Originally Posted by vtcyclist

You guys can't take a bit of irony! One minute you're spouting facts and the next minute you're ignoring facts and resorting to name calling, what is this "socialist", "socialism" crap. In case you don't know it our military and VA ministration is "socialist" ie. run by the US government. I have the utmost respect for our troops and hate to see them put in harm's way by irresponsible elected officials and misguided military brass who take little responsibility for their misguided direction of the war. I respect people's religious beliefs, they should just keep them to themselves. The 9/11 wackos were supposedly doing god's work and Bush sought advice from his "father in the sky" rather than his real father who probably would have warned him not to listen to Cheney and Rumsfeld who were still sore that Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq. And speaking of low, Bush, Cheney, Gingrich, Romney, Beck, O'Reilly et al. were conspicuously absent from military service in Viet Nam yet they are the biggest cheerleaders when it comes to using military force. To quote Mr. Cheney about his absence and lame excuse from serving "I had better things to do."

When all intelligence fails on a topic revert to Bush bashing. Oh it gets soooo old.

Originally Posted by cologal

I give you NASA and you give me junk science...

Colagal, I thank you for doing your homework. There are several problems with some of NASA's conclusions, since I believe them to be self-serving. For example, they use the 1950-1980 as a baseline. Data from NOAA shows this to be coldest three decade period in the 20th century.

The three web sites referenced below are in order. The first is a graphic presentation of ice area anomalies at the South Pole using data provided to the University of Illinois by NASA/NOAA. This data show that the Antarctic minimum was at its highest level since satellite data has been available.

The second site is a graph showing total global sea ice area from 1985 to present. If you look at the annual anomalies, you will see total global sea ice area has not changed in that period of time. No global warming (or cooling for that matter).

The third is a link to an article in World Climate Today extracted from a report in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. This article is in understandable English. The original paper is written in scientific jargon and difficult, at best, to understand. But the source is cited in the article if you wish to read it. It shows that ice area at the South Pole is increasing. To borrow a phrase (slightly corrupted) from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – the article questions why the ‘dog, in this case NASA, didn’t bark.’ Could it be that with the manned space program coming to a close, NASA is hunting for a reason for its existence outside of the work done by JPL and have selected ‘global warming’ as its reason?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...-era/#more-386

Very good research BBQMAN.

It is unfortunate tho that a liberal will not bother to read an opposing argument.

Originally Posted by cashman

Very good research BBQMAN.

It is unfortunate tho that a liberal will not bother to read an opposing argument.

Cashman...if you are referring to me ....you are very off base. While I am far from a conservative I am also far from a liberal. So I will read the links provided..

Now the issue is does a conservative listen to anyone who is not.

Not sure if any had heard of the man who had his microphone cut off at a public hearing because he was asking Al Gore difficult questions and even pointed out falsehoods in the movie Inconvenient Truth.....this article was written by him and anyone who has an open mind should at leat read it...

"But it is now time for journalists, and the consumers and businesses that will pay the ultimate price, to start questioning the conventional wisdom about global warming and exposing its true cost. If alarmists like Al Gore get their way, millions of American families will watch as their dreams of a prosperous and pleasant future disappear.

The evidence of environmentalism run amok abounds in Europe. Spain believed the spin that environmental regulation can create "green jobs" and boost the economy. Now the country has 18% unemployment. Britain could suffer blackouts because of policies that require the country to replace coal with fuels like solar and wind power that aren't readily available or reliable.

And of course this one sentence...

"That's bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year"

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=509026