Here is a nice summary of the emails:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Little late msnbc...www.infowars.com broke this story days ago...it would seem that infowars is constantly breaking stories well in advance of any mainstream media.

Geez, are we still discussing this?

Those who love their oil will never accept that their actions are harming the planet. If you look objectively at the data, it shows that warming is happening. We now have a NW Passage, species ranges are changing, and it's really not up for discussion anymore.

These emails are ancient, and show little if anything to raise reasonable doubt about their studies.

I don't know that the climatologists are conciously lying.

They are in a culture of belief of Global Warming, so they are probably unaware of it.

But what would happen if they said "climate will be stable for next 100 years."?

I guess we wouldn't need them for 100 years.

You know that there were very few of them until the ice age coming theory was cooked up. Then that didn't work so they went to "Global Warming". Now that is in doubt and they are going to the "Climate Change" thing (that really covers their bases since the climate, like the weather, is always changing).

Anything to stay employed.

That is if OIL is that bad DUDE! This does smell very fishy!

I am sorry but the Nixon Presidency feel because of taped discussions like these!

DUDE it is all a farce.

Face it.

Mother nature is in a climate cycle.

Get over it.

It was not caused by mans puny ass presence on her.

It is sort of scary when these supposedly intelligent scientists are unaware that there is no expectation of privacy, particularly on the internet, especially in Britain. What were they thinking?

Those who love their oil will never accept that their actions are harming the planet. If you look objectively at the data, it shows that warming is happening. We now have a NW Passage, species ranges are changing, and it's really not up for discussion anymore.

The climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years... WITHOUT the help of man know that ice ages have come and gone.

There is mounting evidence we are entering a cooling period that could be more harmful to people than the poorly projected warming.

Finally, we will get away from oil eventually (probably 15-20 years)... but this is not about what is best for the environment. If we ALL had electric cars today, we would WAIST MORE energy and pollute the environment more due to poor transmission lines that lose 50% of their power BEFORE reaching the homes. This is about politics and big companies and their friends in power making BIG money and gaining MORE CONTROL over our lives.

Follow the GRANT Monies.

Were all of you as upset after the machinations of 50 years of "big tobacco" false research came out, or were you all smoking yourselves to death?

Dude...you believe everything these rich politicians say? Feel sorry for you and the rest of us who will have to pay the rest of the world for heating our homes and using gas for our cars to get to work to pay our taxes to feed the rich politicians so they can sit on their A$$es and tell us how much more money to give them to sit on their A$$es. Don't be a dolt!

In my seventy years, I have observed that winters have gotten milder in general, summers have stayed about the same.

Perhaps, there is a warming trend but to think that humans can control the weather is silly, we cannot even predict it.

The earth was fully populated before the coal and oil was formed from cardon di-oxide, so the doomsday predictions are as reliable as the weather predictions. How many hurricanes hit the usa this year, how many were predicted?

DUIDE, yep, every one jnows if it is more than an hour old, it doesn't count anymore.

Oh, be careful what you put in emails.

The earth was fully populated before the coal and oil was formed from cardon di-oxide,

huh? i'm trying to figure out if that was just a mistake in writing there.

because otherwise, that statement makes no sense at all.

qudrcps, the crux is that no one forced me to use tobacco. Yet you want to strong arm me into your religious straight jacket. Shame on you.

No--They can always look to the examples the radical right wingers used so successfully and left for all to enjoy(?) and there are many!

The temptation to fudge interpretation of data to support your convictions is something we should all be aware happens on either side of most any debate. Certainly the deniers cherry pick isolated data and use twisted logic in their attempts to discredit the huge body of scientific work that runs counter to their belief system. Presentations in support of climate action, such as Gore's movie, also cherry pick information that supports their position and casually disregard information that runs counter to it...The best approach for people who are interested more in understanding the issue than trying to validate their pre-conceived beliefs is to look at published peer-reviewed scientific reports and form your own opinions. The peer review process tends to weed out poorly designed studies and inappropriate conclusions, but it's hard reading. Remember that politicians, lobbyists, and talk show hosts are not scientists but advocates for their constituents, and you should assume that their main goal is to convince you to agree with their position.

And comments by people who notice that the summer was either cooler or hotter than normal, and use that to validate their position don't even know what the term 'climate' means.

If your agenda is a new world order, then create a new world crisis.

Climate Change to advance this agenda is a masterful plan; One World, One Government, all done with the look and feel that it is driven by science and not by politics. Very deceiptful to say the least.

Is a One World Government where we're headed with all of this?

Global Warming and Climate Change, the scam of the century happening right before our eyes!!!!

Ok oil is bad lets get past that. The main thing here is PROPAGANDA by the tree hugging left. This is their platform to push their agenda via the environmentalist approach. You can call a communist whatever you want but they are still a communist! Be very leary of this push and I want to mention one more thing this approach is trying to install, the 7th of December in Copenhagen President Obama will be signing the Climate Change Treaty which is the first real step to a one world government, where also we will be required to pay reparations to 3rd world countries for the abuse of the environment. Don't be fooled this whole movement has been planned for the last 30 years. People wake up, it's not mother nature that is going to get revenge, its the agenda and the changing of our country to socialism that will forever haunt us for generations! So, Dude you can say whatever you want about how this is not a huge story, this is monumental and it shows exactly what our so called governments agenda is really about! Do the research on my comments and you will find the truth!

Okay went through the list of emails interesting but need to read the whole emails in order to be sure on what is going on. One thing is for sure they don't look good as they seem to be covering something up even with the short stories. I am calling them stories at this point because we can't prove them one way or the other with out all the data. It is true we go through cycles and believe it or not that is fact. I believe this was just a spoof to make money in one way or another or to stay in the public eye. You make the choice. As always just my opinion.

This ought to get real interesting, especially if the release the E mails in full context so the public can be the judge...fat chance of that.

what i want to know is why this info was not public anyhow? I mean emails no but the data regaurding global warming if it exists at all. Data shows the planet has actually been cooling the last 10 years

Those who love their oil will never accept that their actions are harming the planet. If you look objectively at the data,

You start with a statement like that and then ask others to look objectively? When will you begin to?

These scientistscan not accept the fact that there are other opinions refuting their findings. These that are willing to refute the gllom and doom lab coats can not seem to handle that by others finding their results questionable it may dry up their funding.

Climate researchers lying to support their RADICAL POLITICAL VIEWS? Say it ain't so,Joe!!

he climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years... WITHOUT the help of man know that ice ages have come and gone.

The difference, of course, is the sheer number of people ON the planet now vs 10,000 years ago. These cycles that you speak of are now occurring sooner and sooner.

On a slightly off topic note, ever notice how when a story is written on MSN that somehow shows Obama in a good light, the whole "MSN is soooo biased" crowd comes out. Seems to me there are just as many "anti-Obama" stories, yet MSN is spot on for those stories...JMO

There is a special room in Hell for these climate change skeptics who try to present information out of context in order to skew opinion, and that room is heated by oil from the energy companies.

"Deniers?"

LOLOLOLOL

Yes, I deny that it is necessary to destroy the economy of the United States of America any further than it already is, under the guise of climate change. I deny that this is anything but an enormous global wealth redistribution plan, supported by far-left liberals, out of guilt because the US did too well for too long and they think that to that a stop must be put!

I do NOT deny that oil, coal and natural gas are finite and we should, out of our own best interest, get as far off of them as is reasonble and possible to get.

The irony is, these bleeding heart liberal redistributionists won't LET us get out from under oil, coal and natural gas on our own because in order to do so, we'd need to build factories to produce the parts needed to build the systems to implement things like wind and solar energy. AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! A tree might need to be cut down!

We'd need to figure out a compromise solution for the waste from reactors. WE CAN'T DO THAT, ZERO TOLERANCE!

Instead, these chuckle heads watch while 3 jobs out of 4 go to China in "Green" industry, as additional plank in their redistirubtion platform. PS, China already practically owns us, HAVE YOU GONE FAR ENOUGH YET!?

Instead, these a$$hats watch while 40,000 people loose their livelyhood in the Central Valley of CA, over a fish. Instead, these hypocrites refuse to allow a wind farm to be built where a bit of coral might be damaged.

I'm GLAD beyond description that some of the lies behind this masterful attempt at a total global reorganization are being exposed. We need more.

But heaven forbid the investigative journalists in this country actually investigated anything besides Sara Palin's daughter's at one time prosepective mother in law's dealings in illicit drugs. THAT is sooooooo much more important.

PS, email this to every tree hugging crunchy granola fish head hipster doofus you know.

I already did, as well as sending it to the WH, my rep in the House and my two senators.

They really need to know the jig is about up, and we're on to them.

"Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute..." I don't know about you folks, but you need to follow this institutes' grant monies and who (as in energy companies) else is funding this ridiculous institute. Sounds to me like a cover for a spying entity. Duh... Don't play into their web of deceit. If you are aware of your surroundings you KNOW there is a climate problem. The holes in the ozone over my area aren't from cows expelling gas, it's from coal fired power plants (3 of them) in the Four Corners area. Refute that. Refute that we can't eat the fish coming out of our lakes and rivers because they are contaminated with mercury. Tell me that crap just "fell out of the sky." No. It was shot up there in the sky by the stacks and floated down to earth and landed in the water. Why are NM sunsets so pretty? Because of all the noxious gases in the air. Duh... Just breathe and drink a glass of water and think about it. Don't be a chump and play into Big Energy's hands.

