And yet, most of the evidence you have posted to back this statement up has been dubious at best. There are indeed disagreeing voices, but it's politically-directed crap like this that clouds our vision.
Example - There is no oil money behind the book, it's all natural gas. :roll: Link
But there's plenty of oil money behind the two individuals, check out the Science & Environmental Policy Project, and the Hudson Institute.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...pable-hot-air/

Here, a climate scientist listens to Avery & Singers arguments.

Gosh it is fun looking at this total lack of consensus.

Using your rationale, NASA's James Hansen is a farce. Thank you, George Soros. There he is again.

According to Hansen himself - The bottom line is: I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps GAP did, but I would be surprised if they got $720,000.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf

From wiki - Notice the timing, the money comes into the picture after Hansen goes public. A dissimiliar case to fossilfuel-funded books & programs.

Yes. Soros has to spot his pigeons first. Same ingedients. Same food on the platter.

Opposite scientific theories can be swapped from here to doomsday(pun intended). I take it as this then I'm done with the subject. Is ice at the Arctic and Greenland melting accelerated? Yes it is. Has breathing illness's and diseases increased in the last one hundred years? Dramatically so. Is earth warming naturally? Yes it is. Is pollution accelerating the process? Yes it is. Is the U.S. a major polluter? Yes it's the third highest in the world. That all I need to know to know humanity needs to address pollution. I don't need a bunch of charts from the middle ages to tell me this.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...511722,00.html

So...When will he anounce? or will he go the VP route again?

One begins to wonder whether NASA itself thinks it's funded by Soros. :damn:

Mine is NOAA data, so they do agree with my interpretation.

-S

Great find!:rock:

Here's more uncertainty. Yes Mr. Gore, not everyone buys your nonsense......... :D

http://environment.newscientist.com/...edictions.html

Gents I still do not understand why USA does not build anymore new nuclear energy plants?
my answer is OIL companies(read Bush &Co) are not interested.
Democrat Al Gore as a Nobel Prize winner....
Same as G.W. Bush with his WMD in Iraq ... liberator


May be better to be subjects of the E-II Crown than to have such honorable gents ( and probably lady ) as head of state?( God, save us from Hillary!).
Bill of rights started to look like a mirage in the Sahara's sands.

Good sides to be subjects of the crown:
- better school education
- 40 and less hours to work
- bigger vacations
- you have time to read, to travel, for your loveones (including your kids and even wife)
- nobility ( knighthood)* and i am very serious about this.
- better health care
- professional police, they will not shoot you because they just had feeling that you are armed
- less shooting practice in schools
- freedom of speech including jokes about everything in airports.
- less sexual harasment cases
- no Darwin debates

Bad side:
- all ot the above &
- bigger taxes

Whats obvious is that you jump on anything at all that paints the picture you want but are too lazy to check if there is any accuracy in it. I picked one at random to research and stopped there because it's so obvious just reading his explanation that he's bs.
First this idiot is talking about only 1998. WhooptyDo. If you want to know go to a marine biology site.
http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

There are a number of nuclear plants being planned and built. The problem before was the publics reaction to Three Mile Island and enforced by Chernobyl. Safety has made a lot of strides since then.

Link?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...5&postcount=57

Actually, I wish to show that there are other opinions out there that object to the :global warming hyteria" generated by people of Gore's ilk. I wish to show that there are many voices who object. This link shows that Gore's film , and "facts" within are debatable. It also shows that Gore doesn't kknow what the he## he's talking about. He's just another hack politician pushing some "global tragedy" snake oil. And there's many voices who object to his freak show.

You've posted stuff from this guy before, Sea Demon. Hang on till I find the thread.
It is not a dissenting voice if it's being paid to be dissenting. Simple as. The articles you have posted do not show what you want them to show.
From Monckton at the SPPI. A man with no training in climate science, who runs an oil-and-gas funded think-tank. I'm sure this will be reasoned and non-biased.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=634875&postcount=167

just quoting myself, will look at the paper later, not holding out much hope, mind.

No need Tchocky. Your article will be biased nonsense in favor of creating mass hysteria for the "global warming" tragedy people. For their own purposes or desires. There are many out there who disagree with the "whole world's coming to an end" nonsense that's spewing from the Internet these days. Did you know that most "published" scientists disagree with Gore and the "global warming" hucksters??? I posted a link in another thread. I'll try to find it. There are many voices in complete disagreement.

Pardon the copypasta, but you're off base here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change