I was over in climateaudit.org the other day looking at what they've been finding as glaciers are making this never before recession. As the glaciers receed they're finding some interesting things. Like the remains of peat bogs that formed there during the non existent Medievel warm period. And lichen fields.  Who would have thought, where glaciers were, 100 years ago. There were peat bogs and lichen fields 1000 years ago.

I guess it was King Arthur's fault.

It's a secret. But they stopped using proxy data about 1970 and finished off the hockey stick with temperture readings. It looks sexier and spicier. And makes a hocky stick.

Considering those 1930's readings by and large weren't taken next to the runway of an airport. They look really impressive.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but what has sunspot activity been like for the past year or so?
JMR

Noel,

You are never going to get anything more than psychobabble as an answer from the enviro-wacko/fern-fondler crowd.  The reason they cannot produce the data to support their global warming theory is because, by and large, it doesn't really exist. And in the few instances where it does, I can guarantee you it was most likely produced by someone who has a financial interest in the continued study of this theoretical phenomenon. (For those of you under thirty and who attended a government school, that means job security).

Let's face it, a liberal's worst nightmare is having to seek employment in the private sector. Most would rather eat worms than have to do that. Attracting tons of public and private research dollars prevents many of them from having to. Many of the people who engage in scientific research are liberal and then some. Believe me, I know some of them personally, as I was employed by an environmental engineering firm for over five years.

Michael Crichton, in his book State of Fear, completely and totally destroys the entire "global warming is caused by man" theory.  While the novel itself was a work of fiction, the scientific research behind it was real, and was inluded in the appendix of the book. It was a fascinating read, and caused more than a little consternation for the lefties, which is always a good thing.

It is said that the environmental movement has red roots.  I know there are exceptions to this, but if you look closely at who these people really are, you will notice they all display certain common traits. These traits are a severe, almost irrational hatred for capitalism, free enterprise and all things American. They are Marxist/Leninist to the core. They all share in one major goal, and that is to weaken the U.S. economy as much as they possibly can. This is why they supported the Kyoto Treaty, as it was aimed squarely at the U.S. Even Clinton himself would have nothing to do with it. I believe I recall the Senate vote against it was nearly unanimous. It wasn't an accident that many developing countries were essentially left exempt from it.  For this reason alone and even if global warming was being caused by man-made emissions, The treaty would have done nothing to prevent it.

There is a theory among many of our friends on the left that if this country was far weaker and more nations had equal strength that the world would somehow be a more peaceful and better place. Hitler, of course, put the lie to this for the whole world to see. They are using the fear of global warming, along with other environmental related issues and scare tactics, to further their goal of weakening this country.

I suspect that once they have ridden this donkey as far as it will go, the pendulum will begin to swing back the other way, and we will be hearing, as we did in the '70's when I was in highschool, that another ice age is just around the corner.

In a word, they are full of it, and they know it.

On the website for your local NOAA office you find a section called "Forecast discussion", where the meteorologist responsible for writing the latest forecast explains his/her reasoning.  They will often refer to what the various models have to say about the next day's weather.  Sometimes those models disagree wildly.  The further into the future they go, the less reliable they are.  By a week, the forecast is practically a guess.  So how can we depend on their forecasts for a century from now?  Computer models are worthless for predicting global warming.

"Logically, you'd think...."

Logic? Think?  That's asking a bit much from these folks Tom.

What scares the bejeebers out of me is the very real possibility that our sun (that bright star that ALL scientists actually agree is the main culprit in global temperatures) in just one super flare-up (research Northern Lights) could totally destroy our atmosphere along with the ozone layer and consequentially life as we know it on earth (research space weather).  I'm not positive but fairly confident even algore couldn't save our planet from that event.  Which is possibly why he jumped on the mythological human-induced global warming bandwagon.  As long as the earth continues to warm algore is a prophet.  When the earth starts cooling again algore is promoted to savior.  

"Funny how America is the one pumping the majority of all those global warming polutants into the atmosphere (and therefore needs to change its entire economy to compensate (see: Kyoto)), and yet it's the only place not warming up. Logically, you'd think that America would be warming up faster than everyplace else..."

You can thank Mr. Rove for that.  (o.-)

You are correct. The polio vaccines prevented those exposed to the virus from developing polio symptoms. There  is no cure for much of the damage the virus can do to the body.