Most people still think it is a good idea to recycle paper. It just wastes energy, and by the way almost all logging is done with replanted trees. I don't see any one with a save the potatoes sticker on their car, chill out, they grow back.

The whole green revolution has turned into a pseudo religion. People get angrier when I tell them I am sceptical that global warming is man made than if I told them Jesus did not exist. If you don't believe me try this in an open discussion.

The evidence supported that the world was getting warmer over the last 30 or so years, so they went looking for a cause. What better cause from a species who came up with "original sin" than that we and our evil technology are killing the planet. I am sorry but I have read the reports and am not convinced it is man made. Please gather better evidence on the "Man Made" issue, and stop showing me signs of any warming and saying, yes see, warmer, while just eluding to another issue, ie that man is causing said warming.

Netan

Thanks so much for the link to the e-mail summaries. Great and extremely informative stuff.

Too bad the Obama supporters on here will not read it. It might just open their eyes to a lot of misinformation they're being fed (and then repeating) by this administration about "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever Daddy-O's administration is calling it now.

hey spidey....those evil energy companies heat your home and allow you to run up to the store, drive to work and take your butt to the doctors when you need to. Those evil energy companies are aiding you in your post today on your computer. what do you have it plugged into? Too bad more people don't understand that the left has manipulated so many people and taken them away from being more of a free thinker.

Pragmatic,

PS, email this to every tree hugging crunchy granola fish head hipster doofus you know.

I already did, as well as sending it to the WH, my rep in the House and my two senators.

They really need to know the jig is about up, and we're on to them.

Dont e-mail it, FAX IT! Make a tree-tard scream in horror and help support the paper industry that is being force to lay off thousands. The same paper industry that has managed forests in the midwest under the proper guidance and made these forests heathier than they have ever been.

And without hte tree-tards like they have out west we are not experiencing the same number of forest fires because we are being allowed to clear the underbrush and use it! Vs. mother nature burning it and, here is the rub, pumping more garbage into the atmosphere.

The next time they change the name of it because people know that global warming is crap then the new name will be, If you dont believe in global or climate change, your a big poopoo head! LOL!

So...global warming might be just some BS made up by pseudoscientists who don't like us using the natural resources the planet provides for us.....wow, what a surprise!

Ex-Lib

hey spidey....those evil energy companies heat your home and allow you to run up to the store, drive to work and take your butt to the doctors when you need to. Those evil energy companies are aiding you in your post today on your computer. what do you have it plugged into? Too bad more people don't understand that the left has manipulated so many people and taken them away from being more of a free thinker.

Don't forget, they are also the ones that are creating the petroleum byproducts that allow them to have their North Face Gortex rain-wear so they can protest year round. Allowing them to have tires on their cars that burn fossil fuels and lubrications so their engines do not seize up, and the machinery that makes their paper so they can make silly signs and the inks to print up fliers to let people know that we need to protect our forests.

Nothing but hypocritical do-gooders that do not understand, or unwilling to accept, that their efforts are supported by the very same people they are protesting.

Short sighted morons! I think I will have a spotted owl for Thanksgiving this year and ask all the relatives to exorbitant distances to get hear to enjoy it!

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

I love how Mann attempts to say that there is "no trick at all" yet there is no mention of the fact that the person's goal was "to hide the decline". If you are trying to hide something you are not being a scientist.

I hate to drop bombs...

But the climate issue is one that has taken over the minds of our young people through a systemic undermining of truth in our schools. Even a climate in the throws of cooling wouldn't be a cold enough slap in the face to wake many of them up.

Our school system has re-written history. Most younger people have no idea about why history is important and I would venture to say that they don't care about what has happened before. They have been geared to go against sound principle and believe lies being fed to them by the general media, a godless education system, and conniving elected politicians, mostly from the left.

Those who buy all of the tree hugging antics are the same ones who think that Cap and Trade and Health Care and bail-outs are going to work for this country. All of this has been in the works for many years!

Only God knows how many established lies are floating around in each of our thoughts! Even Einstein would be very troubled about the direction of the so-called scientific gurus.

Good for Santer. Hey Santer! If you need help on that, give me a shout.

The Cato institute should be renamed "The Drivel Institute".

I will have a spotted owl for Thanksgiving this year and ask all the relatives to exorbitant distances to get hear to enjoy it!

I'm leaning more towards either Ivory-Billed Woodpecker or California Condor.

Which ever goes better with stuffing.

Pragmatic,

We've got better technology than acres and acres of wind farms and mirrors for central wind and solar plants.

These club foot oil and banking cartels are doing a whole lotta social engineering, that's their agenda and, they're doing a pee poor job of it at that. We can also note, these guys are intra-fighting ~vieing for power positions. Some people highly associated and heavily involved are whistle blowing too because they are sick of the agenda. I say, enough of the black op levels of secrecy. We can't afford that anymore, we never could. Enough!

Regardless of climate change, we can't go back to an agricultural society. And we have to realize our own problems in real terms. We are doing a heck of a job killing off other species and polluting our own waters all over the world; it's not just us.; it's all of humanity. Regardless of climate change, our population is getting pretty big and, as always, energy hungry, so...

Anyway, I don't relish buying our fish from China, just because they had the foresight to create fish farms on their coasts, as opposed to NAFTA highways and mega-ports here, ya know? But I don't relish giving up technology either.

How about this... if we want over-ride these idiots trying to gain more power with their lousy idea of what the NWO should look like, we need to open source the technology we already know is out there. For instance, open-source the Zero-point generator coming out of where, Australia (?) and several other places, as well. In fact, I bet there's already an open-source website.

Will check on that here.

Climate change is a hoax... always has been.

Cap in trade is a scam... always will be.

Someone poited out the "puny" presence of mankind on the earth... we should all take heed of this... mankind can have zero effect on climate change in either direction.

I wonder what the delusional do-gooders will say when they realize the truth about our effect on the earths climate?

I wonder how you will feel when you realize that this hoax is being used to justify raising the price you pay for energy so that "people" like Al Gore (assuming Al Gore is a "person") can multiply their fortunes by a factor of 500% in less than ten years?

How do you feel about a 300 to 500% increase in your electric bill?

How about $15 to $25.00 per gallon for gasoline?

These are good estimates based on the usual discrepancy between the estimated and the actual effect of government involvement in... anything.

Would you like to see your income taxes increased by 25% to pay for a nationalized public transportation system... railroads to nowhere? It's been done before.

The easiest way to determine when a politician is lying is to watch his or her mouth....

If the lips are moving it is a lie.

iwonder ---- the data charts i have looked at since 1880 agree with your observations. most of the increase has occurred in the winter months, not the summer months. and if you live in a cold-climate state, like minnesota, that would seem to be a benefit, not a detriment.

Humanity is having no impact upon the environment?

Tell that to the polluted oceans (like a little mercury with your fish?), the decimated forests, the millions upon millions of livestock animals with no predators and the altered environment they require/create, the dozens upon dozens of declining/endangered species, etc.

Are many of you really stupid enough to believe that burning fossil fuels has NO impact upon the environment? Fossil fuels are one of the majestic wonders of the world because they do NOT operate in the realm of Cause and Effect?

Finally, many of you who claim to be rational, logical, objective thinkers while calling the environmentalism movement propaganda, bogus, socialist, communist, liberal, and any other word you think means bad things, I have a question for you: what's their angle? Who does being more CONSERVATIVE (uh oh...think you're a Conservative but anti-environment? sorry, doesn't work...better research the definition again.) with our energy and/or resources? Does it benefit a particular company or industry? Or does it benefit the nation/the country as a whole?

Alternatively, who does our current energy infrastructure and resource consumption/usage benefit? You don't think Coal and Oil (to name 2 big players) are manipulating things to their benefit? Right, cause they don't have much influence or cash? Oh, wait...

And if you think people (politicians, whoever) are being made wealthy from the environmentalist propaganda, what about people aligned with Oil and Coal? They aren't being bought and paid? Right, of course they aren't...

Environmentalism as it stands right now comes down to one thing: who do changes hurt, and who do they benefit. And as someone mentioned earlier, and it should be something you seriously ponder, remember how long it took before it was actually determined scientifically or otherwise that cigarette smoke was bad for people. It too decades! Decades to determine cigarette smoke was bad, and Big Tobacco is small next to Big Oil.

Consider that next time you are accusing someone who thinks we might be fcking up the environment of being naive and manipulated, falling for silly propaganda.

i think most people would agree that humans need to be more respectfull of the environment ---- actions like throwing toxic materials into the rivers and oceans, need to be curtailed. however, the subject is whether or not human activity is causing an increase in the temperature. there are many climatologists that say no to that question. these emails that were hacked , at this point anyway, would seem to point toward a collusion by many of the world's weather-related scientists to enhance the human-caused factor.

Smith Cassidy

I have two answers on how the green movement is making money.

One, paying for carbon credits, directly linked to Al Gore's money by the way.

Two, I am almost positive, though I will admit I have little evidence other than circumstantial, that America is going through a economical crisis now in part because we have become a culture of consumers and service industries. To counter act this the people in charge are coming up with excuses, global warming, to spur new infrastructure changes to jump start American manufacturing.

