the Earth...note...we all agree we are impacting the Earth...cutting down rainforests, dumping thousands of gallons of oil into the oceans, paving over vast tracks of land and stripping other land masses that leads to soil draining into the oceans, as well. I could go on...

AC: Sorry to break this to you, but the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists worldwide has not changed and it disagrees with you. Of course you can find individual idealogues who object, but even they're arguing against the science in their own disciplines.

lemur and cap'njim -

How 'bout we do a little investigation of the IPCC and how it works?

Let's see, the IPCC website http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml states the following:

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information.

Okay, sounds good. Going forward it also says:

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC.

Again, sounds good. Let's look further, shall we?

The procedures address all steps leading to the preparation of IPCC material starting with the nomination and selection of authors, preparation of drafts by the writing teams, the review by experts and governments and finally the approval, adoption and acceptance process in plenary sessions.

I have a bit of a problem with this one. "Nomination and selection of authors..." "preparation of drafts by writing teams.." Sooo.... they look over the submissions and if it meets certain criteria then it is selected and the writing team takes over and formats the report. My question is, who is this writing team? Who pays them?

Well, the Secretary and the Program Officer are paid by the IPCC

The reseources of the IPCC shal comprise:

(a) the person-year costs of the Secretary of the IPCC and costs of housing the IPCC Secretariat, provided by WMO;

(b) the person-year costs of the Programme Officer provided by UNEP;

Now that's not so good. Wonder who else is dependent upon the organization for compensation? Well, first of all you have to realize who the IPCC is, and how they are connected to UNEP and WMO, and how all of those organizations are connected to GEF, UNDP, the World Bank, etc. Here's a good website that ties them all together: http://www.aiaccproject.org/about/about.html

These writers and scientists from poor and underdeveloped countries are compensated, though not directly through the IPCC, but throuh all of it's affiliates, UNEP, UNDP, GEf, the World Bank. Unbiased reports? Not on your life!!! And as numerous scientists have come forth and stated - your funding would be cut and your projects blacklisted if a participating member dared challenge the (made-up) data.

Where to begin? I'll start by saying that I've heard too much from those who know too little. I'll stick to listening to the majority voice in the Scientific Community. Those naysayers, novices, junk Scientists and hearsay Parrot-phrasers will be ignored with the exception of occasional pause to convey my disdain for their ignorance and stupidity. Those of you who just don't or can't believe that Mankind has significantly affected the Earth with it's Carbon Footprint are, in my opinion, fools. Uninformed, ignorant fools..

If you were to ask the English about the 400+Vineyards they now have, the first thing out of their Mouths wouldn't be, "Yes, it's great we're breaking into the Wine-making Industry with great verve"...It would be more like,"Odd, don't you think...I didn't know we ever grew Grapes, or even could!" Or maybe you could ask them about the also unprecedented ability to grow Olive Trees from Tuscany...Talk to England's Hadley Center as to how this is so...Or perhaps you might speak with the People of the Amazon, where those lush Rain Forests produce a staggering 20% of the World's Oxygen. Ask them about the 1000 Square Miles of that Rain Forest that Burned in '2005. Maybe then you should speak with the Aussies regarding the intensity and regularity of the Wild-Fires on their East Coast,. 900 Fires in 2001 alone...Consult those in the Science of Oceanography as to the vast areas of Bleaching events, huge Coral kills and the disappearance of Mile upon Mile of Coral Reefs...greenland's Science teams have measured the receding Ice sheet around 130 Feet /Day; Photographs of the Himalayan Mountains show a significant melting of the Ice Caps, but there is no Carbon impact here huh?

No folks, I'll stick to the Professionals when it comes to getting "educated" in these matters. I'll pay homage to those who have real "knowledge" in these matters, those who can intelligently argue a point and actually support it with corroborating evidence. People like NASA Scientist James Hansen,. Organizations like Nova, National Geographic, anyone but hearsay Parrot-phrasing morons,...Thank you. PS., Bet you are the same ones that dispute Lunar landings were ever made....

My Daddy always used to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I won't put my faith in a group of people paid to support a particular ideology, especially after it has been proven that said group of people were dishonest in previous reports. NOT just one previous report, but several previous reports. Add to the fact that the data on several of these reports did not fit the expected outcome and was slanted or disregarded in order to support popular opinion... well, you won't fool me a second time!

