There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.

Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, congressmen, senators, vice presidents or presidents -- is wrong.

In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- 0.037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."

The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.

The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle.

Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing "scientists" to the ACIA "researchers" is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers that create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a global warming hysteria.

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.

There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called "peer review." It's the only true science.

And then, there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually, you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists was monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times, they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so the green zealot.

Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Sen. Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later, NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.

Then there are those computer models. Night after night, Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is that computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than what we have now.

To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large, only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

And so, too, is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.

What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren't consistent with the political agenda the U.N. is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.

Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide.

Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on, and the U.N. has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called the White House stance on global warming "terribly disappointing." McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the "human effect on climate and what to do about it." McCain intends to help build pressure on the president to accept the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically reduced energy standards would -- in the short run -- cost the United States more than one million jobs. Some estimate it would cost more than seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it would cost even more jobs.

It would cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food would skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product would be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government would have to enforce a massive energy tax that would drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood, there would be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon.

There would be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy would increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses and toothpaste.

A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries, including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?

The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

And international corporations that owe allegiance to no nation would bolt America and move their factories lock, stock and computer chip to those Third World countries, where they would be free to carry on production.

But that means the same emissions would be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

And still more looting of the U.S. treasury is planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries' adaption to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies would be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy had been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.

Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?

Who, exactly, was the one who chose the starting point for this "warming" and why is that choice anything other than a reflection of some other bias or agenda?

Dimples, a quick precis: In the 20th century, temperatures warmed slightly (perhaps a continuation of warming out of the Little Ice Age, a slight increase in solar activity, and a contribution from land-use change) from the turn-of-the-century into the 1930s. Then temperatures dipped from the 1940s to the 1970s -- the 1970s were quite cool. From the 1980s on, there has been a more rapid warming trend. The marked increase in the warming trend starting in the 1980s is what has been pointed to as climate change that is being caused primarily by human (anthropogenic) factors.

So when I made my unequivocal statement, I meant there has been measurable warming in the 20th century, and a marked warming trend at the end of the 20th century continuing to present.

But the vast volume of the oceans precludes deep-sea volcanism from being a significant source of heat/warming in the oceans.

I don't know if scientific evidence supports such a contention. Obviously, the information provided in my link says otherwise. Something is affecting the temperature rise in the oceans.

We’ve forgotten that this isn’t the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age.

As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began.

We are living in a period of vastly increased volcanism, said Dixy Lee Ray in her 1993 book Environmental Overkill, the greatest in 500 years.

Eighty percent of all volcanism (say experts at NOAA) occurs underwater. Therefore, underwater volcanism should also be the greatest in 500 years.

I don't want to put words into Boris's mouth but if he meant that human-caused global warming is a hoax, I agree. We're in an interglacial and global temperatures are warming, just as they've done in countless previous glacial-interglacial cycles.

The problem is that it isn't a hoax. (See the reply that is probably just above this one, to Dimples.) Every single model that can be made of the current climate system, incorporating the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, finds warming as a consequence, and because this is due in part to the increasing CO2 concentration, the anthropogenic contribution is not negligible. The marked increase in global temperatures beginning in the 1980s bears the "fingerprint" of anthropogenic factors.

For an alternate opinion, I will provide Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most outspoken climate change skeptics in the current debate:

Revised 21st century temperature projections

"ABSTRACT: Temperature projections for the 21st century made in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate a rise of 1.4 to 5.8°C for 1990-2100. However, several independent lines of evidence suggest that the projections at the upper end of this range are not well supported. Since the publication of the TAR, several findings have appeared in the scientific literature that challenge many of the assumptions that generated the TAR temperature range. Incorporating new findings on the radiative forcing of black carbon (BC) aerosols, the magnitude of the climate sensitivity, and the strength of the climate/carbon cycle feedbacks into a simple upwelling diffusion/energy balance model similar to the one that was used in the TAR, we find that the range of projected warming for the 1990-2100 period is reduced to 1.1-2.8°C. When we adjust the TAR emissions scenarios to include an atmospheric CO2 pathway that is based upon observed CO2 increases during the past 25 yr, we find a warming range of 1.5-2.6°C prior to the adjustments for the new findings. Factoring in these findings along with the adjusted CO2 pathway reduces the range to 1.0-1.6°C. And thirdly, a simple empirical adjustment to the average of a large family of models, based upon observed changes in temperature, yields a warming range of 1.3-3.0°C, with a central value of 1.9°C. The constancy of these somewhat independent results encourages us to conclude that 21st century warming will be modest and near the low end of the IPCC TAR projections."

