So lowering CO2 emissions will actually cause global warming in the Antarctic? Am I reading this right?

If you'll excuse me, I must set my AC to 69 Fahrenheit. I'm doing my part.

This polar bear "campaign" (which includes a CBS reporter going to Greenland recently to publicize it (misleadingly)) to promote hysteria and grief over the "threat" or "endangerment" to polar bears by a non-existent, manufactured, falsified, unfounded "climatological phenomenon" purported to be the cause of impending global disaster, is a perfect example for study of the methods of the radical left-wing elitists. (Continued publication of every issue and recipient to which George Soros is contributing any significant amount of money should also be a priority.)

So many are so anxious to believe that the emperor's new clothes are beautiful and that at least the intentions of those who are describing them are good, regardless of what their common sense and plain sight tell them; in addition, if they recognized the deceptions, it would mean that they would have to get out of their comfortable rut and fight back, and they also find it more comforting to believe the hysterical mantra that our foes use for intellectual bullying in speech and print: that conflict (on our part) is a symptom of the failure to realize how wise and well-meaning they are. How could anyone argue with their desire for only our good (as long as they are in power and can define what good is)? There seems to be an endemic unwillingness on the part of most citizens to adopt a skeptical approach to claims of truth which cannot be validated by repetitive experiment or other unarguable facts.

There are those for whom that translates to a lack of courage and unwillingness to confront blatant lies, such as global warming. (The only quarrel I have with your quote is that I don't believe there is an "attempt" to establish (or define) lies as truth by repetition. Repetition of unfounded scientific claims is being used purposefully and, I believe, successfully, as a part of a campaign to mislead and co-opt citizens into accepting massive government programs as an absolute necessity. The other successful component of this campaign involves aggressively attacking any attempt to present real scientific evidence refuting the fake "truth" of a given campaign. The media, as may be expected, are intimately complicit in these deceptions (not limited to global warming, of course).

It would seem that the only defense we have against such aggressive promotions is equally aggressive repetition of real scientific fact which refutes or invalidates the theories being promoted, and an aroused and interested citizenry who want to know the truth and who want to ensure that our descendants have the benefits of liberty.

Under any circumstances, there would be an enormous imbalance of contact-hour coverage for publication of the the truth and "true science" vs. that for publication by the MSM and DBM of the rationales for the current manufactured crisis needing massive government spending. (It would be great to frequently see the statistics of the contact-minutes or circulation achieved by the MSM and DBM, versus the contact-minutes or circulation achieved by truth- and "true science-" oriented media outlets.)

There are so many people in this country who have no clue that we are in a battle for our futures, and that we are losing. The changes we will be subjected to will be 180 degrees in direction from the directions which will refresh and maintain our freedoms and restore power to those who will take us in that direction. It looks to me like we must devise and publicize a plan to make the truth and "true science" copiously available to an aroused citizenry.

There is NO "anthropogenic" Global Warming. NONE.

I too have had a revelation, and I'm siding with pbfun on this. I've come to the conclusion that facts are irrelevant, for proof denies faith, and without faith global warming is nothing. But global warming clearly is something, as trends have dictated. Therefore, the argument is bulletproof, and it's time to act now.

The best way to start is to stop reproducing. Stop having sex. Then, slowly march the evil rich into "climate camps" where they will be taught to live a life of minimalism. If all else fails, we shall begin rationing by euthanizing adults at the age of 50 for the good of the planet.

There was a biologist many years ago who studied this. The phenomenon was named after him, but now I can't remember... the Schweitzer Factor? Something like that. Anyway, he developed an index of cuteness that predicts how much people care about a species and whether or not you can get any money to study or save them.

Hagfish probably don't rate very high!

OK, OK,  bear with me here. I have already received a complaint. Someone has accused me of selling out to Coco Koala and insists that I am trying to panda to the new bear group.None of this is true.  I am also accused of having an affair with a movie star named Ursidae Anders. This is not true. I never had a relation--- never mind. I also am not lazy although I have been accused of being a sloth bear. Enough is too much!! I must take a paws for station identification.