Besides, I have great faith in my reading comprehension. I think I am capable of reading and interpreting information quite well, thank you.

lemur lady:

In the San Gabriel Valley of Southern California which is nearly 40 miles from the Pacific Ocean, you will find natural well-rounded cobble stones created by constant water erosion from hundreds of thousands of years. As the geology suggest a much different weather pattern back then than today, it is also evident that weather pattern changes gradually.

In the heart of the Middle East desert, there are fossils of sea animals. Evidently, there was once much more water in that area than the current geography would suggest. Time dating the fossils points to a time well before the first homosapien roam the earth. Surely, the change in weather cannot be attribute to human activities.

Today's weather pattern of San Gabriel Valley was started several thousands of years ago. During that time it has created a semi-desert with the typical monsoon rain season in late winter. A sudden spell of extreme heat, drought, or precipitation is not evident that the over-all weather pattern established for thousands of years has changed.

While I am a dog lover and have two of the great hairy beasts myself, if my dogs were starving to death and I couldn't feed them I would give them a mercy kill rather than watch their slow, lingering death from starvation.

That aside - will you folks quit describing the indigenous natives as "fat" and "blubbery?" It isn't nice. And if some of your skinny butts lived in Alaska you would soon learn that an extra layer of "blubber" can keep you from freezing to death!!!

their not frogs frogs are awsome their more like ameoba

they're

DukeLeto, You can Post with great conviction, with logic and even corroborative evidence,. Then comes the realization of Time wasted on delivering it to morons.......

There is climate change. In some places it's getting warmer, in others it is getting colder. I live in the Ohio Valley. We usually have moderated temps in May and June, and very hot, very humid temps in late July and August. For the past few years, it has been getting increasingly hot in May and June, and cooler in late July and August.

I do not deny that the climate is changing. What I do question is the scare tactics promoted by the "global warming" group that puts the blame squarely on man without acknowledging that the climate has changed many times in the past with no assistance from man whatsoever!

How much do you know about the increased activity of underwater volcanoes? Not much? Nothing? And why is that? Because natural causes for climate change are not discussed in scientific circles for fear of ridicule, and the media ignores any dissension against their chosen cause!

Take http://www.scienceandthesea.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=10 for example:

In the last few years, for example, scientists have found that a long ridge beneath the north polar ice cap is dotted with volcanoes, and with vents of superheated water that could be home to many new species.

It’s known as Gakkel Ridge. It stretches 1100 miles, from Greenland to Siberia. It’s part of the Mid-Ocean Ridge, which circles the globe at the boundaries between continental plates. As the plates move apart, molten rock rises to the ocean floor, forming new crust.

Underwater volcanic activity has been increasing for some time now, but you don't hear about it in the news. You don't see it in the IPCC reports.

Since we seem to have suddenly reached a tipping point and things are melting much faster than in the past, wouldn't it be feasible to look into the possibility of underwater volcanic activity to be a potential causative factor?

Just a thought...

It was partially green when the Vikings colonized it. That colony failed due to it becomer colder as the medieval optimum (oops I mean medieval warm period - it changed names when warm became evil) ended.

I LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! I am in texas and i think if this "man"( i quotate that because he doesn't believe in evolution so he might not be a man yet) anyway i think we will all die if he takes office in white house!!!

I'm from Texas, too, and I LOATHE Prick Perry. The only bright side of him getting into Washington is he'd no longer be in our state. Unfortunately, then he would have a license to f--- up what's left of our country. The Corporate Fascist Wet Dream would then be realized.

Climate change is a fact. That the data put out by the IPCC is based on manipulated data is a fact. That the earth has gone through several climate changes during it's history is also a fact. The disputed portion is why the climate is changing.

Try doing research outside your comfort zone. I did. I used to be a card carryin' member of the global warming band wagon. Until I started doing my own research about five years ago. And the truth did set me free...

Did you catch the special Documentary by National Geographic that also speaks of the Volcanoes you mentioned earlier? It didn't have an air of bias as far as I'm concerned and it did portray Mankind as having a tremendous impact on the World with our Carbon Footprint, yet illustrated other "Natural" causes as well. Not all of us who believe in Global warming itself are attributing it solely to Mankind; We just recognize the need to intervene and effect changes in the World to help stave off the problem before it becomes irreversible.

There is hope for you, yet!

You are so brainwashed. During the time of Erik the Red there was much green land in Greenland. And, per my earlier cited sources, livescience and Harvard, at one point Greenland was mostly green.

