Enough gripe. Time to focus on the positive!!!

#1-- Get to plan a whole new trip a week out!!
#2-- get to plan new campsite potential and fishing areas/lakes
#3 -- get to get more maps
#4--- new growth of the forest.
#5 **my favorite** --all the Co2 added to the atmosphere by the fire which will come up the next time I get into discussions with my human induced GW buddies!!!!

Only 1: Hopefully the Polly bear took a dirt nap.

quote WhiteWolf: "Enough gripe. Time to focus on the positive!!!
#5 **my favorite** --all the Co2 added to the atmosphere by the fire which will come up the next time I get into discussions with my human induced GW buddies!!!!
"

You go, Guy!!!
Then toss a few volcanic eruptions into the mix for a little "icing" on the cake!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Well... technically, doing nothing is doing something so it was human induced by choice. Maybe it was sloth. Either way.

I'm glad I've got pictures. That's a plus!!! Oh and don't forget the over abundance of blueberries we'll be blessed with, in a few years... Grab your granola!

Another plus would be if these policies akin to slash and burn actually were meant to preserve something. The Hypocracy should not be lost here. That another plus!!!

Thanks for taking the positive approach - I needed a little respective.

Maybe the new browes will help the moose out. We can hope a little.
CB

quote Cedarboy: "Maybe the new browes will help the moose out. We can hope a little.
CB"

It definitely will. A am amazed the number of people who think the BWCA will be destroyed. Go next year. The new life will be stunning. Your favorite campsite may be gone. I think most are whining because the new is going to be new and the old gone.

Cycles like lightning induced regeneration are natural. What paddlers want is the artificial.

And meanwhile get your map navigational skills up to date. Navigating in a burned area is far different than in a mature forest.

1. Hopefully the campsite on Polly on the very NorthWest arm gets a face lift. Maybe the worst site I have seen in the BWCA, or at least one that really disliked anyway.

2. The flatearth society shows up.

Everyone should stay out of the BWCA for a few years. It is a dangerous nasty place.

Many new maps all around - the old ones may need to be updated as campsites may move, etc.

Voyageur maps will need new editions showing the fire boundaries as they've done for other major burn areas.

Blueberries and moose browse - YES!

quote KennyLogIn: "Everyone should stay out of the BWCA for a few years. It is a dangerous nasty place."

Let me know how it goes. I'll be curious.

quote Chilly: "Only 1: Hopefully the Polly bear took a dirt nap.


"

+1 :-)

Just because forest fires and volcanoes put co2 into the atmosphere does not mean global warming is not caused by man too. We are all contributing factors; forest fires, volcanos, and Hondas.

YEAH!

Burn your Honda man!

quote YaMarVa: "Just because forest fires and volcanoes put co2 into the atmosphere does not mean global warming is not caused by man too. We are all contributing factors; forest fires, volcanos, and Hondas. "

You forgot ocean evaporation and sun spots (solar flares nowadays)!! :)

Interesting read on forest fires. It's amazing what is available on the internet for curious souls. Effect of forest fires on carbon emissions

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote YaMarVa: "Just because forest fires and volcanoes put co2 into the atmosphere does not mean global warming is not caused by man too. We are all contributing factors; forest fires, volcanos, and Hondas. "

You forgot ocean evaporation and sun spots (solar flares nowadays)!! :)"

TGO, I know you would like all the information on this subject you can get. Something about climate change and oceans

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote YaMarVa: "Just because forest fires and volcanoes put co2 into the atmosphere does not mean global warming is not caused by man too. We are all contributing factors; forest fires, volcanos, and Hondas. "

You forgot ocean evaporation and sun spots (solar flares nowadays)!! :)"

And cow shit!

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote WhiteWolf: "Enough gripe. Time to focus on the positive!!!
#5 **my favorite** --all the Co2 added to the atmosphere by the fire which will come up the next time I get into discussions with my human induced GW buddies!!!!
"

You go, Guy!!!
Then toss a few volcanic eruptions into the mix for a little "icing" on the cake!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!"

Common Sense: Nice to see that some of us have not drinking the Al Gore Kool-Aid. LOL!!

quote whiteh20: "

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote WhiteWolf: "Enough gripe. Time to focus on the positive!!!
#5 **my favorite** --all the Co2 added to the atmosphere by the fire which will come up the next time I get into discussions with my human induced GW buddies!!!!
"

You go, Guy!!!
Then toss a few volcanic eruptions into the mix for a little "icing" on the cake!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!"