Again, the last is my opinion, the first though is solid fact.

It goes beyond the traditional wealth redistribution dreams of the socialists and communists,Pragmatic. There is an additional behavior modification element to the MMGW scammers and that involves forcing people out of the suburbs and into multi-unit housing in cities along with limiting mobility (which means even electric cars will be restricted by pay per mile schemes). I agree we need to do everything to stop this scourge and bring back legitimate environmental protection (which I have always supported).

Hey BR,

No doubt, people are making money from the green movement, never denied that, but you don't believe people are making money by supporting and promoting the interests of oil (and other fossil fuels) to the government, the public, and the scientific community?

Al Gore is somehow a bad guy because he is making money promoting environmentalism and 'going green'. But what about all the politicians that are NOT retired making serious cash from Oil?

LINK

The infrastructure one is tough, and who really knows? But is changing it a bad thing when we know for a fact our need for oil is very expensive, economically stimulates areas of the world that are not friendly towards us, is finite (less and less every day), and is a cause of war?

Smith,

I would argue that Al Gore is a bad guy if, if, he knows he is full of @!$%# and making money off of it. I find it hard to believe he is not, since he has yet to practice what he preaches of energy and oil consumption.

Look, if you believe this Climate Change/Global Warming/Impending Iceage - whatever they are calling the panic this week,

then you go right ahead and STOP driving cars, heating your house, cooling your house, eating foods made with fertilizers, using plastics, electric lights, etc.

Maybe YOU can make a difference. WE are not going to stop you. YOU are free to do what you wish.

AND SO ARE WE.

We are not trying to legislate YOUR behavior, but you are trying to legislate OURS.

Freedom means people don't do what you want them to do, just because you say so - we are not your children.

Do you want right wing people legislating your morality?

NO, then why should you be able to legislate ours?

can anybody say "set up"?

Perhaps, there is a warming trend but to think that humans can control the weather is silly, we cannot even predict it.

That is spot on! Perhaps I would be more willing to believe their climate predictions for the next 100 years if they could get the next damn three days right!!!

Pragmatic,

Excellent post! The thing that scares me the most is that the attitude of science as of late is not about asking questions and seeking truth. It is about promoting whatever belief the NAS has and ignoring, sidelining or lying about evidence that doesn't fit their preconstrued ideas of what they think should be. You see this more and more and legitimate scientists that dare speak out against the status quo are penalized, marginalized and have their character destroyed because they dared question the NAS.

True science, including climate change, should be based on evidence. Period. Not conjecture or opinions, nor should it be altered or deleted because it counters the beliefs or opinions of special interest groups. If global warming is legit, let the evidence speak for itself. The more questions one asks and is ALLOWED to seek the truth to will only reinforce the evidence of global warming if that is in fact what is happening. My main question is, why does the NAS and others like them fear questioning? Since when did the scientific method change to 1)observe phenomena 2) postulate opinion and belief about why said phenomena exists 3) perform experiments that are certain to reinforce your belief 4) destroy evidence that contradicts your belief about said phenomena. I love science. But it certainly isn't the same domain that Newton, Einstein and other greats once practiced. And that is the true tragedy.

how many of you "regulars" are paid to be here?

I wish I was Get The Point!!!

Smith Cassidy....

To think that big oil and manufacturers are not conscious as a whole about the environment is the big mistake that is being made on the part of environmentalists. Many strides have been made and never noted. Why?

The big problem that we face as a nation is that the infrastructure economically and environmentally is being hammered to the point that we are collapsing while looking for the greater answers. There is no new horse to pull the cart, so we are on the way to destroy the horse that is pulling the cart for the moment without an adequate replacement.

In the meantime, the big guys who have been hammered are being demonized while they are the ones that are supplying the fuel for function! How stupid!

The technology is not readily available yet. And when it is available, the big guys are the ones who are going to supply it. Will they then be demonized again because they make too much money?

We can't sit there and blame big energy companies for looking out for their interests. They are not all the devil wrapped up in sheeps clothing. And we can't take away the coat that covers without having the replacement ready to go.

This administration and the movements that influence it are willing to take the coat away without having a replacement. Let the people.... the most important natural resource on the planet... suffer! Those Elk and Polar Bears are more important! Let's add the minnows in there too.

P.S. ... and all those who are part of the extreme enviromental movement are white as snow!

Frankly, most of these comments are pretty scary. I'd suggest anyone that read this story and thinks that Climate Change (caused by humans) is bunk, actually read the context of the emails that were released. I've read them, not just the cherry-picked comments, and so-called analysis by our media, and they don't point to anything nefarious.

This story is the product of a small minority of whack-jobs that want to find anything at all to discredit all of the good peer-reviewed science that points without question to global climate change due to human caused emissions.

Quit reading the tabloid-esque stories published by the media and actually look at the data yourself.

Thank You, Ryan in Texas... My thought exactly. You save me from feeling I should say the same thing. But, as I am certain you already know. Most (not all) of those who have bought deeply into Left Wing Lunacy are absolutely convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority... regardless of any alternative thoughts that may be offered. Even Al Gore with His Egotistical "I'm right", and everyone else is "wrong" attitude along with His "I'll cut your mic if you try to doubt or question Me" way of facing other opposition. It was the same way with the ultra Liberals in the Town Hall Health Care meetings. If they did not like what someone have to say... They Cut their mic right away. I was at three and saw it with my own eyes. Some of these tortured souls cannot bare the thought of letting another idea or point of view be presented...even as their own agenda's and program's all fall flat and are relegated to the pile of Abject Failures.

But, the day is approaching when they will not be able to "Cut Our Mic" unless they plan to set up armed Black Militia in front of the voting centers the way they did in Chicago last year... then it will soon be time to say goodbye to these politicians who believe that what We have to say does not matter Then, they can take another very long hiatus from leadership to decided whether its the Politicians and their Socialist agenda... or the American people and their Constitution that decides whats Best for their lives.

To say that we don't add to the temperature changes here on earth? This to me is a no brainer. We deffinetly add to the circumstances. 1+1=2. Sure I might agree that the change could also be a part of natural occurances but the fact that we add to this natural occurance is a has to be scenerio.

Now on the fact of hacking emails? This is an invasion of privacy and not much different than breaking in to someones home or business and stealing mail. This is a heinous crime which seems to happen on a minute by minute basis. We need to be more secure as a country of computers which happen to be in every home and business. Start arresting this colperates and incarcerating them for their crimes. Sure anyone can hack all you need is google. The only difference between them and others is their lack of respect for others privacy. we should demand better internet security a task force that actually works for everyone and not just high priority targets. Don't tell me it can't be done. This should be a very important step to National Security of the Nation not just our government.

Wow, this story broke days ago and has been hashed out on many other sites.

Now all the MSN "non-Scientists" come out of the woodwork and give their "offical bonified opinion" on the topic,

Hah! what a zoo you people are running here demanding we play God with the weather and our tax dollars.

and ryan in texas,

If your actions to "do what you want" really are threatening my life, or the lives of my children or grandchildren?

what should I do then?

We are not trying to legislate YOUR behavior, but you are trying to legislate OURS.

So, you live in a different country then? Because in the United States, where I live, our behavior is very much legislated. Do you pay taxes? Do you obey speed limits and pay tickets if you get caught going over the maximum? Do you renew your driver's license when they tell you? Do you register your car? Do you have insurance on your car? Insurance on your home? etc. etc.

That argument holds no water.

Hey, Where is America?,

Good post. And while I agree in part, I disagree with some as well. Sure, Big Oil may be demonized, but it isn't all simply because they aren't considered green. Remember when oil prices were through the roof, this country was just getting into our economic problems, people were struggling/stressing about paying for something as innocuous as gasoline, and oil companies were breaking records for profits quarter after quarter? I'm pretty sure that did little to endear oil in the eyes of many.

And I agree, disliking a company simply because they make a lot of money is not right, but I'm not giving them a hand-job either.

Part of the reason the technology is not up to snuff just yet is because there is no incentive for companies to invest in the technology just yet, but oil companies get tax breaks? Something isn't seriously fkn wrong with that? And on top of the tax breaks, there are special rules in the Tax Code for oil exploration and discovery, for the wear and tear of the machinery, etc. If Big Oil shouldn't be vilified, should it be pampered or given special treatment either?

If it were not for Big oil money We would have never heard of a AL Gourd senior or Junior.Not only has the Gourds been getting rich from Big oil and strip mining He is getting Rich from his investments in green energy at the same time.

Gore's Oil Money
Senator Al Gore Sr. The elder Gore was such a loyal political ally that Occidental's founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a $500,000-a-year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company's board of directors. At the time of his death in 1998, Gore the elders estate included hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Occidental stock. The Vice President is the executor of the estate, which still includes the stock and whose chief beneficiary is his mother.

