Other Answers (16)

• This is an interesting article. I would really like to see more data about it. However, at the moment there is more compelling evidence to support human resultant increase in global warming. Now I say that in the context that global warming happens regardless of what we do. It is simply happening faster because of what we do. The other ready example of this is the planet Venus. I am a math and science teacher.
  
  The quotation you provide (%26quot;try as we might...%26quot;) comes from the Hoover Institution. My reaction when I read that was %26quot;who the hell is the Hoover Insitution? Because I%26#039;ve never heard of it%26quot;. Apparently it%26#039;s a think tank associated with Stanford University.
  
  The Hoover Institution mission statement[1] expresses the basic tenets it stands for: representative government, private enterprise, peace, personal freedom, and the safeguards of the American system.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Inst...
  
  This is not a scientific institute - it%26#039;s a political institute. So why should I care about its conclusions with regards to global warming? Especially when they directly contradict the conclusions of the scientific experts?
  
  No, nothing about this article gave me any reason to be skeptical of man-made global warming.
  
  %26quot;Patterson partcipated in the Kyoto%26#039;s Fatal Flaws Revealed press conference, organized by Tom Harris of APCO Worldwide and held in Ottawa on November 13, 2002, along with other climate change sceptics including Fred Singer and Tim Ball.%26quot;
  
  singer and ball are famously unreliable.
  
  more from sourcewatch, %26lt;%26lt;Patterson is a member of the Science Advisory Board for Friends of Science and appeared in the FoS anti-Kyoto video entitled %26quot;Climate Catastrophe Cancelled%26quot;. He is also a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian non-profit group, including a number of leading climate change sceptics, that was launched October 12, 2006.%26gt;%26gt;
  
  so who are %26quot;Friends of Science%26quot;?
  
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...
  
  %26quot;In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, funnelled through University of Calgary research funds set up by Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3]
  
  Following an internal audit in 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science %26quot;had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change%26quot;. As a consequence, the University advised FoS %26quot;that it would no longer accept funds on the organization%26#039;s behalf%26quot;, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler.%26quot;
  
  in simple terms, not only was the oil industry paying them, but trying to hide the fact that they were paying. surprise, surprise.
  
  NO, i%26#039;m not more skeptical. why would you be?
• I always question if Global Warming is a fact or a scheme. I hear all my neighbors and friends commenting on our seasons here in Ohio. %26quot;We don%26#039;t get the snow we used to get%26quot; %26quot;Last summer was miserabley hot%26quot; ETc..etc..But honestly, we%26#039;ve had temps in the teens this winter and most of January was in the low 20%26#039;s. We%26#039;ve had 3 or 4 snowfalls...no great amounts, but Ohio doesn%26#039;t often see blizzard like conditions.
  
  Last summer was very mild. Sure, we had some days in the 90%26#039;s but no more than usual.
  
  So, until I see actual proof that GW is occuring here in my neck of the woods...I won%26#039;t fully believe it.
• You cited a BUSINESS editorial, not a scientific editorial. Do you think a magazine catering to the business community is going to give you accurate scientific information?
• The earth has been warming and the oceans rising for the last 8000 years. With all the new scientific data everyone is overwhelmed and paranoid. They are taking 30 years of observation and trying to draw conclusions. They don%26#039;t want to admit to their mortality and there is NOTHING they can do about it. This does not mean we should not conserve our resources and use them efficiently, but using 10 gls of fuel to truck green waste to make electricity worth 1 gl is not smart.
• I have never put much stock in it. We do know that the atmospheric CO2 level has increased of late. There is disputed evidence that temperatures have increased. There is no evidence that these are connected except for computer simulations (controlled experiments are obviously impossible), and if you have tried to use a computer to forecast the weather, you have a pretty good idea of how well that works -- NOT.
• PD....if you don%26#039;t read articles that start with Al Gore then why do you believe Al Gore. Did you have any problem seeing Al Gore%26#039;s movie? If the AGW threat was originally brought to the population by well respected scientists more people may believe. But since most people heard about AGW from Al Gore (a politician) it%26#039;s going to be political from the outset.