A great example of why I am worn out by the press

This article does a great job in refuting the Global Warming theory. I am not a scientist and like many of you, rely on scientific data to form my opinions on very serious subjects such as the potential for global warming. Reading this article makes it abundantly clear that I have no idea what the truth is anymore.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html

Someone else here said it first. 10,000 years ago where I live now was a mile under a glacier! Is the planet changing? Absolutely It always did and always will change. I'm not sure how much of an effect human activity contributes to it. What concerns me more is the pollution of our land and water with toxic chemicals, etc. It's just not very healthy to eat and *censored* in the same place.

Like most arguments, you just need to follow the money. Look who is pushing the warming issue. Hack has beens that need public
grant money to survive. Can we clean up a little ? Sure we can, but we don't need to scare the women and children to do it.
Clean coal has been a issue for years, and in most cases been solved. If you want to figure out global climate change, look as the
big ass ball of nuclear fusion that shines in the sky every day. If it's active, we get hot. If it take a rest for a while, we freeze are
twigs and berries off. If I could get about 5 million in grant money, I could prove it. Send me the money !

TSB

"When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.

Something I've known all along, too bad ALGORE and the like haven't figured it out yet. I guess they haven't spent enough time curled up with a Jack on the rocks to know this.

Global warming and cooling is beyond man's control. Never was, never will be. Man's effect on Global warming is non-existent.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spe ... arming.htm

Here is a NASA report to the contrary discussing glacial melting and sea ice melting. Obviously ice in water won't make any change in sea level, but the glacial ice would make a difference. Many folks say we can't have an impact on the climate. While I have no clue if we do or don't, I can't imagine we don't have any impact. I've sailed across the Gulf of Mexico a few times to Mexico and I was amazed at how much crud there is in the water in the middle of nowhere, 3 or 4 hundered miles from land.

When I lived in Saranac Lake NY in 1980 I did a lot of camping and canoeing in the lakes there. There was a small pond called Green pond I think off of St Regis Lake that was crystal clear. Apparently it was one of the early acid rain lakes. From what I hear there are now 600 lakes similar to this up there that are pretty much dead lakes. I don't think there is any question we have an impact on our environment, what is not so clear is how much.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12 ... index.html

actually there's been a lot of research done and a few epa scientists fired (they then successfully sued the epa) for discovering that the "acid lakes" in the adirondacks are natrually occuring due to the geology and the plant life in the area. acid rain has almost nothing to do with it. I grew up in the adirondacks where much of my family still lives and many of the ponds on our land are and have been devoid of much life due to the extreme iron/sulfur content of the water from the minerals in the rock.

actually there's been a lot of research done and a few epa scientists fired (they then successfully sued the epa) for discovering that the "acid lakes" in the adirondacks are natrually occuring due to the geology and the plant life in the area. acid rain has almost nothing to do with it. I grew up in the adirondacks where much of my family still lives and many of the ponds on our land are and have been devoid of much life due to the extreme iron/sulfur content of the water from the minerals in the rock.

So the science is now saying acidic levels are cyclical as well? If you have any articles on that I would really be interested in reading them. I don't see how iron/sulper levels could rise and fall significantly enough to make a lake suddenly barren. I'mnot saying it is not true, just that I don't understand hwo that could be possible.

most of the lakes weren't suddenly barren, they were "suddenly discovered". many had been like that for years, my mother played around "the pond" in the woods behind my grandparents house and would swim in it when she was a kid, it Never had any fish or other life (outside of a few plants) it was a "dead end pond" with no outlet, it's become mostly a peat bog over the years. they also recently announced after years of research that most mercury in lake champlain was not due to pollution but naturally occuring mercury leaching out of rocks in streams etc. that fed the lake; and that mercruy levels had not changed over time in the lake contrary to what was believed a few years ago. i'll see if i can find any references to this information online.

most of the lakes weren't suddenly barren, they were "suddenly discovered". many had been like that for years, my mother played around "the pond" in the woods behind my grandparents house and would swim in it when she was a kid, it Never had any fish or other life (outside of a few plants) it was a "dead end pond" with no outlet, it's become mostly a peat bog over the years. they also recently announced after years of research that most mercury in lake champlain was not due to pollution but naturally occuring mercury leaching out of rocks in streams etc. that fed the lake; and that mercruy levels had not changed over time in the lake contrary to what was believed a few years ago. i'll see if i can find any references to this information online.

The discovery issue is certainly not the sole case in the Paul Smith's area more specifically. We went on a canoe trip for 10 days and there were several dead lakes that were not dead in 1980 when I first started going out there. Again, I am not saying you are wrong, but that most definitely isn't the case in all the lakes up there.

I don't think there is any question we have an impact on our environment, what is not so clear is how much.

Agreed, Man has a huge impact on the environment, but not on global warming.

Here are some interesting articles. some are not excellent sources but you get the idea.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ai_8243865

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

http://www.cse.org/reports/env-acidrain.pdf

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/300/fr ... NFch15.pdf

I have a friend who has his earned PhD in Biology, is a true scientist, and his company depends upon govt. grants to exist. He knows where the science ends and the BS takes over, but you have to go along with prevailing opinion if you want to keep getting grants, meaning: keep your job.

Her's a good article with statistics.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/ ... niers.html

Bill S.