Read. Absorb. Comprehend.

Hey.. I'm just quoting the translation of the Viking ballad. I have no idea how "green" greenland was at the time. You should go debate the 9th century Viking bard who wrote of a land of ice, without a tree in sight. Who knows, maybe they anticipated that there might be climate change deniers in the 21st century and decided to start lying all the way back then. Or maybe Al Gore's invented time travel.

Nice try.

Read the Oregon Petition Project...

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

"The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."^[2]

That petition was started by Frederick Seitz. Bought and paid for first by big tobacco (he didn't believe that smoking causes lung cancer either and attempted to skew scientific evidence that it does) and then by the petrochemical industry. I wonder how many of those 31,000 scientists also were paid for their signatures. Everybody has their price. EVERYBODY.

I'd prefer to be on the err on this matter and make the necessary changes to counter the high temperature spike observed in the last 200 years and turn out to be wrong, than to carry on as we have and our planet ending up like Venus, a planet with an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and a constant surface temperature of 460C. We have no where else to go if we ruin this planet.

And what would those necessary changes be Rachel. Do you REALLY think that global warming can be reversed, or that humans have the resources and means to do it? We've already passed the tipping point so why worry about it?

AC - I knew it! Those Inuit have hidden a lot of the ice so they could have a chance to shoot their dogs. They live there and they don't know the climate is changing?? Are you kidding me? One of the editors of Science Daily is a firth grade science teacher. It is just a collection of articles. They don't evaluate everything they print, or even understand the stuff. The article you referred to, and your reference sounds impressive, is merely on measurement techniques. And the petition you referred to is not what it appears to be. Medical doctors and those with a masters in science are not the top minds in the climate change field, and the petition itself is not as you portray. You people need to step up and do some serious ready and thinking - this stuff you are trotting out is soooooo old.

Rachel, pay no heed to Walleye,. Such "eloquence" easily forgotten....Another brilliant example of the limited Gene Pool and the Children who ate Lead- Paint chips...

Hard to admit when you are wrong, isn't it?

I don't care who started the petition, do you really think that 30,000 scientists are being paid to put their names and reputations against something that has been so well branded over the past 30 years that people who dare challenge the accepted notion of man made global warming are considered nutjobs and conspiracy theorists?

Really? You don't even give it a second thought, do you?

They did a damned fine job of brainwashing you then, didn't they?

Capn-

Check this link from your beloved wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The names on their list are physicists, meterologists and various scientific disciplines that aren't MD's or other medical personnel.

The petrochemical industry is worth trillions. Do you think writing 30,000 checks is difficult for them? Even for a million? You vastly underestimate their powers if so. Labs are desperate for research dollars, many will sign anything to get their projects funded for a while longer.

If reading books and looking at what goes on around me and across the planet is brainwashing, I guess I'm guilty then. Read a book called "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. They're two historians of science who have researched this pattern that big companies have of trying to wiggle their way out of having to clean up after themselves. It's a good start to understanding how this data is being skewed so big businesses can continue polluting the air we breathe. This is not new, big corporations have been doing this for decades. They usually are able to bluff their way through for a while, but end up being proven wrong - as was the case with big tobacco and lung cancer. With anthropogenic climate change, the result isn't millions of Americans dying from lung cancer. It could very well mean the end of the human species.

Please define heat. I have been skydiving when it's 90 degrees at ground level. At 14,700 feet up, it's not cooler, it's COLD by comparison. I'm talking "see your breath" cold. Our atmosphere ends at what altitude?

The alarmist warmists disregard scientific observation and evidence when it contradicts their pet theory.

you have it backwards. These "scientists" who signed a petition are likely fictitious.Come on....look who is advertising it. The right wing morons. If there is such a petition, believe it is false names and degrees. To have a BS means absolutely nothing. It does not make you a scientist. Any one can read about the destruction oil and its by-products are doing to the planet. Evidently the largest problem, as big as the oil is the population explosion. We are absolutely destroying our planet and its beautiful occupants...and I don't mean the people. That "religious" belief that God wants humans to reproduce like rabbits is a toxic concept. These humans expand, destroy the forests and the soil and finish it off with drilling and pumping oil. The green house effect is changing our climate, polluting our air, destroying what is left of our vegetation and natural habitat for the magnificent wildlife. We should be expecting bad things from nature by now and it is all our fault.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a creationist well known for his connections and alliances with right-wing think tanks, Big Oil and Big Tobacco. His viewpoints are dictated by his political agenda and his wallet.