But Occidental's funneling of money to the Gore family doesn't end there. In the sixties, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000--twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights. After receiving his first payment, Gore Sr. sold the land for $140,000 to Gore Jr., who has received a $20,000 check nearly every year since he acquired it. Strangest of all, Occidental has never actually mined the land. Al Jr.'s coffers swelled further in 1985 when he began leasing the land to Union Zinc, an Occidental competitor

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

SPPI Monthly CO2 Report

September 2009

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sept_09_report.pdf

page 14 of the report.

summer minimum sea-ice extent has grown 24% in 2 years

Arctic summer sea-ice extent (purple)

has increased in each of the past two years, and is very close to the mean for the past decade. Since there has been no statistically-significant "global warming" since 1995, and since the decline in summer sea-ice extent has occurred only in the past five years, the decline that occurred in 2007 cannot be attributed to "global warming". A paper by NASA in 2008 attributed the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum to unusual poleward winds and currents bringing warm weather up from the tropics. A few weeks after the Arctic sea-ice minimum, there extent of Antarctic sea ice reached a 30-year maximum. The Arctic was in fact 2-3 F° warmer in the 1930s and early 1940s than it is today. A recent paper suggesting that the Arctic is now warmer than at any time for 2000 years is based on the same defective data, and is by the same authors, as the UN’s attempt to abolish the medieval warm period in its 2001 report. In fact, for most of the past 10,000 years the world – and by implication the Arctic – was appreciably warmer than it is today. One of the authors of that report had previously told a fellow-researcher, "We have to abolish the medieval warm period." However, papers by more than 700 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries over more than 20 years establish that the medieval warm period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. Source: University of Illinois, 15 September 2009.

We all can agree we dont want dirty water smog dirty air or man made deserts and dust bowls but climate change is taking the focus off these goals and placing them on a farce called man made climate change. That does nothing to clean oceans streams and lands in our country and does nothing to encourage the worse polluters around the world to do there part to clean up theres.

It's just a scam to get some headlines.

Look! It worked.

NETAN, thank you for posting the link to those emails. Ive spent over an hour now reading them. Everyone should!! It's a shame that men of science should choose the path of NOT being truly Objective and choose to further there own cause by manipulation. To desire to thwart the process of debate with submitting "bad" papers for peer review . To not calibrate against instruments to determine results.

To read the emails- http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Al Gore need to go to jail, making billions of this global warming scam and fined a billion trying to rip off the world he crook

Scientist has lost there jobs coming out with the truth that Global warming is a scam, Al gore and company from the White house to the U.N, all crooks

I sent this to my Senators in Pennsylvania, I urge everyone who reads this to send this or something similar to their Senators. Thanks

Global warming has been exposed as a FRAUD. Top climate-change scientists have manipulated data to hide cooling trends and worked together to marginalize scientists with opposing views.
Academics have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results to commit scientific fraud.

I want you to support Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who says he plans to demand an investigation into the fraudulent data manipulation unveiled at a highly influential British research center.
Any Americans involved in this FRAUD should be prosecuted. This thing is serious. You think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

They have an "objective". To stay employed in acedemia and out of the real world.

That all goes away without "Global Warming".

Think about it. If they say there's no negative climate change, why would anyone need them?

Climatologists would be out of work. They would have to become meteorologists. But there are plenty of meteorologists already. (And we don't have to wait 20-50 years to find out that the weatherman's prediction was wrong.)

So when the weatherman says there's a 20% chance of rain, and then it does rain, does that mean they were 80% wrong?

SICKOFIT Objectivity, is not a prized commodity, in the somewhat bizzare world, of the liberal.

Silly me, I thought this discussion was about hacked emails. Now it's throwing stones. It's hard to be objective when you're throwing stones, I would think. But what do I know? I'm just a moderate, middle-of-the-road fiscal conservative and political progressive.

ryan, that's a ridiculous statement. scientists who study climate get paid the same whether the climate is warming or cooling. wasn't it Lincoln who said 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt'?

Yeah joe but they cant really apply for huge amounts of grant money without screaming "global warming is coming". Since Al got the Nobel and got everything stirred up they might as well run with it and milk it for all they can.

joe mota - How many climatologists were there in the 1960's?

OH, that's right, very few.

It's a growth industry now.

It started with the climatologists who were warning us of an impending ice age in the 1970's.

But we had some warm years so they had to change their tune.

If you think that they would get paid the same whether there is climate change or not, then you are ignorant. They would not be employed.

Why would you need them?

It's a little like the mold remediation industry. So you would say that there would be just as many people in that industry making just as much money whether or not mold is a dangerous problem?

But maybe you are right. I remember my Politcal Science Proff. that built his entire career on "Communist Soviet Union is Going to outlast the US. And how they were a much stronger country than the US."

He's completely proven wrong, but still has his University job (last time I checked).

Scientists tend to find whatever the person funding the research wants them to find, if they don't they know someone else will, so they might as well line their own pockets.

This discussion, like all political discussions in America, is about the objectively impartial fact that...

DEMOCRATS ARE SCUM.

Your arguments regarding Democrats are much the same as many of the arguments in this thread: irrational and retarded.

And of course Democrats are evil, while Republicans are angelic. Right. Can't find any problems with Republicans. They all live in glass houses. As opposed to having a problem with politicians in general, as opposed to realizing they are 2 heads of the same beast, you choose sides to make yourself feel better, superior...

Sorry to break the news, it's not really working. I think you need a new tactic.

Sorry joe, but grant monies must be competed for, and yes, quite often special interest groups will fund research in the arena they are hoping to profit from. Sometimes academic grants will be granted, but these most definitely do have qualifiers. Just ask all the scientists whose grants were pulled and monies requested back because their research didn't fit the agenda the University wanted to promote. These scientists most certainly have good cause to fudge the data to support certain interests in the interest of furthering their careers, gaining access to more grant monies and to prevent industry ostracizing. What happens when you hear a disenting opinion? He/she is ostracized, marginalized and made out to be some idiotic bozo, even though their credentials often meet if not exceed those of whom are doing the ostracizing.

Do not doubt for a second that the scientific community has long been compromised by special interests. The domain of science is more political than ever.

Pull you heads out of whatever preconceived notions you endeaver to hold as true. If you add heat to heat you get more heat. Duh.

The older I get the more I realize that the average american is far below average intelligence. Sorry if my comment offends you personally. And if it does you know that its true.

I do agree the hype has a conterproductive response upon exagerated data but sometimes you have to scare the @!$%# out of people before the acid rain actually falls. We are a people less willing to change even in the eyes of certain doom. We only change after the doom has become fact and not educated theory.

I would think that the endeavor of taking care of the planet would be a hand and hand prospect. Does not the Earth take care of you? Why not give a little back? We are so set on destruction since WW2.

MDB123 writes

If you add heat to heat you get more heat. Duh. The older I get the more I realize that the average american is far below average intelligence.

Wow 123, if this were science class in 8th grade you'd get an A. But the truth is people all over the world run wood stoves in the first month of winter, but it just keeps getting colder till spring.

I guess according to your non-sense and people making heat, "thank God they all shut er down in the spring before the world burns up".

Heat has more to do with the Sun than my wife baking pies on Sunday afternoon.

If you are worried about pollution and acid rain fine, than quit throwing in Global Warming as something we can stop. The Ice Age melted away and the glaciers and have been melting for thousands of years now. And I have pictures of glaciers over the past 120 years melting away.

If you want to stop pollution fine, but stop spending my tax dollar playing God with the weather.

I would think that the endeavor of taking care of the planet would be a hand and hand prospect. Does not the Earth take care of you? Why not give a little back?

Good post. It's just common sense, right?

Vault313

Sorry joe, but grant monies must be competed for, and yes, quite often special interest groups will fund research in the arena they are hoping to profit from. Sometimes academic grants will be granted, but these most definitely do have qualifiers. Just ask all the scientists whose grants were pulled and monies requested back because their research didn't fit the agenda the University wanted to promote.

So what you are saying is scientists can be bought, regardless of the research they are doing, right? So, does anybody think Big Oil, Coal and other fossil fuel/energy companies lack the resources to fund the findings they want found?

grant monies must be competed for, and yes, quite often special interest groups will fund research in the arena they are hoping to profit from...Just ask all the scientists whose grants were pulled and monies requested back because their research didn't fit the agenda the University wanted to promote.

Special interests? Like the NOAA, a government body?

None of the deniers on here actually understand the process of being given grants do you? You just think some organization of hippies is out there tossing cash at scientists who agree with them in order to foster their agenda? What f&cking planet do you live on!!?? Scientists get money from the government based on the quality of their research, not the results. In fact the government more often stifles research that doesn't agree with IT'S agenda. If a scientist loses funding it is likely that he is a poor scientist with poorly proven results. Sometimes there is a reason no other scientists agree with the dissenter - it's because the dissenter is an idiot and can't prove what he is concluding. If you can't prove it, you're out the door. Very rarely is it because of agenda. The facts speak for themselves, period.

This episode of hackers stealing emails demonstrates the lengths of deceit and illegality the oil industry and its lobbies and interests will go to undermine science, which remember is performed for the good of all. They will cram some BS down the public's collective throats in order to scare politicians into voting in favor of oil companies. If they can convince the r-tards among the public that science is wrong and evil then they won't vote for legislatures who are informed by science, they will vote for those who do the oil company's bidding. This hurts everyone and leads to a country that is more informed by the inertia of common sense, fear and laziness than by real information and cutting edge knowledge.

Wake up!! By most of your own admitions most of you are ignorant of 1. the scientific method. 2. How science is funded and why. 3. the evidence itself. 4. statistics. 5. everything about climate.