This is a published, peer-reviwed paper. So one of the most prominent climate change skeptics indicates that the warming range expected for this century lies between 1.0 and 3.0 degrees C, with the "best value" 1.9 degrees C, which is three times faster than the rate of warming in the 20th century -- and at least some of this warming in the 21st century will be due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations -- meaning human factors are implicated.

The argument should center on whether or not global warming in the 21st century will be a problem. If Michaels is wrong, and the warming is twice what he thinks is likely (the "low end of the IPCC TAR projections"), then it will be. There's a paper out right now in Nature in which two different groups find that the European scorching summer of 2003 will be the normal summer weather 50% of the time in 2050 (but they do use one of the more outlandish projections of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, so I tend not to believe it will be that bad). However, it would be less-than-ideal of a summer like 2003 happened once every five years.

Would you, could you, go to the site referenced in this post and tell us if all those glaciers mentioned in North America and elsewhere are not really growing in size,bulk.

I could not find a specific site in your post or in the article. So I looked on Google and found the following:

Global Warming: Glaciers and Ice Caps

Read those articles and see what you think. I have not seen any recent references to glaciers growing or the Arctic ice cap getting larger. All of the references that I've seen in the past five years have indicated that glacial recession is the norm (though they are still some glaciers advancing), and the Arctic ice cap is shrinking.

I am convinced as has been stated elsewhere in these treads that the sun has more to do with crustal and atmospheric warming then anything mankind could be found guilty of. If the sun is pumping out huge amounts of IR etc. due to increase sun spot activities the earth is going to become warmer. Period.

You're right, if the Sun is becoming more active, then this would be true. But for the past 25 years or so, this apparently does not apply, and the Earth is still getting warmer.

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

Thanks for the reference sites. Here is one for you if you are interested:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_27b.html
I found it contains some rather interesting articles as how biased certain groups have been on the global warming issue.
Interesting article on Krill verse ice pack in the Orkany Island chain north of Antartic mainland. Another on the supposed air temp increases north of N62 deg.

I wish I could find where I read something recently on mis-reporting as to the thickness of certain areas of the north polar ice cap, supposedly shrinking, but upon carefull investigation, it was found to be misleading. That is, the areas measured by one of our subs, reported X thicknesses in given location. Upon returning to same area later, the thickness diminished, but then it was found that the ice simply shifted a bit, and the conclusion was that there was no loss of ice in that area. Just to much stuff comes out only to be later refuted by someone else.

At any rate, thanks for the hyperlinks.

Ah. Here is a site that talks about the "growing size of glaciers in north america". Here is the reference.
http://www.iceagenow.com/

Interesting. I am reading about the Himalayas's problem with shrinking glaciers from the the site you share above, then see an opposite situation in what I read concerning north america.

Both are probably accurate un-biased reports. And climatic changes in Europe show a positive temperature rise. Then we can go down to the Antarctic and find colder surface/air temps on the main continent, resulting in increased polar cap thickness. Then we can according to some find that the north pole ice cap is actually growing in size rather then shrinking. We can read one scientific research report that negates the findings of another due to many reasons such as not including known reliable data taken from other similiar investigations. I can read in one report that the projected air temperature rise globally may be 1.7 deg C./ year, and in another report find it will differ.

I for one only would expect honest scientific research to be conducted then reported. But I realize the many reasons why this is a pipe dream. And honesty does not neccessarily indicate that one is presenting the "facts". Often the most conclusive research often can be found quite flawed.

This is one reason I have not delved into the global warming issue up to this point. It only bothers me when certain elements try to use it to extract American dollars for third world nations etc., weaken the ability of industry in this country to produce goods, based on erroneous research.

