[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yeah, too bad Swedish Climate Scientist, Bert Bolin, first raised the issue of climate change and global warming almost 40 years prior to that report. Also have to question the political position of the column when it starts out "Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus."" First of all, who ever wrote the article needs to understand what a concensus is. It does not mean unanamity. Second of all, it quotes well known big oil huckster Tim Patterson. On one hand they try to frame the CO2 argument as invalid because of Al Gore's known bias, but then they rely on Tim Patterson's known bias to support the Danish claims. As well, the Hoover Institute, also claimed as a source of information in the article, is well known conservative and pro-industry think tank with links directly to the Bush Administration, not at known for their expertise in climate research. The Hoover Intutte receives the majority f their funding from the Exxon Mobil, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Rockwell and Boeing-McDonnell. So no, definitely no potential conflict in interest there. Interesting article, but seems like it might be corporate disinformation.

Lanny being conservative doesn't make them wrong. Being big oil doesn't make them wrong. Without evidence that that their data is wrong saying that these sources are biased is just another one of your dingbat diatribes.

Considering that:

Saint Al's data has been shown to be less than stellar nevermind his hypocritical lifestyle....

We have gone from 3m rise in the world ocean to 5cm to we are not sure predictions....

We have travelled from Global Cooling to global warming to Climate change to we will keep changing the disasters name as the evidence comes in......

We have gone from record polar ice-caps receeding to oops Southern hemisphere is showing record growth....

Having NASA predict 3-5 degrees Celsius changes to finding out the data was manipulated and it woun't change 1 degree

I'd say the SCIENCE IS NOT IN.