But oh no, you guys are experts! Let's really listen to what a bunch of naive laymen think. Grow up, wake up, or shut up.

so, even if the current population is not sufficient to poison the planet and suck up every resource, then we should just keep feeding people and encouraging them to multiply until they DO suck up every resource and poison the planet?

brilliant plan there.

danwill- so you do not want to feed people?? how sick is that

danwill..you sound like some in Obama's administration who think population control is a good thing. Democrats can care less about people. If the environmentalist/politicians(democrats) would let California water their crops perhaps we could at least feed ourselves. Everything the democrats do is for the destruction of life. Abortion, banning DDT causing millions of black African children to die, not allowing us to feed ourselves, rationing health care. Cramming us in small unsafe cars. Democrats are a party of death.

is it?

should we encourage people to keep multiplying? look around you, there will be a point where there will be no possible way to feed anyone if the numbers keep increasing. what are you going to do then? pray to invisible friends while everyone starves to death?

how sick is it to expect others to keep feeding "you" and "your" offspring when you can't even control your own gonads?

Hey danwill:

You could start controlling the population and reducing the number of people needing to be fed immediately. You jump first.

Where was Al Gore when this was going on? What did he know, when did he know it and how much did he know? Seems that lying is OK if you are for a liberal cause, after all, the ends do justify the means so all is forgiven. I read some of the emails on line days ago and they all appear to be in line with the theme of covering up that the earth has not cooled in the last decade. BTW, if any one was to research the Little Ice Age in Europe it was accompanied by huge rain storms that drenched the farmlands and killed the crops. Floods in England and Ireland right now may not be global warming, but global cooling instead. I hope not, cooling is devastating, it generated plagues and famine killing millions from 1300 1850. Oh wait, I am wrong, Al G. just called and said it is warming after all. I feel better.

If you don't think people affect the planet, read Daniel Quinn's Ishamel (if you can put down the comics). Ask yourself this: Does the planet look any different today from 10,000 years ago when man first began farming? If you think it is the same, there's no help for you; you're in denial, too stupid, or too ideologically intransigent to spend your own time doing a bit of research.

Ex Lib,

Brilliant idea! Let's bring back DDT and add to our water system; this way when we feed ourselves, we'll be immune to those pesky eagles. And stop killing all of them dam black kids by cramming them into small cars!

Remind me again Genius; when exactly did our president mention "population control is a good thing." Love this quote also "Democrats can care less about people." Yep - you nailed all of us people again; Way to Go!!! Golly, gee ...I wish I was an open-minded genius just like you!

I'm not in favor of "Population Control". That sounds a little Nazi.

But every country with lower birthrates has excellent economies.

How many kids do we really need?

Shouldn't the limiting factors be how many you want AND HOW MANY YOU CAN AFFORD TO TAKE CARE OF?

Why does so much of my money go to feeding, clothing, housing and medical care of OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN?

I don't want the child t be the victim, they are innocent. But the parents should have to repay the taxpayers once the child is 18. Just like child support, but to be paid after instead of during. We can set-up payment plans that can be assessed with income tax.

I'll bet alot of single moms will suddenly know who the babies daddy is when they realize that he will help split the bill that will be coming from the Gov't once the child is an adult.

Don't have them if you can't take care of them.

When we have 10 billion people on the planet, who among you says the world will be a better place than with 6 billion?

More is not always better.

While ist is true that CO2 is a green house gas it is a relatively weak one when compared to water vapor. For example in the desert it can be a warm as 100 degree Fahrenheit during the day and cool to as little as 40 degrees at night. I agree with Danwill. Over population of the earth will pose a much greater problem than a small temperature increase of the planet. For example look at how much the earths human population has surged over that last 100 years compared to the 1.3 degree Fahrenheit increase predited by climate models. Most large developed nations such as European nations and developed Asian nations and have achieved a near zero population growth. The USA has a relatively flat rate too of population growth. Also if you can't feed yourself than why are you having babies then? Just take a look at how nature controls population it does it through starvation and disease. Humans do it through war over resources. So does the earth need more than 6 billion mouths to feed? I believe that trying to achieve a zero population growth would solve many problems and it should be done through contraceptives not abortion. I do not advocate eugenics either. Just have only enough babies to sustain the population no more. The earths rapidly growing population will cause more death from starvation, disease and war over resources than 1.3 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature. think about it, the earths projected population is suppose to double in just 50 years. I don't feel that the planet can sustain 12 billion people by 2059?. So whats better a sustainable population or horrible deaths through starvation disease and war. I feel we need to address this for the victims will be primarily children born to those who cannot feed themselves. Also look at it this way. You can have a healthy well educated high standard of living versus masses of poorly educated disease ridden society where starvation and death are common place. And where there is war over all resources. What would you prefer?

Public service announcement:

DEMOCRATS ARE SCUM.

Correction. Both Democrats and Republicans are scum. Think for yourselves do not believe all the rightwing BS or left wing agenda of the welfare state. Elect a good well educated independant then our country would be better.

danhill, et al,

Concerning over-population... Your arguments seem sound to me. Nature puts constrains on species populations constantly. Where do we get off thinking we don't have any? Scientists say birds don't think on higher levels. Just for a moment, assuming they do, I imagine this is the sort of debate many species of bird populations would be having. (Maybe already had thus, are no longer with us. grin)

We see adaptation in species whose life spans are shorter than our own all of the time. Humans take up so many resources and so much space; we're frickin' filthy too. Living in reasonable comfort, just how much does it take to support a human life with the life expectancy of say, 100 years? (Wishful thinking on my part)

Plus, we have to realize, the life on this planet doesn't seem to be able to adapt to our waste, shoot, we aren't doing so well ourselves.

However, I'm not one to start a world war over it. I think 7 billion people is a good place to start fixing the problems. I'm just at a point where, because we can talk ourselves into just about anything (negative or positive) we really need to mandate the # of babies born, also stop the "boy babies are better, kill the girl baby" thing. Hey, you get what you get.

We should be pushing several positive things as well, like indiginous tree propagation for home planting. Banning the use of nitrogen for greening lawns. Stop this bottled water crap. Replace those jobs with jobs designed to clean and replenish our rivers and lakes. Sell grains and fruit out of the packaging. Create mass transportation. Again, open up the technological resources we already have knowledge of but are being kept from, based on economics. This is the sort of stuff I figured any intelligent congress would promote ~in a bail out. LMAO. Sure.

Str8... do we always have to do everything for you lazy libs. It is John Holdren Obama;s science Czar. look it up yourself. And while you are at it. look up how DDT was proven not to do anything to the eagles. But by not using it millions of mothers and fathers had to watch their kids die. For what? A lie, a fear that was proven to be false. See they put something out there, and no one , well no libs actually checks it out. You keep believing their lies. You are very useful idiots. Oh and stop being a racist. Conservatives believe everyone has the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, even liberals.

Ex-Lib, are you saying DDT is not poisonous? What about cigarettes being addictive and causing cancer, is that bullsh*t as well?

Regardless, DDT has as much to do with the climate debate as CFCs and asbestos.

Democrats can care less about people.

You need to take your polarizing sunglasses off and realize there is no magic line dividing Dems from Reps, they are just people, sometimes switching sides (like you apparently), and all part of the same government machinery. Statements like the one above are ridiculously foolish.

It seem that ex-lib is a viewer of Faux News and hangs on every word of the college drop out oxycontin addicted Rush Limbaugh and the moronic utterances of Sean Hannity and the likes. Yes DDT has been proved to cause a thinning of the egg shells in the predator birds such as eagles, hawks and owls. Especially those birds that consume fish. Since DDT became concentrated in fish because many of them are predators too and one large fish eats many little fish all which contain a small amount of DDT and then the eagle eats many of these predator fish causing the concentrations of DDT to go up in their fat recources. Please read the post below.

*DDT was originally created in 1873. Only when its use as an insecticide was discovered in 1939, however, did it come into widespread use. The scientist who made this discovery was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948.

After World War II, it became especially popular due to its effectiveness against mosquitoes that spread malaria and lice that carried typhus. The World Health Organization estimated that 25 million lives were saved because of its use. Problems soon surfaced, however, as many insects began to develop resistance to the insecticide. It was also discovered to be highly toxic to fish.

Because it does not break down easily, DDT builds up in the fatty tissues. Animals that ingest it, carry it for some time. It takes an animal eight years to metabolize one half of the DDT it consumes. Birds, like the bald eagle, ingested DDT after eating contaminated fish. The DDT caused the bird's egg shells to be brittle and thin and to break easily. Eggs often were broken in the nest when the parents sat on them during incubation. This was one of the reasons populations declined to dangerous levels.

DDT was banned in the United States in 1973, although it is still used in other parts of the world. Birds that migrate to other continents are still at risk. primary source: University of Oxford, Department of Chemistry

Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells.

And since DDT is a fat soluble pesticide it got more and more concentrated in the birds of prey like the eagles and hawks and owls. The chemical got into the fish from eating the dead insects and big fish eat little fish and it tended to reach a pinnacle in predatory birds. Since it affected calcium metabolism it lead to thin eggshells which broke under the weight of these large birds of prey. It didn't affected chicken eggs much because they are not carnivorous and DDT would not reach high levels in their metabolic systems. Look it up and read the scientific studies before you post. Also what does this have to do with the debate about global warming? Geez.