The only country in the world where there is any debate at all about the causes of climate change is the USA, and that debate is purely a political one. End of story.

Forbes, Yahoo and the National Enquirer - Now those are some rockin' science journals. You need to look at the article in its original form, so that results are not filtered or misleading. Further, no one is going to say that models are always right - they are continually developing. Of course other results can contradict, but that does not disprove. In other works, NASA data can disagree, without proving anything "wrong". More heat escaping into space does not mean there is not enough left to cause warming. Further, a lot of heat is "escaping" into the oceans which have been steadily warming (I am talking about all the oceans, in total - yes I know about La Nina.) This heat is going to be with us a long time. Goodness, think about this stuff you are tossing out there, will you?

100 degrees F and 101.2 degress F are still both fevers.

From http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

And there are sites too numerous to mention that state the same thing.

Naturally occuring co2 makes up for 95% of greenhouse gases. Man-made causes are 5%. Yep, if we can just cut our contribution by half we'll make a HUGE difference! :)

AC -

It doesn't matter how many facts you throw at 'em. Their minds are made up and they will always make up something to support their views.

Friend request sent :)

The same can be said of the deniers as well, DeeDee.

And yet only one viewpoint is backed by a consensus of the entire world's climatologists...you know, CLIMATOLOGISTS? Scientists who study climate?

Or do you seriously think these scientists have not looked at "the facts"?

It doesn't matter how many facts you throw at armchair scientists. Their minds are made up and they will always make up something to support their views.

Meanwhile, reputable (the real deal) scientists everywhere shake their heads in disbelief that anyone would lend any credence at all to the views of armchair scientists or paid "experts."

honey bader will make you which you were somewhere else a long wat from here . because honey badger hates everybody. ok you haue been warned!

from1idiot...... It should end right there. Oh, I had best EXPLAIN it to you, huh? I meant your Name. "Honey bader", "wich", " a long wat", "you haue been warned"??????? Keyboarding, Spelling, Grammar.... They still teach these in School?

The whole reason for Laboratory work is to prove or disprove something. Too many of our scientists are working for one side of the coin or another, hence Agenda is a prerequisite. How many super-rich scientists have you heard of lately?

P.S. Pompeii did not erupt, Mt. Vesuvius (the volcano) erupted and that was just Vulcan cleaning house.

@jonjojon.... I stand corrected.... I knew that... but you get my gist.... "Vulcan cleaning house" you get a vote for "funny: I realize that all people have an agenda its just that (like judges) they "assess" based on the facts presented... Otherwise science "fact" becomes science "opinion". On another thread they talking about Creationism v. Evolution. The main proponents argue (though I'm a I.D person) and I partially agree, that Evolution has "scientific" basis and I.D. is mostly Faith.... If the GW Science debate becomes "Who can get the Most Scientist on OUR side" then the Scientific process becomes null and void and one has to wonder how much "science" has been skewed: "life on Mars, Water on the Moon... etc.

I whole heartily believe in science. I don't believe science in it's pure form deny nor confirm God But as Intellectuals have "trouble" believing in God , I to have "trouble" with faith in Scientific (not the process) "agendas".

Flame, I've spent much time as the head of a "Special Projects" Laboratory. The sell-outs I've seen is the reason I left the field and entered another much less controversial. I'm too moral to put up with what was happening; I guess you could say that I finally grasped the message from Ricky Nelson's song "Garden Party"

I don't understand why they put up with all of that. Being that GWB caused this they should simply come to the USA and live on entitlements.

I dont understand why they shoot the dogs. They worked hard for them to get over the ice and snow..duh the ice may be melting but they still have snow. So its the dogs fault that the ice is melting so they have to die. Thats pretty crule considering they helped food on the humans tabl

Cashew, great post. Of course the Republicans could care less; if they send the pollution somewhere else and "it doesn't affect ME", then it's nonsense and therefore doesn't exist. I personally would like to pipe up a chemical sludge line into the house of every anti-green member of Congress to see how quickly they would change their tune if they had to put up with it.

Like many people in Texas, I rely on the oil and gas industry for my paycheck. You wouldn't believe some of the crap that comes out of people's mouths in Texas. They would almost be willing to let industry poison them and their children and grandchildren just so they can keep working. Most of them think Obama is the devil himself. Rick Perry our illustrious governor has called air monitoring "unconstitutional".

