Is this where the Nobel committee demands a recount?

Who voted for Al Bore and WHY?

[I guess AGW will not be the HOT issue for this Election season.] 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

The term 'Global Warming' has sort of fallen out of vogue during the past couple of years or so (for obvious reasons). The pc term these days is "Climate Change" - ensures that all bases are covered regardless of whatever weather catastrophes occur (e.g., record breaking cold spell in China right now).

If you want a real eye opener, google "co2 lags temperature" sometime. This is in reference to the centerpiece of Gore's movie and his call for reduced CO2 emissions. In Inconvenient Truth, he showed a giant graph covering thousands of years that showed a correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's average temperature. As it turns out, there IS a correlation but Gore got it exactly backwards. The Ice core data indicates that increased CO2 levels only started increasing 800-1200 years AFTER temperatures rose, which makes perfect sense as CO2's solubility in water (the oceans) decreases with rising temperature, causing more CO2 to be released from the oceans into the atmosphere. Same thing is seen to happen on the backend of every warming cycle. Temperatures fall and CO2 levels begin to fall 8 centuries later.

The most damning thing is that Gore and the Climate Change Cultists don't have a coherent explanation/excuse for the very, very inconvenient "CO2 lags temperature" whoopsie, and they don't argue with the data.

I've never heard this little factoid brought up even once on any of the networks.

I suspect that this is kind of a warm-up for how the news, as reported by the NYT, is going to change following the anticipated November win by the Democrats.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

   What Mr. Tierney is acknowledging is that the path to CO2 reduction is going to cause more death and destuction than the 'climate change' itself.  The cure is worse than the disease.  He still wants money from the wealthy nations to help the poor nations and that might be acceptible if it produced lasting results.  But to play games with CO2 emissions which will allow the greenies to become fabulously rich is a scam and the prospect that the human-loathing environmentalists will have access to potential billions to further harrass modernity and future business growth will be a nightmare.  Imagine scores of soros clones.

AS FACT, If they can show me why the temps are rising on mars, and what we can do to prevent that. Give us a brake. Give me a brake. And, not to mention, would a little warming.. perhaps be benificial, in any way, besides  the doom and gloom presented as the only outcome?

As the NYTimes goes, so will the WaPo. The only question is which
will be first. In point is an article in the Viewpoints section of
1-13-08 about India's latest contribution to Climate Change, the
ultra small car, Tata Nano. The author, and assuming normal diligence
on the editor's part, the Washington Post, has admitted the utter
falsity of the "Carbon Saviors" promising every sort of
carbon based reduction/storage/trade/buyout/payoff imaginable. These
people twist the English language with carbon based phrases that have
no real meaning but sound really green. Obama has "low-carbon
coal technologies". Google that and, on the first page, one gets
three circular hits back to barrackobama.com, with the balance
referring to "low carbon technologies" or "clean
coal ...". So instead of saying he would promote the use of
"clean coal" his team of writers merge phrases into
Mucklish only lawyers and politicians could be proud of.

So it was refreshing to see the Post report
with some clarity on some basic truths about real problems. An
except: " No magic bullet can reconcile mass ownership of
automobiles with global warming. More diesel-driven cars mean more
greenhouse gases, and ultra-cheap cars mean cutting corners on
emissions standards. Some environmentalists have high hopes
about filling car tanks with biofuels, which in the United States
means corn-based ethanol. But corn requires more carbon to produce
than it saves as a fuel source. Others tout plug-in-and-go
electric cars. True, they produce no carbon, but if the source of the
electricity used to power the car is coal -- the most common source
of electricity in the United States and the preferred fuel for the
scores of new plants being built in China and India -- then the
electric car won't save us. Hydrogen-powered cars still lie years in
the future, leaving plenty of time for India and China to put
millions of new diesel cars on the road."

The truth about corn and other food
sources as a solution to all carbon based problems is emerging with
every price increase at the grocery. Now we must sort through
switchgrass and cellulosic and ( when we run out of farmland)
seaweed. Eventually we will open Yucca Mountain, drill in
ANWR, and disappoint Bill Clinton's benefactors in the Riady
family by allowing the low sulfur coal in the Escalante to be mined.
Until then, give thanks for some measure of honesty from these
newspapers.