I wouldn't be using the Heartland Institute as a source if I wanted nmy argument to be taken seriously:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

Somewhere deep within I have a gut feeling that mr. Coleman is basically right (about the core issue, that is). Of course, my gut feeling isn't even worth the tiny bandwidth of this post but seeing the word "liberal" in mr. Colemans commentary lowers his credibility to way below the credibility of my gut feeling.

How can the illusion arise that a scientific issue can be determined politically and a political issue can be solved scientifically? Either mr. Coleman sets out to refute the science (no matter if he's a lawyer, cab driver or a meteorologist) or he sets out to discuss the politics. The approach "I'm telling you Global Warming is a non-event" because "I have studied" and then blaming a political faction for his apparant need to point this out is neither.

In other words, the OP article is worthless partisan junk.

Ice receeding on the southern pole of Mars does not indicate global warming on Mars anymore than ice growth at the southern pole of Earth indicates global cooling of Earth.

The article that Meridious posted claiming that there was global warming on Mars was the Heartland Institutes interpretation of NASAs findings. I am very sure the NASA scientists involved would not agree with the extrapolation of southern polar ice recession to indicate a global trend.

Each of the trendlines can be independently collaborated, as a bonus I have only linked to NASA and NOAA sources for these trends:

The co2 trend:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/icecore.png

The temperature trend:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...ed-temp-pg.gif

The sunspot trend:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/site/sunspot_web.png

The combination of which gives:


Which is dramatically different from the picture that skeptic sources are trying to paint about the level of correlation between these factors.

"Mars could be undergoing major global warming"
Mars could be undergoing major global warming - 07 December 2001 - New Scientist

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

"Could be", that's more like it

You should be very skeptical when those supporting a cause need to lie about it, use scaremongering tactics, and do not practice what they preach.

For example, if Al Gore was really worried about carbon dioxide emissions, he would not be causing huge amounts of carbon to be released into the atmosphere by jet-setting all over the world.

Even the acronym IPCC is misleading. Since the GW Cult purports the IPCC to be a scientific study group involving scientists from many fields relating to the issue at hand, one would expect IPCC to stand for Interdisciplinary Panel on Climate Change.

However that is not the case. IPCC actually stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This quite accurately implies that it is controlled by governments, not scientists. And that turned out to be true. The fact is that governments nominate the panelists and most of them are NOT scientists. Most are delegates, authors, political idealogues and such. And then the IPCC goes on to "make recommendations for policymakers" which further makes the point that it is political in nature.

As a scientific panel, the IPCC was FUBAR the moment it was concieved because it was politically corrupted and never meant to be a scientific panel in the first place.

All the other IPCC working groups are dependent on the findings of WG1. So if you read nothing else in the IPCC report, I'd suggest that you read this from Working Group 1.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...ub_Ch03-SM.pdf

The IPCC report claims that there have been these small 1 or 2 10ths of a degree temperature changes over long periods of time, but as we see here those changes are oftentimes not even within the accuracy parameters of the equipment used and a hodgepodge of different methods are used to collect data. And more importantly, those methods change over time. There is no consistancy.

And that is just the problems we know about, who knows how some less scrupulous actors might have purposefully skewed the data in some of the closed totalitarian lefto-land societies around the world. There is no method to secure or verify that the great majority of the data is accurate.

Yet they make these totally 100% certain public pronouncements. "Humans cause the global warming". "The science is in".."the debate is over".. "there is a scientific consensus" they say. Gimme a break. That is fucking silly crap spewed by dumb motherfuckers.

There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus" on this issue. That is because science is not ruled by a democratic vote of delegates from the participant governments. Such a consensus is the stuff of politics, not science. The so-called consensus is that of governments, not scientists.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.