I just tell them to go see how much cancer and poor air quality are in the areas where there are lots of chemical plants. Just because you can live in cozy house somewhere else away from it, don't you think that poor people have just as much right to clean air and water as you?

@lemur lady and cashewcacao Ok... First off Republicans have signed more protected habitat than the ANY Dems administration... I'll let you look it up... 2nd I do agree with cashew... Conservation should not trump Civilization.... But we all should be good stewards of the Earth (recylcling, air "scrubbers" better, cleaner ways to clean up oil, alternate energy etc.)... there is nothing wrong with "clean water legislation" but there is something wrong when farmers can't water their fields because of "runoff'. Our Affordable housing is denied because a "spotted Owl" numbers are low. EPA has killed jobs, hindered progress and has dome much damage to the ecology that they supposed protect.

EPA/ Conservationist: Wild horses must be protected and there habitat: Today there is a over population so many "wild" horses have to be culled to control numbers. EPA will not let Water purifiers (in use in Saudi for 20 yrs with no eviron impact and safe) because the "impact" on the surrounding water is "not known".. This would create jobs and eliminate drought stricken areas.... Not to mention Higher energy cost because of "blocking" drilling... The EPA has become a tool (mainly) for the Dems but to be fair... Every Republican administration has done NOTHING to limit there power and have signed bills giving them more authority.

There is a Buddhist/Hindu temple in Cambodia, in the Angkor Wat complex, that has depictions of dinosaurs (Stegosaur) carved into the elaborate stone murals. The complex was built during the early 1100s. I traveled there during the summer of 2007 and veiwed them myself...

There are also many other temples that also depict dinosaurs, spread across the world... see http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=1075

Those are not dinosaurs. They are called dragons and were inspired by fossilized dinosaur bones people dug up from time to time. There is no Biblical justification for the childish belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and evolution does not contradict the scriptures in any way. The vast majority of Christians believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that evolution is simply G*D's chosen method for creating life. We would also like to ask the nutcase fundamentalist radicals to stop embarrassing Christ.

To Benji, you to tell me that X-mas isn't a real holiday? Why is it that "WE" have to be tolerant of all other religions, but we can"t keep ours? What are "THEY" afraid of?

I was stationed up at Thule AB in Northern Greenland for a year... about the time Gore said the polar bear were dying off because the ice ws melting. Well I arrived in April and stayed until the next April and I can tell you that the ocean was forzen solid until the end of July, then it refroze at the end of September. We had two months to get ships in with supplies. We also saw numerous polar bear, seal, arctic, foxes, and arctic hare out there and they seemed to be doing just fine. So I am not sure where all of this BS comes from... but I would recommend you going up there for yourself to see it... nto look at biased photos and stories from people who need government funding to keep supporting themselves. Its not as bad as these so called scientists make it out to be... and by the way the Earth has been going through warming/cooling cycles since it was formed.

Most Christians like myself do NOT believe in the 6000 year old earth. Judaism celebrates the next Jewish New Year as 5770 or so. There was way more than 230 years between Adam and Moses and it took at least a billion years or more than that just to get an earth.

All you have to do is do the math. I guess home schooled fundie Christians don't study much basic math beyond counting their fingers and toes, since most of them are going to marry other fundies and produce more of them--most of them won't "go out" for professions that actually might challenge anything they have been taught. I don't imagine many of them further their studies much in the sciences because then they would have to deal with the fact that their homeschooling grossly underprepared them for actually dealing with real facts and "accepted theories", whether they believe them or not.

If they want to believe that Adam and Eve went to church on their brontosaurus, then I guess they have a right to believe whatever they want. Unfortunately, their ignorance on most matters leaves them unprepared to deal with "the real world".

Most Republicans don't believe in the 6000 year old earth either, so I am puzzled why do you generalize and paint us all as wackos. The dimwits you keep referring to are but a tiny segment of the electorate.

Sknoxs, I've got nothing against Christmas, it was a humorous post. Is that the only statement you find objectionable?

Nobody mentioned Republicans, Wally. You're the only one who perceives this so-called generalizing and painting all Republicans as wackos.

Satan claus is not Christian. Eat many Lead-Paint chips as a Child????? I love your Math!!!!LOL!!!