Common Sense: Nice to see that some of us have not drinking the Al Gore Kool-Aid. LOL!!"

More like common nonsense. I did not know Al Gore had a Kool-Aid flavor.

Common sense would be to believe what 99% of scientific research has shown.

Do you also believe the world is flat?

Regardless of politics the earth is warming (which is has done in the past) and humans are contributing to it.

I cannot resist to play Devil's Advocate:
Is the earth flat: NO
BUT:
Has the earth ever warmed before?
What caused it??
Why did Al Gore buy a $9 million home off the coast of California that will be under water when all the glaciers melt, killing off the polar bears??
Why can we only "save" the planet by purchasing carbon credits from Al Gore, and making him a billionaire in the process??
The Snake Oil Salesmen used to travel around in the covered wagons, and have dancing girls with tambourines and castanets, selling it to the crowd??
Only difference, Al uses an airplane?? :)

According to THIS the Al Gore science may be incorrect. Science is an evolving practice, so let's not jump to conclusions and get all "whizzy" with each other.

quote AndySG: "According to THIS the Al Gore science may be incorrect. Science is an evolving practice, so let's not jump to conclusions and get all "whizzy" with each other. "

Stats can be shown to prove anything if you know the results you want before you start. Spencer, the author of the article, is a fringe scientist.

"I find it difficult to believe that I am the first researcher to figure out what I describe in this book. Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it. That is a serious charge, I know, but it is a conclusion that is difficult for me to avoid."
Spencer

Climate change is occurring. The science agrees. To what extent man has impact is whats being debated. The chaos theory the author suggests above, has the potential to be true, for a very short time frame. It is not accurate predictor for long term climate change. And the author understands and recognizes this.

Oh, and to boot he is a conspiracy theorist!

quote The Great Outdoors: "I cannot resist to play Devil's Advocate:
Is the earth flat: NO
BUT:
Has the earth ever warmed before?
What caused it??
Why did Al Gore buy a $9 million home off the coast of California that will be under water when all the glaciers melt, killing off the polar bears??
Why can we only "save" the planet by purchasing carbon credits from Al Gore, and making him a billionaire in the process??
The Snake Oil Salesmen used to travel around in the covered wagons, and have dancing girls with tambourines and castanets, selling it to the crowd??
Only difference, Al uses an airplane?? :)"

This has been a fun way to kill a boring day in my office.

Has the earth ever warmed before?
-Yes, many times.

What caused it??
-Many things, this time humans are contributing to it.

Why did Al Gore buy a $9 million home off the coast of California that will be under water when all the glaciers melt, killing off the polar bears??
- Because he has the money to, is a hypocrite, is arrogant, and an elitist. This does not negate the human impact on global warming.

Why can we only "save" the planet by purchasing carbon credits from Al Gore, and making him a billionaire in the process??
- It is not the way to save the planet. And I do not think Al Gore is selling carbon credits. That would be the governments job. I do not think Al would make money from this, the UN and US government would.

The Snake Oil Salesmen used to travel around in the covered wagons, and have dancing girls with tambourines and castanets, selling it to the crowd??
- Is this a question or a statement?

Only difference, Al uses an airplane??
- and a movie (which I have never seen)

quote AndySG: "According to THIS the Al Gore science may be incorrect. Science is an evolving practice, so let's not jump to conclusions and get all "whizzy" with each other. "

Well said! Many of the scientists have been wrong and changed their opinions on this politically twisted story. The initial scientific data has been presented in a bias form and eventually we will find the overall human impact has been over dramatized as with most breaking news. The truth and facts are coming out and it seems we have a lot of backing off of late. AL GORE is a pet. His prior fame and ignorant scientific mind got him sucked in. Combined with his need for the spotlight and eventual profit it’s a no brainer he riding the wave and will deny it all in ignorance someday. The Nobel Prize was another biased joke. Granted cleaning up how humans do things is a good idea either way. However many professionals got paid to accept that thought as well and biased the data to support the drama and perpetuate the hype.

quote AndySG: "According to THIS the Al Gore science may be incorrect. Science is an evolving practice, so let's not jump to conclusions and get all "whizzy" with each other. "

I don't consider Forbes magazine a credible or politically neutral source of information on matters of science.

quote whiteh20: "

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote WhiteWolf: "Enough gripe. Time to focus on the positive!!!
#5 **my favorite** --all the Co2 added to the atmosphere by the fire which will come up the next time I get into discussions with my human induced GW buddies!!!!
"

You go, Guy!!!
Then toss a few volcanic eruptions into the mix for a little "icing" on the cake!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!"