But by not using it millions of mothers and fathers had to watch their kids die. For what? A lie, a fear that was proven to be false

Ex-lib, do you have any clue whatsoever as to what you are pointlessly babbling about?

WHAT millions of kids dead? you are full of spit.

ddt is still in use today for mosquito control in malaria prone countries, the only outright ban has been for agricultural use.

GustoGuy, your argument has been completely discredited by science. Controlled amounts of DDT spraying will kill mosquitos carrying deadly malaria and not have an adverse impact on fish, or eagle eggs or anything else. You may be correct that massive amounts of DDT that were sprayed decades ago caused harm. But recent scientifc studies have shown that we have the ability to eradicate malaria for a very small cost if DDT spraying is allowed. Yet the politically correct allow 20 million (mostly poor Africans) to die annually because they refuse to allow a proven pesticide to be used. Again, the actual quantity of DDT needed is quite small to be effective. The 1964 movie "Silent Spring" has been completely contradicted by real science.

I find it odd how rich white Europeans and Americans are so against something that will help poor black Africans.

Regarding population. It will find its own level without government interference. Agricultural families used to be large. Now that America and Europe are mostly urban, people have many fewer kids than before. We figured this out without being told. As Africa and Asia get more educated and urban, people will stop having so many kids. We don't need a government to tell us how many kids to have. See Communist China

Those of us that are optimists believe the answer to our problems will come from a new baby. The next Eistein, the next Martin Luther King, are sitting in car seats right now. These babies will some day solve AIDS and cure cancer and find better sources of energy. People are the solution, not the problem.

Incidentally DDT was endorsed by the WHO in 2006 to be used when other pesticides such as malathion are no longer as effective. South Africa has been using it for years to control malaria mosquitoes. I am not an uppity American for I would like to see more insecticides and other natural controls be used in areas of malaria to reduce deaths too. Mosquito netting over beds helps as well as localized spraying and indoor insecticides and prompt treatment of malaria victims in order to limit the spread of the parasitic disease. Another area is a vaccine that would allow our bodies to fight off the malaria parasite. see below article from "Scientific American"

The most promising long-term solution is a vaccine, and exciting candidate vaccines are now in clinical trials. Yet even as we await a vaccine, a confluence of advances gives a chance for a breakthrough in the near term. The first is the invention of long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets, which protect sleeping individuals against indoor nighttime biting. These nets last for five years, unlike earlier nets that needed re-treatment every few months.

Until very recently, things were getting worse, not better. The malaria parasite became widely resistant to chloroquine. Confusion over DDT’s prudent anti-malaria application (sprayed as a thin film on the inside walls of houses) and its function as an insecticide in open fields (which is environmentally unsafe and promotes resistance) also curtailed use of the chemical.

The WHO estimates that oral medications to treat malaria are about $3.00 and mosquito netting is about $5.00. It is possible to eradicate malaria from the African continent is we are willing to spend up to 3 billion per year for several years in order to control the mosquito population and treatment of infected individuals will get rid of the reservoir of the infection. It is estimated that it will cost approximately $3.00 per per person in the high income countries for a few years to save millions of lives lost to malaria.

In no way is America forcing people not to use DDT when it can be effective in controlling malaria mosquitoes. Applying it a a thin film on the walls of a home has been shown to be effective at killing the mosquitoes too. Back before DDT was banned in the USA in 1973 it was used in agriculture to kill a variety of insects and that lead to it reaching high levels in the environment and that what caused the decrease in eagle population due to egg shell thinning. It is true that DDT is banned for agricultural use yet it is still allowed for malaria mosquito control especially when malathion or other insecticides are not as effective. Don't take my words out of context please. or say that I am against its use for controlling malaria mosquitoes.

oagd, and your point is?

the bird of prey population only recovered because DDT was banned for agricultural use, and restricted for malaria control.

if it hadn't been banned, falcons and eagles would likely be extinct now.

Yes, all studies are clearly fabricated...

You should really read more than just the headline before you comment.

Dude we all can read! You Read this. WHY?

There are other scientist (SCIENTISTS WHO DON'T WORK FOR OIL COMPANIES) who question the science of Global Warming!

Are you a scientist? Or just a believer?

dupe.... i took your advice, read the e-mails this scam is larger than i had thougth....

there are a few, (not that many). but it is a good thing to keep the debate going.

Oh rah NAVAL!

just look at all the drug studies that the fda use to approve medications for use on people. all are paid for by the company that makes the drug. they get to chose who participates in the study so nobiody with any average health problems are allowed in. they get to eliminate participants who start to show signs of intolerance to the drugs. and the FDA alolows this to go on. our fine government at work. same system here. anybody who doesnt agree with the politically correct idea of man made global warming is insane and should be euthanized.

Hey Scientist byonddisgust - where exactly do you do your work? My bad; Are you a scientist? Or just a believer?

Question - is there a problem trying to have a cleaner planet for your children and grandchildren to live on?

The global warming scam goes well beyond legitimate emission reduction (something I've always supported). All new cars and trucks have limits on the emissions coming from them but somewhere along the line egghead "environmentalists" decided that wasn't enough. So now they're working overtime with "Carbon credit" schemes and pay per mile scams. There's a goal beyond emission reduction and that is to limit mobility (since these pay per mile scams would tax even Electric Vehicles) and move everyone into multi-unit housing in the city where BIG BROTHER can keep his eye on you. Behavior modification at it's finest.

No it is not STR8, but the idea of scaring people into doing something that benefits a specific Population without both sides of a Scientific Arguement being debated makes no sense at all. Especially when it is MY Money (AKA Taxpayers) paying for it! How much Grant money has been awarded in the past 20 years to scientists and Scientific Agencies to do research that is countrary to the NEW Scientific Order!?
0$
WHy not a dollar?

And I am not a scientist. I did not or do not argue that I am! I am a Political Scientist (University of La Verne '99). I am a Construction Manager is Los Angeles, CA. I am a LEED Certified Green Builder. I know how to think for my self. Thats it. I am a Critical Thinker. ANd I am sick of seeing Special Interests blocking contrary opinions, rather then letting Peer groups debate the grounds of Science! Science does cost money, and when one side of a debate gets Grant Money based on what they Intend to discover, without even begining an experiment, makes me question today't Scientific Method! When Grants are pulled because the results become contrary (Mid Experiment) to what the Grantees objectives are; this shows no discenment for the Scientific Method and all for Political Drama!

Public service announcement:

DEMOCRATS ARE SCUM.

Why is it that the associations of those with dissenting opinions are always called into question, but not with believers? As if believers in global warming couldn't possibly have associations that are less than savy? That's like saying minorities cannot be racist.

beyonddisgust,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The NAS is more about silencing opposing views, opinions and research than they are about true, legitimate science. The droves of people (incredibly intelligent people, often with multiple Ph. D.'s) the NAS and other organizations have ostracized is enough to make any rational, semi-intelligent person want to puke. Science in America has been hijacked by special interest groups. The only true scientific discoveries that will be made in the future will not come from America. And it's not because we don't have smart, innovative, critically thinking individuals. It's because money and corporate interests rule the day and unless it makes money, it's silenced.

How much Grant money has been awarded in the past 20 years to scientists and Scientific Agencies to do research that is countrary to the NEW Scientific Order!?

Now it's the "New Scientific Order" is it?! Let the vilification of the intellectuals by the working class heroes continue.

beyondisgust, there is absolutely no truth to your vision of how science operates. Show me how a grant can be funded without supporting research. I really want to know. It will be a hell of a lot easier for me to get my grants funded if I could learn this trick! (I am a neurobiologist) It seems that all of your information on this subject of integrity in science does not come first hand. I think it would be more accurate to call it second and third hand rumor.

If any research group got funded without supporting research or just to act as a front to fabricate data to fit some agenda, then the ENTIRE scientific world would be freaking out. Because that money could have gone to cancer research, or Alzheimer's or somewhere else. It is not a secret who gets funded and by whom. The fact that only oil company lobbies and the internet naive are up in arms tells me this is all BS and there has been no wrongdoing. The fact that you named this conspiracy the "New Scientific Order" tells me you are a conspiracy believing nut who wouldn't know what to do with himself unless there was some boogey man to be afraid of that you could use as a scapegoat for why your world sucks.

The droves of people (incredibly intelligent people, often with multiple Ph. D.'s) the NAS and other organizations have ostracized is enough to make any rational, semi-intelligent person want to puke. Science in America has been hijacked by special interest groups.

Even people with multiple Ph. Ds are capable of being poor scientists and it happens in all fields, not just climate research. If you cannot support your conclusions with evidence and you cannot account for evidence that is contrary to your conclusions, then you will be held accountable for your persistence in what is a dead end. However, if you prove that the world is indeed flat, you will get a Nobel prize.

Scientists do not lose funding for going against the grain, they lose funding for losing their argument and not conceding it. That is essentially what happens - the facts are in, and you have nothing left to show. If you persist and do not relent defeat, then you lose credibility and money. It is neither nefarious nor wrong, it is simply sad. Sometimes these scientists turn to the tabloids to get their ideas heard among ordinary people whose standards for truth often prove to be much lower than the NAS. Then ordinary people go about spreading rumors of conspiracies and begin believing in whatever crackpot idea the scientist was selling. Then they post on Newsvine.