Here's an an article about Antarctic temperatures you might find of interest:

STUDY SHOWS POTENTIAL FOR ANTARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE

"Findings from the study, conducted by researchers Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), New York, appear in this week's Geophysical Research Letters. Shindell and Schmidt found depleted ozone levels and greenhouse gases are contributing to cooler South Pole temperatures."

"Low ozone levels in the stratosphere and increasing greenhouse gases promote a positive phase of a shifting atmospheric climate pattern in the Southern Hemisphere, called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). A positive SAM isolates colder air in the Antarctic interior."

"In the coming decades, ozone levels are expected to recover due to international treaties that banned ozone-depleting chemicals. Higher ozone in the stratosphere protects Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The study found higher ozone levels might have a reverse impact on the SAM, promoting a warming, negative phase. In this way, the effects of ozone and greenhouse gases on the SAM may cancel each other out in the future. This could nullify the SAM's affects and cause Antarctica to warm."

I wish I could find where I read something recently on mis-reporting as to the thickness of certain areas of the north polar ice cap, supposedly shrinking, but upon carefull investigation, it was found to be misleading. That is, the areas measured by one of our subs, reported X thicknesses in given location. Upon returning to same area later, the thickness diminished, but then it was found that the ice simply shifted a bit, and the conclusion was that there was no loss of ice in that area. Just to much stuff comes out only to be later refuted by someone else.

A reference to the study you are describing above was provided in another thread I participated in, probably in the last month. Googling... here's one reference to it. The study you mentioned was conducted by Holloway.

Thaw observations on thin ice

In response to that, I found a reference that indicates something even more complex is at work. Googling again... and may I say Google is darned amazing at times, it found the FR thread:

Arctic sea ice not melting: new research

The weird thing I noted when I saw this was that the initial article was dated 2001. Not exactly new. The key posts in the thread are 15, 16, 19, 23, and 25.

This brief exchange demonstrates one of the things that I know about science, which I think many people don't always realize -- to whit, that it's rare to ever "settle" a contentious issue in science. A new piece of data or a new way to analyze it can completely flummox the existing "understanding" and push it in a whole new direction. Hard certainty is hard to come by in science. Sooo... there are a lot of data indicating that the Earth has been a relatively rapid warming state since the 1980s, and an increasing number of climate scientists are stating that this is probably a warming "signal" with an anthropogenic component. There are very likely natural factors involved as well, which can both contribute to or detract from the present and future warming. What really needs to be done now is to concentrate on getting a much-improved handle on what's most likely to happen in the next 50 years or so, so that useful and expedient responses can be formulated, and implemented when necessary.

And I don't think that restrictive and punitive methods such as those used by the Kyoto Protocol will ever be useful and expedient.

measurable warming in the 20th century

You are making my point. Temps from the PRIOR interglacial period (125,000 to 130,000 years ago or so), crested higher than temps today. It would seem, that even without the dreaded anthropogenic CO2, the climate is quite capable of warming.

If one only goes back to the 1400's, one finds a climate warmer than today.

One might be tempted to view 20th century warming as a recovery from 19th century cooling.

The problem, as I see it, is not warming or cooling (Climate Happens;)it's the notion that HUMANKIND is responsible for it.

You have admitted in prior discussions that we do not know if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a CAUSE or an EFFECT of warming. To presume CO2 is the cause is to build subjective bias into the models.

Which takes me back to my other point: what agenda is at work behind the "Global Warming is all man's fault" crowd?

The debate about whether warming is happing is but a diversion from the real issue. Warming happens, Cooling happens, Ice Age happens. There is no "normal" nor "ideal" climate unless you accept constant change as the norm. The real issue is whether science will continue to be the "useful idiot" of those who either wish to cripple the US or just don't think humankind belongs in nature.

No, I'm not making your point, you're trying to make yours. There are various rates and magnitudes of climate change. Sure, temperatures have been higher in the geological past -- but the climate system was different. The Earth was different. Rates are different; the mechanisms that change global temperatures over millions of years are different from those that change temperatures over thousands of years, and those are different from the mechanisms that change temperatures over hundreds of years or decades.

You asked about how "global warming" was defined. I told you. In the present debate, it's basically about now and the past 150 years.