Common Sense: Nice to see that some of us have not drinking the Al Gore Kool-Aid. LOL!!"

Al Gore didn't invent climate change any more than he invented the internet. What he did do was make us more aware that the way we humans have been living since the industrial revolution has had an effect on climate change.

There is no doubt that "natural" (not human induced) causes have effected global climate change in the 4.5 billion year lifespan of the planet earth. Science has led us to understand this, not politicians, special interest groups, religious organizations or big business corporations.

What climate scientists (98% of them anyway) are now telling us is that humans are contributing to climate change for the first time in our brief history.

You can listen to the 98% of climate scientists who have spent their careers studying the subject of climate change and who have come to the conclusion that humans are responsible for contributing to climate change, or you can listen to politicians and scientists that have been bought and influenced by big businesses that profit from the use of fossil fuels, lobbyists who are paid by the same big businesses, your priest, minister, neighbor or TGO. It's your choice.

If you choose to disbelieve that humans are partly responsible for global warming it does not mean that I will dislike you or not respect your opinion. I will still buy my leeches at the Great Outdoors in Ely and look to TGO for fishing advice because I like and respect the person. I will still look for advice on camping and canoeing from WhiteH20 at BWCA.com because I like and respect the person. We will agree to disagree on whether or not man has been influencing global warming due to his/her lifestyle choices in the past 100 years.

Two sides to every argument. Counter article

quote mc2mens: "

quote AndySG: "According to THIS the Al Gore science may be incorrect. Science is an evolving practice, so let's not jump to conclusions and get all "whizzy" with each other. "

I don't consider Forbes magazine a credible or politically neutral source of information on matters of science. "

Oh boy a classic. If you would have read the article..

"Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing."

But of course they aren't credible either to a closed mind.

quote wildernessfan2: "

quote mc2mens: "

quote AndySG: "According to THIS the Al Gore science may be incorrect. Science is an evolving practice, so let's not jump to conclusions and get all "whizzy" with each other. "

I don't consider Forbes magazine a credible or politically neutral source of information on matters of science. "

Oh boy a classic. If you would have read the article..


"Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing."


But of course they aren't credible either to a closed mind. "

I did read the article. But of course you didn't get my point. I am curious though - why do you feel compelled to comment on the openness of my mind. Do you think you know me well enough to do that?

quote KennyLogIn: "Everyone should stay out of the BWCA for a few years. It is a dangerous nasty place."

Hehehehe! Now I like this idea. Tell everyone to stay away. Maybe I can get a permit for Lake One easier!

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the fact that the fish will still be in the lake. Am I right?

Oh yeah and.... wasn't this thread suppossed to be POSITIVE?
Lighten up ;)

Remember that most of the people that are on the human induced global warming side (that are old enough) were calling for an ice age in the mid 70's.
Not going to discount anyone on here, but having made a living in the weather field (both forecasting and climate etc) over the past 13 years,, I would have to personally disagree with the 98% statement. I'am not a degreed meteorologist but have worked with many over the course of this time as well as several climatologists over the years. I have not met one that agrees that humans are responsible for GW. Most will not state their claims publicly of rejection of human induced GW , but will not deny it either. Those who have face scrutiny from peers and some have lost jobs, thou none that I know personally. The field publicly is heavily shifted towards GW,, but privately nearly all are smart enough to realize that humans are a very small part of almost infinite set of variables that drive the climate, and these set of variables are constantly changing to and fro.

Have had to put this is different segments due to length-

The facts state the we are in a period of warm temperatures over the past 30-40 years. (Will just focus on N.A) Most 30 year running mean temperatures have increased (the normals you hear on the news) when the most update to ones were computed from 1980-2010 replacing the ones from 1970-2000. This is fact. Winters seem to warming up and summers slightly cooling down,, but the winters are winning this battle and driving up the annual temp. Remember, I 'am talking long term. In this time frame,, many reporting stations have had significant changes around them, urban sprawl etc. With more buildings and concrete etc. Also-- many more weather reporting stations are on line now then were on line 30 years ago, and a point can made that most are located near urban areas and few in remote areas-- so if Urban Sprawl is occurring, it can skew the data. I could go into many detailed examples, but will forgo and focus on factors that are more key.