It's no different than the THEORY of Evolution. Once enough of them buy in, it is reality rather than THEORY. No one can prove any of it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Somehow we give them the power to say they are right.

This is true, bob, but prepare to be stoned! How dare you question the almighty Darwin!! It's like they forget he was just a man, and could very easily be wrong about some things he postulated back in the 1800's. But it's like you said, any dissenting view is shut down immediately and those who dare question the all too blaringly consistent problems with Darwin's theory are made out to be religious fundamentalists with an IQ of 25. Again, let the evidence speak for itself. Allow questions to be asked, even of evolution. If the theory is sound, the evidence will support that and only make it stronger. Again, what are they afraid of?

If all else fails, change the definition of what a theory is. Oh, wait, they've already done that.

Could you imagine if these a$$hats were around when Einstein dared question some of Newtons theories? (shutter)

I truly wonder why my FACTS are not be refuted by the so-called "global warming theorists". I can easily prove their mainipulation of the numbers, sea line and populations with actual facts and not one is willing to explain why they ignore the little ice age.

During the 1970's we were facing an imminent ice age according to these same "professionals". Again in science opinions does not count.

obviously you can't read.

demitrix,

"I believe everything should be done to curb unnecessary strain on our environment, the entire "Global Charade" is just that." Well stated

I agree, except for I do not believe anyone of us can definitively make a conclusion unless we are presented our own evidence

danwill

Obviously, you cannot "read between the lines".

Obviously, you cannot "read between the lines".

IE, "make up whatever you want to"

Just like your kind does, danwill? Or, if all else fails, insult ones intelligence. God knows, that shows just how mature and intelligent you are yourself.

vault313, no, more like your kind, psychopathic and hypocritical "true believers" that see satan behind everything that they don't agree with.

I've seen "true believers" that I respect, and you aren't one of them

Don't oppose C&T just because you don't understand it.

Understand what DUDE? First off it does not exist yet! It is only a theory (Unless you take the carbon footprints that you are paying Al Gore to eradicate for you! How much has Al Gore actually done with that moneY?)

Dude: Never make the assumption, that someone who posts their view points that may be contrary to your personal opinions are uninformed. If I need some one to tell me "What I can or cannot oppose", it sure would not be you. I fully understand cap and trade and what it is based on, what it will cost, and the monetary impact it will have on our economy.

Skipper, my concern is that the US government will soon be telling us what we can and cannot oppose.

DUDE, There in. lies the problem, we do understand it.

Tjhe real concern, we have is that the average temperature of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter are also up two degrees . Supposed to have something to do, with sunflares.

Is ther anyone we can negoitate a climate bill there? Can we dispatch Mr Obama there, for a conference.

I'm not sure of this, as far as I know, there is no government on the Sun, but I'm sure Al Gore knows.

Amen Skipper! Did you see where AL GGOOORRRREEEE was talking about geothermal and showing us what a mental giant he is said that the center of the earth is millions of degrees! HAHA, What a rube! It is between 5,000 to 9,000 degrees! Just a little off! The sun core has temps of millions. Wow ! al said we are living on a star. What a dip! He believes in the baffle people with BS theory. The global warming crowd are making crap up and when they get found out resort to the wiz of oz defence! Pay no attention to the man behind the global warming curtain!

dude,

I think skipper's got a good grip on C&T. Who do you think should be running that program, these guys?

Ozone Al has done more to damage the environment than any of us could in hundreds of lifetimes (by pimping NAFTA which moved entire industries outside of EPA oversight), the fact that he's the chief inmate running the "climate change" asylum would be laughable if so many people weren't ready to drink this two-bit side show hustler's "magic elixar". Too bad the Rookie didn't send the flim-flam man to the UN a few weeks back when China and India stole our thunder by BS'ing their way into being declared the new leaders in "going green" without agreeing to one concrete limit to their polluting (which is real poison the earth stuff unlike all the "carbon limit" hysteria on our EPA regulated industrial emissions) .

It is only a theory

Haven't you heard? Theory no longer means theory. It means proven unquestionable fact. You probably don't even really know what the real meaning of is, is. ;P

Haven't you heard? Theory no longer means theory. It means proven unquestionable fact.

I'm not sure why you're laughing. I think you are the one who looks stupid here. A scientific theory is supported by evidence. Your kind of theory is a guess. They are not the same thing. I know it all sounds crazy to you, but that is because you are admittedly a layman. Spend some time actually reading about scientific research and not just commenting on what you heard some guy say on the interwebs and maybe it'll sink in.

I saw that too. Very interesting huh!

Yep, there's a research facility in Greenland where ice core samples are taken. The ice cap on Greenland is the result of tens of thousands of years of snowfall accumulation, about 200k years to be more accurate. Snowflakes look pretty innocent but when they fall, they pick up various particles and gasses in the air as they make their way down to the surface of the earth. It is too cold to melt so all that snow just accumulates and as more and more falls, the stuff on the bottom gets squished into ice from the pressure of everything on top of it. Chemical analysis will tell what kinds of particles and gasses and how much so they are able to map out climate cycles over the last 200,000 years with that information. An even more valuable and less publicized source of temperature changes are cores taken from the ocean floor. They can see by the concentrations of 18 Oxygen how the ocean temperatures fluctuated and have a record going back 2 million years and counting presently. These two methods have been used to pinpoint activity such as megavolcano eruptions that caused the planet to cool, one 75k years ago in Indonesia caused the earth to slip into an ice age. Various natural phenomena will cause the earth to warm and cool for periods of time. Benjamin Franklin even noted this when he was in Paris as the US ambassador and the Laki volcano errupted on Iceland. Europe suffered one of its coldest winters after that erruption.

Am I a believer in climate change? Well, I do not think that it is a good idea to just pollute the planet willy-nilly with no afterthought of what could result from it. There are dozens of other reasons not to use fossil fuels than just the hypothesized effect on the climate. Mercury contamination is a fact, every body of water in the US has mercury contamination on some level and mercury is a byproduct of burning coal. Hence the warnings on eating too much fish. The fine layer of soot, dust, fecal matter, etc. floating above Los Angeles and Mexico city it evident for everyone to see, that's not healthy to breathe. Carbon dioxide is just one byproduct of burning fossil fuels, there are a plethora of other nasties that come from it too.

I hope these scientists that believe the planet is warming up are wrong. If they are wrong, worst case scenario is nothing happens. It's a far scarier scenario to contemplate if they are right.

Great Write Rachel!

Precisely my thoughts, I am not saying that we should be irresponsible with the only environment that we have! What I am saying is that we need to stop Politcising this Environment!!
This is the Liberals 'War on the Environment', and I am just not to keen on any particular parties views of issues of 'WAR'.

Seen where that takes us!

beyond disgust it's more like the liberal's "war on prosperity" than "war on the environment". I've always believed in legitimate environmental protection but the movement has been hijacked by the radicals and I can't and won't support that.

this is important because of all the money that can be made with this scammmm.

Rachel- thanks for the explanation!

I love science, but never got into glaciation and ice core study.

I took an intro to geology for my lab science in college, interesting stuff to learn how the planet works. Just a collection of cycles: weather cycles, rock cycles, erosion cycles, water cycles, etc I certainly wasn't aware of how much of it worked until I took a semester-long class on it with a lab. It is all very intricate and interconnected as well. This class just scratched the surface as well, I'm sure each of these topics we covered are a science in themselves.

I think what these scientists are advocating when it is all said and done is just to be more prudent about pollution. I don't think it is an attack on prosperity, if we look at the big picture, short-term prosperity won't mean a thing if we don't have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and uncontaminated food to eat at the very least.

There are pros and cons to cap and trade just like everything else in life. It isn't just about controlling the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere, it is about making sure that industry doesn't over-pollute the soil and water too. I was fortunate enough to live in the EU for a few years and cap and trade has been in place there for a while now. It has certainly improved the air and water quality in European cities for starters, I lived mainly in Scandinavia and they work very hard to manage pollution and keep their countries clean. There is a fair amount of squabbling among EU members about how some countries pollute more than others but for the most part, it has not stifled growth there.

I don't see the problem with recycling our trash, using fewer pesticides on fields, getting around with the bus or by bike/foot as much as we can, etc. Those all have other benefits besides keeping pollution at a minimum. We are going to run out of fossil fuels one day, that's been established, as it how much they pollute our world. I don't find it imprudent to start working on finding a replacement for it now. I also think that when you only have one planet that will sustain us, messing around with its works is very smart for the sake of a few dollars. We as human beings need to tone down the greed and laziness. We can make a living from the planet but we also need to make sure that those resources are there for future generations.

Politically, I'm a moderate. I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", I fell asleep during it since I don't find Al Gore a very catchy speaker. I still take the bus because I can't drive to work in the time or for the cost of what the bus is, I recycle because I don't have to take out the stinky trash as often if I do, and I take my bike when I can so I don't have to spend as much time at the gym. My dad told me something when I was a teen that has stuck with me - You can't always turn right or left in life or you will only drive in circles. You have to turn right and left in the correct places to get somewhere in life.

I loved that book! Notice how it disappeared from the Newstand faster then it appeared.

It is almost as if the book was never written. WOW.

Yep...politics...

It's not like that at all.

Most responsible production corporations will still embrace cleaner ways.

But the whole point is, that the climate cycle was not man made.