If one only goes back to the 1400's, one finds a climate warmer than today.

That's a debatable point, but yes, the 1400s were warm. The absolute magnitude vs. today is less important than how long it took to get there. The data appear to indicate that the warming into the 1400s started roughly AD 1000. And cooling off from 1400 to the depths of the early 1800s took, obviously, 200-300 years. The changes being observed over this century are 2-5 times faster. That's critical to the attribution of the mechanism that can drive such changes.

One might be tempted to view 20th century warming as a recovery from 19th century cooling.

Maybe the case can be made for the late 19th century and very early 20th century. Not after the 1930s.

There's no doubt that atmospheric CO2 affects the overall radiative balance. There's a lot of feedbacks involved in what happens after, so calculation of the overall effect is not straightforward. In glacial-interglacial transitions, a warming ocean released CO2 -- warmer waters can hold less dissolved CO2 than colder waters. This is why temperature increases drive CO2 at those transitions. But global climate models which model the Pleistocene glaciations incorporate the radiative effects of CO2. There have to be "override" mechanisms such as Milankovitch forcing that counter the CO2-climate connection.

Which takes me back to my other point: what agenda is at work behind the "Global Warming is all man's fault" crowd?

A totally different question. Addressing the political motives of those for and against the global warming response is different than a scientific assessment of what's really happening.

There is no "normal" nor "ideal" climate unless you accept constant change as the norm.

I disagree somewhat with that. Stating as a given that there is some contribution of anthropogenic factors to climate (noting that one recent paper indicated that climate effects can even be discerned at the advent of human agriculture) -- there is a theoretical mode of climate absent all anthropogenic forcing, and there is the real mode of climate which includes anthropogenic forcing. Since humans are present on Earth, "normal" is present-day climate. Ideally, humans would act to limit the deleterious effects of anthropogenic forcing as much as is possible. But ideal conflicts with reality when including economic and social factors. We can't deny a decent standard of living to those who don't have it now just because we don't want them to do the same things to the environment that we did to get where we are now, and we shouldn't have to hurt our own standards of living, either, especially when climate change outcomes are so poorly defined. So the alternative is to try and figure out what's going on, and to do what can feasibly be done to reduce the potential bad effects.

For example I was working with an endangered rattlesnake. My research showed that the decline was due to habitat loss/degradation. In the park I work at, several wetlands (the hibernacula for this particular snake) were ditched prior to the park formation. While it would be irresponsible to say that the ditch itself is responsible for the decline, the subsequent loss of proper wetland habitat clearly is. The data shows the presence of the ditch is not related to this snakes presence or abundance, while the data does show that the presence or lack of ephemeral wetlands is related. The presence of ephemeral wetlands was shown not to be related to ditches, as some ditched areas still contain these wetlands due to other factor (mainly topography). That puts the researcher in a conundrum in that a simple logical extrapolation of my data makes it clear that the ditching of the wetland is a major cause of the decline, however I cannot attribute the actual ditch to it. As a scientist I can only report what I found, the interpretation of it is up to the reader. Hopefully that somewhat explains where I am coming from. It is very difficult to show direction causation in an open system, I think this holds true in the global warming issue as well as some of my work.

Based on the above statements, I would conject that a 'critical mass' of the habitat is required for the species (and this would be true for any species that has such specific requirements). So, while the ditched areas do not show the same effects on the snake habitat in each case, they do result in a reduction of habitat that may reduce it below that 'critical mass' required for the species to prosper. Consequently, the existence of ditching within a habitat will have varying effect, sometimes below the threshold of detectibility.

As for global warming: It is a myth propagated by the anti-American, anti-capitalist crowd. The Greens in Europe and their sickly cousins here were funded by the Soviets and Communist Chinese to undermine the US/West, predominantly by crippling our economies through litigation in order to make us less efficient so that the communist economies had a chance to compete. There is a great deal of meaning to the term 'Watermelon'. The so-called environmentalists seem to have nothing to say about the brown cloud over China and India, which are not subjected to rigorous controls by Kyoto, but let one cow fart in Iowa and it is Global Warming and the end of the world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.