So where should we be watching??? The OCEANS!!! The oceans contain nearly 75% of the surface area of the world and we all know water is very hard to change the temperature off. The oceans drive the worlds' weather more then any other single element,,, from such things as moving the jet stream, changing long term weather trends, hurricanes and monsoons etc. Accurate surface temperatures of the oceans have only been taken by satellites since the 1950's with buoy and ships reports only a miniscule amount. This data has allowed climate people to discover trends or teleconnections that oceans produce on land. Example-- point X area in the ocean is abnormally Warm which is leading to point Y area on land being abnormally "dry" or "cold" or whatever. The most famous are EL NINO and LA NINA which or so over played by the media it's not even funny. One that gets little fanfare is the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It measures a bigger picture of oceanic heat content in the Pacific and runs in much longer cycles (25-35 years) than the Nino's or Nina's. Thus it's more long term. Many climate people including myself and my peers are thinking we are coming out of a PDO that was favorable for the warm conditions we have experienced over the past 30 years and entering one that can "phase" into a cooler period for the next cycle. But once again, it's just one player on a field of many. It's like blaming the kicker for missing a field goal to win the game when the offense fumbled 6 times in the red zone. The PDO is starting to become more like a QB in the scheme of things, rather than a reserve fullback.

also--

A note on energy and temperature-- many think temperature as of how we "feel" and that is fine for most topics. But on a science aspect, temperature is a measurement of energy. The more energy,, the higher the temperatures.However, most don't know that one degree rise from -31F to -30F or from 95F to 96F is EQUAL in the amount of difference the energy changed. HOWEVER-- (moisture not included) ,, it's much harder to maintain 95F and then ADD energy to get to 96F then it's too get from -31F to -30F,, just because there is little energy their to begin with. SO we should concentrate on summers and the tropics getting warmer before the poles. And then you could talk water vapor,, which I digress.

quote talusman: "Interesting read on forest fires. It's amazing what is available on the internet for curious souls. Effect of forest fires on carbon emissions "

Interesting article, talusman, thanks for sharing.

quote WhiteWolf: "Remember that most of the people that are on the human induced global warming side (that are old enough) were calling for an ice age in the mid 70's.
Not going to discount anyone on here, but having made a living in the weather field (both forecasting and climate etc) over the past 13 years,, I would have to personally disagree with the 98% statement. I'am not a degreed meteorologist but have worked with many over the course of this time as well as several climatologists over the years. I have not met one that agrees that humans are responsible for GW. Most will not state their claims publicly of rejection of human induced GW , but will not deny it either. Those who have face scrutiny from peers and some have lost jobs, thou none that I know personally. The field publicly is heavily shifted towards GW,, but privately nearly all are smart enough to realize that humans are a very small part of almost infinite set of variables that drive the climate, and these set of variables are constantly changing to and fro. "

Meteorologists are not climatologists. They study snap shots of data including humidity,air pressure, etc. Not C02 models, methane, etc.

Meteorologists need to study immediate weather impact, long term trends have no value to them.

Climatologists do study the long term patterns and branch out to specialized area like Paleoclimatology and Historical Climatology. Meteorologists do work with them but, are focused on the short term for obvious reasons. When making forecasts they do consider monthly and yearly patterns that do persist. Decadal patterns are reaching for them when it comes to weekly forecasts but, as individuals they use every bit of data they can to give the best short term forecast possible.
It's all about interpretation of the data and there is no solid science to even make a 100% perfect forecast 24 hours out. So no scientist or prophet or model really has a clue with millions of years of “data” and even if so it would be their interpretation of the data and thus bias by nature.