TURN BACK THE CLOCK? If innovations are so successful and clear, why do we need to introduce Cap & Trade then?

I didn't see anything in the article which advocated turning back the clock. I didn't even see anything in that vein in an op-ed piece over on Yahoo. I think what these emails show is what anyone with half a brain has always known: science isn't as objective as it's portrayed to be. The reason for that is because science is done by human beings. Everyone has an agenda. The difference is whether or not they make it explicit. I can point out countless examples from the history of science in which the scientists cling to their chosen theories as fiercely as any believer to his religion.

Climate change is no different. Whether real or fabricated, there is a lot of money to be made from it. Al Gore made millions through fakery (even doctoring NASA photos). The idea of better using resources, of trying to reduce pollution is all very good...but I resent the manipulation that people try to pull in order to guilt me into it...which is why I mostly ignore all the climate change reports and simply do my best. I recycle. I compost. I've mostly stopped using incandescent bulbs...and I'm not doing it because of global warming.

Easy answer, beyonddisgust. As you suggest, we do not need Cap & Trade. The real reason Obama is pushing the legislation is to generate additional tax revenue for the federal government. This has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with out-of-control spending. The tax and spend crowd is firmly in control and our economic future is bleak as a result.

Did you hear the report yesterday stating the earth's temperature has actually cooled over the last 9 years?

Did you hear the report yesterday stating the earth's temperature has actually cooled over the last 9 years?

The report is actually years old. And it is a statistical trick. I believe it was 1998 that was the hottest year ever recorded. So what the oil companies did was begin to plot the temps from 1998 to present - of course the trend goes down slightly. But if you plot the temps from 1997 to present or from 1999 to present they all go up. In fact the moving averages for all of the modern temp data plotted together shows we are still in an upward trend. In fact something like the hottest 11 years on record happened in the last 13.

And you guys say that the scientists play with data!

A statitiscal trick is global warming proponent basing their information on 1750 to present. If they based it off of 1700 to present there would be a 3-5 celsius) increase within a 50 year period.

The proponents of Global Warming continuallly ignore the fact that the Northern Hemisphere was in an ice age and not under mans influence when it experienced it's largest "global warming".

But still amazing how people ignore science to forward their ideals.

So, the Little Ice Age was cold, so what? If you go back even further before that period we are still currently well above the mean temperature and rising fast. The temperature increase coincides perfectly with the billions of tons of CO2 gas we are liberating. The physics of this match exactly what we would predict and exactly what is happening. You can't just conclude that some mysterious force is creating warming and then provide no evidence of that force, especially when there is ample evidence of a force that is more than capable of creating the current trend. CO2.

So, the Little Ice Age was cold, so what? If you go back even further before that period we are still currently well above the mean temperature and rising fast.

But we are not above the "mean" temperature.

The Mean temperature used by Global Warming Theorists is from 1750 to present. If they used 1700 to present you would see we are well below it. That is one of the tricks used in that pesky email.

Go back even farther lets say 1300's. We would be even further below the "mean" temperature that theroists use, but they ignore those temperatures because it does not match their data or is "psuedo-science".

Go look at the Florida Coast line, even now Global Warming theorists ignore coral buildup 25 foot inland because it causes flaws in their data.

An actually I can provide a force. The number one greenhouse gas....

Water Vapor.

Wanna know why CO2 is evil?

Cause we can tax it.

A perfect example of this idiocy was in the 1970's and the evil of fluorocarbons eating the ozone layer and the imminent Ice Age. Proven later was that the ozone layer can repair itself and it was not flurocarbons.

I digress.

Show me more than your word that it was hotter in 1300 and 1700 than it is now. Like show some data.

All of the ice core data shows temperatures back then to be below current temps. I think you are either being lied to by some ignorant web page or you are just making stuff up.

The number one greenhouse gas...Water Vapor.

Actually, no...it's sulfur hexafluoride.

Water vapor has remained fairly constant do to human activities. Increases in water vapor are only secondary effects of warming in general, such as increased evaporation. Carbon is still the number one concern because of the tonage of it we put into the atmosphere. The effects of all of this carbon far outweigh any effects of water vapor.

A perfect example of this idiocy was in the 1970's and the evil of fluorocarbons eating the ozone

Umm...the ozone layer repaired itself because of the worldwide ban of chlorofluorocarbons. If we kept using them the hole would not repair itself. Not sure where you get these gems, but please stop making yourself look foolish.

As for the imminent ice age of the '70's - a couple of groups (less than 1%) of geologists and climate scientists at the time of the infancy of climate research made those claims based on very early and incomplete measurements. Adding more data to their files they quickly realized they were mistaken. Not a single scientist believes we are in a cooling trend at present.

You see, they only had very limited data sets which appeared to show cooling - kind of like certain other limited data sets that we have been discussing. Hmmm...

The difference between those guys in the 70's and the guys today is that back then that was all the data that existed. Today there is simply no excuse for only using a small data set to trick the statistics towards your predetermined conclusions.

What about the Grant money these sceintists receive from Governments, Universitys, PAC, etc. The Science of Global Warming is also BIG BUSINESS!

Therefore, if it is all about the money, then why does that not apply to everybody involved in this debate?

maggie..........give Gore and his disillusional followers some credit, think of all the jobs they have created for people with no real talents, environmental scientist must get paid pretty well for conducting these falsified studies

The only money that will be cut off is the money that supports anyone saying Global Warming is a myth and not the emergency that the environmentalists have created.

If true and accurate scientific data is shown I will be the first to change sides. However, the scientific community is williing to go off off opinion and bias with disregard of the factual truth.

What are you talking about? That's the definition of a conservative.

ACepero- cute little bull@!$%# retort you did there.

Conservatives think, and save and plan.

Liberals write checks even when there is no money in the f88ing bank.

Then when they find out they are overdrawn, they get "Little Big Headed Timmy"

to print more money.

Conservatives think? I lost you after that... I'm neither liberal nor conservative as I feel they are all full of bull@!$%#, as you so eloquently put it. I was simply stating a mere observation, and a sarcastic one at that, since someone always manages to make EVERY issue a bi-partisan one. Oh and try not to take politics so personally, it's not good for your health, or anyone else's for that matter.

Good to know ACepero.

Welcome to the class of conservative thinkers.

I also am not partisan, I could care less about democrats or republicans.

It would pay for you to notice the difference between "conservatives"

and their close older relatives the "republicans".

They are not the same animals anymore.

But, I do believe in conservative values and making my own way.

Now dont confuse the poor global warning crowd with facts and logic! You have to tell them that their farts produce global warming! Maybe they will hold it all in till they pop! Problem solved.

Standard school trivia even 50 years ago.

Greenland is colder than Iceland.

Go figure.

i wonder what effect the movement of the continents over time has had on the world climate ?

Wish anyone here would check out historical context. Greenland was named "Green"land because they were trying to attract immigrants - 'way, 'way back in those days before there were enough people to really affect climate change.

Oh, that's right, history & science don't really matter any more. Oops.

ornery dem- YOU are correct!!

And what is that another example of ??? hmmmmm?

Government deciet and corruption.

the southernmost part of greenland is rather nice (and green) in summer

We need congressional term limits and we need them right now!!!!

Wisconsin Bob........Supreme court says you already have term limits by way of your vote.....What is really needed is a state by state 'Conflict of interest law'. a people's law that curbs national and foriegn special interest lobbyist influence over our representatives in Congress and state the legislatures........a people's law that confines campaign fund raising to the PARTICULAR district, or constituency a PARTICULAR public elected office is empowered to represent in an official capacity in whatever legislative body.....In essence, " If you are not my representative, you cannot accept campaign contributions from me, I have my own representative."

lol -michac

Oh no no! According to AAAALLLL, Even that has something to do with GWarming. If it rains it GW, if it poops dogs and ice cream comes out of the ground! Its GW! If you get a foot of snow in the WINTER! Its GW! The US has 500,000,000 people who work, 57 states, The core of the earth is millions of degrees! Lord help us! The inmates are running the loony bin! And! for a fact! ALLLL GGGOORRREEEEs house uses 20 time the energy and water then Gwwu bushes house does!

Al Gore got rich investing in Google early. Can't blame him for being smart.

As for the colder temperatures, they are right back up where they started. About 5-10 degrees above normal. Temp today in the Northern Plains is an average of over 50 degrees, FOR NOVEMBER.

By the way, President Bush's house uses wind, solar and geo-thermal. So, you're right, his house is greener than Al Gore's. Funny, an oil man going green. I wonder why....

We have been giving the rich too much money for the past 25 years. Let's get some it back.

Good one... you assume you will "get some it back" once the administration starts taxing YOU for energy consumption?????

Anna: Good one, LMAO!

That's true. I like to support Operation Blessing because they help people in America and around the world. For example when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans they were there first waaaay before FEMA.

Power to the entrepreneurs, not the government.

Katrina hit Mississippi.

The New Orleans thing is a farce.

Had Katrina hit NO like it did anywere from Waveland MS to Gulfport MS,

there would be NO New Orleans.

(ask me how I know this)

Now, there is a democratic liberal response, he has no concern about ahuge conspiracy being foisted on the entire country, his concern,. is that it was obtained illegally. Lovely.

ACORN was exposed by breaking 1 law in Maryland,so should they be refunded?