There is nothing wrong with home schooling. Your children don't have to worry about any of their spoiled rotten, undisciplined, narcissic, insane school mates deciding to blow their heads off afternoon, during lunch.

And the parents can monitor their children's education, ensuring that they are taught to read, write, add, subtract and multiply rather than having the progressive liberal agenda shoved down their impressionable little throats.

@benji2 Hey nice twist on the conservative talking points... to bad you have adressed NOTHING in your post about the article at hand... Real Christians believe in Real Science.... GW science is agenda based... the Golden Rule: (He who has the most gold...Rules)

I agree.

How about shooting some of the HUNTERS who can no longer hunt instead????

It was a birthday party and it was all cakes. I guess they have a taste for more things besides whale blubber and putrefied Greenland shark.

This is the kind of fanatical hyperbole that will kill mankind. There is no chance of a runaway greenhouse effect. The earth is at nearly its coolest point in its existence considering that during the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic periods, i.e. the past two hundred and fifty million years, it is on an average 10 degrees Celsius cooler than normal. CO2 has been historically 10-12 times higher than now. The last time the earth was as cool as it currently is and CO2 levels were this low was approximately 600 million years ago, during the Quaternary period. The "chicken little" Al Gore lemmings use Venus as an example of the "greenhouse effect," but in their dishonesty fail to mention that Venus is on an average over 25 million miles closer to the sun as is the Earth. Pollution control can certainly make life better and safer, but the arrogance of "I invented the Internet" and now "I'm going to save the planet" Gore is more designed to enrich Mr. Gore's pocketbook by selling "carbon credits" and is being used to subdue humanity into submitting to the "enlightened" few, a steady charge towards socialism where the individual must give up their rights for the good, in this case, the sake of the planet. The notion of "man made" global warming is an offense to an intelligent, objective mind. Controlling pollution will benefit us all at the local level and in the short term, but Mother Nature will continue climate change, ice packs will advance and recede, average global temperatures will vary over decades, centuries, and millennium, but the Earth will know no difference. Mankind has a better chance of destroying itself through violence more than anything. The Earth and mankind will end some day, but due to a natural phenomenon, the end of the Sun's stable life cycle, and that is still billions of years in the future.

Thank you Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry for this stunning detailed denial of reality and facts! Be careful if you should ever sail to England, you could fall off the edge of the earth.

And don't forget, only four thousand years ago, we all orginated from the same mid-Eastern couple, Adam and Eve Beck.

Bozo, to which "facts" are you referring to, those of legitimate scientists or those created by Al Gore? The facts I present are well researched and documented, anyone who would like to know the truth can easily find them in true science literature on even on Al Gore's Internet.

Why is it so important to deny global warming? (and to dump on Al Gore at the same time) Is it because if the concept were truly embraced the oil industry would be in the bulls eye of economic restructuring?

I don't think these facts can be denied, the earth came equipped with a fixed or nearly fixed set of elements, one of them being carbon, it being part of the make up of living creatures, carbon dioxide and sequestered hydrocarbons. Mining hydrocarbons for its stored energy, the plastics industry, and fertilizer can be argued is the foundation of the human population explosion and the steadily growing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

When it becomes increasing difficult to obtain this black gold something will have to give, my guess is a great big die off of the human population. Between now and then I think it would be wise to slow down this headlong rush toward this end and focus our efforts on renewable energy, fertilizers that are not based on natural gas, and reforestation that will help level the CO2 growth and pull water (another greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. What is the harm in taking up these goals?

wje, the reason it is important to dismiss "man made global warming" is because it is a fallacy. We do have serious problems on this planet and the notion that we can rely on fossil fuels forever is obviously incorrect. But if we are to address man's problems honestly, we must deal with facts, not chase rainbows.

Wrrong wje37fcsm...the earth did not come "equipped" with fix sets of elements or gases, if you will. You are ignorant of the facts, and try to make up your own. If you knew even a smidgen of science and earth's history, you would know there were all kinds of noxious stuff making up the atmosphere in the beginning. Then came the oceans, and early life evolved in them in shallow tidal pools. It took a very long time for plants to appear, and that is when oxygen started to build up in the atmosphere as a result of photosynthesis.

If this warming is true, the a tipping point has already been passed, and nothing that mere man does will make a bit of difference. The citizens of the U.S., or any other country for that matter, will not give up their way of life, standard of living, creature comforts, or quit driving their cars...it ain't gonna happen. You liberals who never took any science in school and insist in living in a fantasy world, will simply have to learn to adapt and adjust if these dire predictions and scenarios pan out.