I agree. Climatologists do study long term, I was referring to meteorologists. Sorry for poor grammar.

quote WhiteWolf: "So where should we be watching??? The OCEANS!!! The oceans contain nearly 75% of the surface area of the world and we all know water is very hard to change the temperature off. The oceans drive the worlds' weather more then any other single element,,, from such things as moving the jet stream, changing long term weather trends, hurricanes and monsoons etc. Accurate surface temperatures of the oceans have only been taken by satellites since the 1950's with buoy and ships reports only a miniscule amount. This data has allowed climate people to discover trends or teleconnections that oceans produce on land. Example-- point X area in the ocean is abnormally Warm which is leading to point Y area on land being abnormally "dry" or "cold" or whatever. The most famous are EL NINO and LA NINA which or so over played by the media it's not even funny. One that gets little fanfare is the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It measures a bigger picture of oceanic heat content in the Pacific and runs in much longer cycles (25-35 years) than the Nino's or Nina's. Thus it's more long term. Many climate people including myself and my peers are thinking we are coming out of a PDO that was favorable for the warm conditions we have experienced over the past 30 years and entering one that can "phase" into a cooler period for the next cycle. But once again, it's just one player on a field of many. It's like blaming the kicker for missing a field goal to win the game when the offense fumbled 6 times in the red zone. The PDO is starting to become more like a QB in the scheme of things, rather than a reserve fullback."

And here is a report put out last week regarding sea ice link

Put out in part by the U of MN. Link is on the left side. I work at the University and just saw him speak, so to summarize:

Ice is melting, at this point at the lowest level ever in history (or at least 800,000 years). Man is contributing to this. We most likely won't see a train wreck (all coastal cities flooded) if we take some action. If we dont' we venture into the unknown. The last 1000 years are an anomaly. We have never seen such a drastic shift.

quote flopnfolds: "I agree. Climatologists do study long term, I was referring to meteorologists. Sorry for poor grammar. "

I was just pointing out what Climotologists do versus what Mets don't do..your gramma was fine. I have been in these GW conversations many times and discrediting people and data is so common I just wanted to credit the others he did mention.

I have seen studies that show aloss, but nothin like that. Typin from aphone, but will I show later on studies that show antartica has its greatest sea ice extent in recorded history. Over the past 30 or so yeard, the NH has lost net sea ice while the SH has gained. One study eithet way doesnt prove anything.

It's all about interpretation of the data and there is no solid science to even make a 100% perfect forecast 24 hours out. So no scientist or prophet or model really has a clue with millions of years of “data” and even if so it would be their interpretation of the data and thus bias by nature.

I have been in these GW conversations many times and discrediting people and data is so common it's disgusting.

OK I am done playing point counterpoint on this subject.

quote YaMarVa: "

quote The Great Outdoors: "I cannot resist to play Devil's Advocate:
Is the earth flat: NO
BUT:
Has the earth ever warmed before?
What caused it??
Why did Al Gore buy a $9 million home off the coast of California that will be under water when all the glaciers melt, killing off the polar bears??
Why can we only "save" the planet by purchasing carbon credits from Al Gore, and making him a billionaire in the process??
The Snake Oil Salesmen used to travel around in the covered wagons, and have dancing girls with tambourines and castanets, selling it to the crowd??
Only difference, Al uses an airplane?? :)"

This has been a fun way to kill a boring day in my office.


Why can we only "save" the planet by purchasing carbon credits from Al Gore, and making him a billionaire in the process??
- It is not the way to save the planet. And I do not think Al Gore is selling carbon credits. That would be the governments job. I do not think Al would make money from this, the UN and US government would.


The Snake Oil Salesmen used to travel around in the covered wagons, and have dancing girls with tambourines and castanets, selling it to the crowd??
- Is this a question or a statement?

Only difference, Al uses an airplane??
- and a movie (which I have never seen)

"

YaMarVa,
Google "Generation Investment Management", and check out Gore's financial connections to Carbon Credits.
Dig deeper, there's more.
If Cap & Trade had passed, Al makes reeeallly big bucks!!
Also, the last two statements were supposed to run together as one topic, I shouldn't have tossed in the first question mark!! :)

quote flopnfolds: "

quote WhiteWolf: "So where should we be watching??? The OCEANS!!! The oceans contain nearly 75% of the surface area of the world and we all know water is very hard to change the temperature off. The oceans drive the worlds' weather more then any other single element,,, from such things as moving the jet stream, changing long term weather trends, hurricanes and monsoons etc. Accurate surface temperatures of the oceans have only been taken by satellites since the 1950's with buoy and ships reports only a miniscule amount. This data has allowed climate people to discover trends or teleconnections that oceans produce on land. Example-- point X area in the ocean is abnormally Warm which is leading to point Y area on land being abnormally "dry" or "cold" or whatever. The most famous are EL NINO and LA NINA which or so over played by the media it's not even funny. One that gets little fanfare is the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It measures a bigger picture of oceanic heat content in the Pacific and runs in much longer cycles (25-35 years) than the Nino's or Nina's. Thus it's more long term. Many climate people including myself and my peers are thinking we are coming out of a PDO that was favorable for the warm conditions we have experienced over the past 30 years and entering one that can "phase" into a cooler period for the next cycle. But once again, it's just one player on a field of many. It's like blaming the kicker for missing a field goal to win the game when the offense fumbled 6 times in the red zone. The PDO is starting to become more like a QB in the scheme of things, rather than a reserve fullback."

And here is a report put out last week regarding sea ice link


Put out in part by the U of MN. Link is on the left side. I work at the University and just saw him speak, so to summarize:


Ice is melting, at this point at the lowest level ever in history (or at least 800,000 years). Man is contributing to this. We most likely won't see a train wreck (all coastal cities flooded) if we take some action. If we dont' we venture into the unknown. The last 1000 years are an anomaly. We have never seen such a drastic shift. "

I tried pulling up the PDF file and I had to join the association to view the piece. No thanks. But I get the drift.
800,000 years ago,, 400,000,, 200,000 ?? please. To put such trust in "knowing" what happened this amount of time ago is absurd. I'll go back to the written record of man to about 3000-3500BC,, and beyond that no go. Sometimes I think "scientists" publish such detailed pieces (meaning well) but that the common person has no clue in understanding. Because they have PHD or MD or whatever qualifies them to be super smart or whatever and flaunt this. Just like the congressman or senator who wears a suit and tie and carries a nice leather briefcase, but don't know jack about what he's doing. Not saying that about all climate scientists,, but some I wonder about.
Let's look at Greenland--- in the past 1000 years,, where man has been around to record and see things FIRST HAND. I don't know any climate scientist personally that disagrees that Greenland and Iceland during the times of the Vikings were drastically different than they are today. Some of the high-hooting "scientists" forgot what happened in recorded human history, it happened folks!!

Easily forgotten!

From the American Institute of Physics, a timeline of the discovery of global warming. Damn scientists have been about this business of fooling the public for over a hundred years!

...and Lord knows these guys are not to be trusted either.

...and then there's this high falootin organization. Why do we keep funding them. Don't get me goin'!

quote mc2mens: "From the American Institute of Physics, a timeline of the discovery of global warming. Damn scientists have been about this business of fooling the public for over a hundred years!"

Didn't one of their Nobel Prize winning scientists, Iver Giaver, just resign earlier this week because he refutes their stance on global warning??? (Iver Giaver SP??????)
Haven't many others also refuted man made global warming, but few agencies report that??

quote The Great Outdoors: "

quote mc2mens: "From the American Institute of Physics, a timeline of the discovery of global warming. Damn scientists have been about this business of fooling the public for over a hundred years!"

Didn't one of their Nobel Prize winning scientists just resign from the AIP earlier this week because he refutes their stance on global warning??? (Iver Giager SP??????)"

Damn scientists! Can't they all agree on anything?

Yeah, guess they need evidence to agree on things, not a show of hands.
Science is supported by fact, not consensus!!
Besides, supporting, or including "man made global warming" in their research, virtually assures them any grants they may apply for.

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA - Not Al Gore or any other politician)

someone is not telling the truth. And when Noble Prize winners resign from one side in disgust... and on and on,,, I have my thoughts. Your welcome to yours,, but please read both sides. A person really doesn't have to read the ideas of the GW crowd becasue the media bombards us with it anyways. A breath of fresh air--


the other side

Generally I'm skeptical of papers which use Al Gore's name more than the science. If it's supposed to be non-political why introduce politics? Also, the first article uses 2007 data. Why? Why not use current data. Here's a link to Weather Underground Ice cap
Like you say someone is not telling the truth. Read the article and draw your own conclusions.

The thing I find most interesting about the Global Warming topic, is how divided people are over both it's potential existence and possible causes.

How can laypeople be so sure of themselves over such a controversial and complex topic, when there is plausible data to support both sides regarding the human role in Global Warming?

Maybe humans just like to debate and a debate cannot begin until involved parties pick a side.

Just thinkin' aloud here.

quote WhiteWolf: "Enough gripe. Time to focus on the positive!!!"