Wally - "equipped" may have been a poor choice of words but the meaning is correct. The only way the earth can obtain new elements is by sweeping them up in its trip around the sun. The noxious gases of the early atmosphere included CO2, Nitrogen, Cyanide but little if any free Oxygen, and your point about the long-term process that made an oxygen based atmosphere is correct, but that still does not negate my "liberal" endorsement of redirecting our efforts toward renewable energy and a host of projects that may slow or even reverse the trajectory we are on. "Drill baby drill" is a nice political sentiment for conservatives but is totally wrong headed if you have any concern at all toward the future of our children's planet.

@Wally-

You are right. There were noxious gases in the atmosphere at the time. However, you fail to realize that humans could not live in such an environment. It took the presence of clean air, water, and soil as we know it for us to come into being(however one believes it happened). We, as humans, cannot live in an environment that has noxious things. Just because there may be nothing we can do about a tipping point that may or may not have passed doesn't mean we should make things worse. I am not necessarily talking about global warming but what about clean water, air, and soil? As Americans, we shouldn't be quitters. We should not give up just because we think a tipping point may have passed. If I'm going to go down I'm going to go down fighting. It's only honorable.

Wally, here's food for thought,

You liberals who never took any science in school and insist in living in a fantasy world,

First your post at #19.6 complains about nonexistent generalization against Republicans and now we see that that you are the one who uses the faulty logic of generalizing one person's comments to paint a whole group.

Therealmoronian speaks of "claims" "rainbows" Etc., but his Scientists can prove beyond a doubt that temps and CO2 levels were higher back before the Time of Mankind..."Fanatical hyperbole that will kill Mankind".....Lack of action may kill us too. Show me the Degree buddy, until then don't wear yourself out making YOUR OPINION more prominent. Read my previous post and that is all the Time or Typing I'll waste on you......

TheRealMerridian

"wje, the reason it is important to dismiss "man made global warming" is because it is a fallacy. We do have serious problems on this planet and the notion that we can rely on fossil fuels forever is obviously incorrect. But if we are to address man's problems honestly, we must deal with facts, not chase rainbows."

That the Earth is warming is not in doubt. There is ample reason to end the burning of fossil fuels as quickly as possible without reference to global warming. If global warming were proven to be a purely natural process, that would not alter the consequences for mankind in any way. Your facts about what the atmosphere did in the past are relevant only in so far as they help us to predict the present trend, and therefore allow us to know how much time we have left to correct the problem.

Your debate about the merits of the "man-made" global warming theory is irrelevant. It only serves to deflect public attention away from the pertinent debate on how to stabilize the global climate. It is a fact that we need a slightly cooler global climate to maintain present population levels, and the present level of civilization. If the global temperature continues to rise we will see more erratic, powerful and frequent weather patterns which will destroy cities (such as New Orleans), and will destroy more and more food crops. There will be widespread starvation as fertile lands turn into deserts. 40% of the human race lives within 60 miles of a coastline and most of that will be underwater if sea levels rise even as much a 30 feet, and they will be underwater at high tide long before that. Any, and certainly all, of these eventualities will cause wars, and pandemics. It's time to stop arguing about who or what is to blame, and start discussing how to stop global warming before it stops us. Humanity is in peril, whether the danger is natural or man-made is irrelevant.

I agree (mostly) with Jon... even if we as a whole (world ) would "control" or "reduce" carbon emissions it would not have ANY affect if at all for as long as the "industrial" revolution began.

here is an example: Dust Bowl was caused by over farming: partially true. The topsoil was exposed... Human cause BUT not the prevailing winds and the persistent drought conditions that was present at the time. Human caused GW is just not real... even if it was.. and America led the way... the other countries would continue the practices that would negate if not exasperate our efforts and the conditions.

Sorry Bill - GREENland is part of Denmark currently, ICEland is a completely separate and independent nation. A gallon of gas is around $9 in Norway. The Norwegian government owns a third of Statoil, it taxes the sh!t out of the privately owned two thirds of it's petroleum industry, AND it shoves a microscope up their asses on a regular basis to make sure they aren't on the verge of dumping millions of gallons of crude into their pristine fjords. Norway is a republican's worst nightmare - taxes and regulation!