Dems: Virginia Station Won't Air GOP Climate Change Ad, Citing Factual Errors (VIDEO)

Congressional Republicans were dealt a setback Thursday in their attempt to punish Democrats in swing districts for voting for climate change legislation in the House last week.

WDBJ-TV, a Roanoke television station, will not air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), citing factual inaccuracies, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director Jen Crider. A source familiar with the station's decision confirmed Crider's account; WDBJ general manager Jeff Marks confirmed that the ad would not run, but declined to say why.

"The ad is not running, be we have not characterized why that is," said Marks. "We don't characterize why an ad is not running. We looked into the complaints [from national Democrats], but other than saying that, you really need to find out from the NRCC."

An NRCC source said that Democrats are mischaracterizing the station's decision. "One station has temporarily pulled the ad. The station manager has also informed us that he plans to notify the DCCC about their mischaracterization of what exactly has transpired. The ad is still set to run on the other stations in the local market," said the source.

Marks said the station has made no public statement saying that it rejected the ad for factual reasons. He confirmed that he notified Democrats that he had made no public statements about the ad. He did not reject the assertion that the ad was pulled because it was inaccurate, declining to comment instead.

Earlier, the nonpartisan organization FactCheck.org called the ad "wrong."

Adjudicated FactCheck:

The ad says the bill will result in lost jobs and cost "middle class families" $1,870 a year. That sounds pretty dire, until you consider that this week we posted an item about the Office of the Republican Whip Eric Cantor's claim that the same bill would "impose a national energy tax of up to $3,100." So is the cost of the legislation going down? Did the NRCC make a mistake in its math?

Hardly. While it may seem curious that House Republicans would flog two different cost figures for the proposed legislation, it is indicative of the difficulty in determining how a cap on carbon emissions could affect Americans' electricity bills. The NRCC ad credits a Washington Times editorial for its claim that the Waxman-Markey bill would make electricity prices "skyrocket," costing families $1,870 a year. But the NRCC is wrong.

Here's the ad:

Ryan Grim's book, This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America, is now on sale

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[RomeoMD25]

Enron recognized the profiteering potential wheeling and dealing in Climate Management.
The groundwork had been laid well, not least by entering into relationships with scientists who,
Enron expected, would further its cause (James Hansen, the scientist who? more than any other is responsible for bringing the
possibility of climate-change catastrophe to the public, was among the scientists Enron commissioned)Enron saw the importance
in silencing the scientists who didnt accept the alarmism

[realpolitic]

Is that why Enron went broke years ago and its executives were thrown in jail? Do you read the papers? Enron is ancient history!

[FormerReaganite]

Here is an interesting analysis of atmospheric water vapor and global warming

http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=7547#p7547

[ReedYoung]

http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-validation
"Interestingly, it seems that just about everybody now agrees water vapor provides a robustly strong and positive feedback. Roy Spencer even sent me email saying that he agrees."

[FormerReaganite]

Polarcap2 admits that he lives under a bridge here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/05/biden-we-misread-how-bad-_n_225849.html?show_comment_id=26625050#comment_26625050

If link does not work, use this one (3:01pm 0705 2009)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/05/biden-we-misread-how-bad-_n_225849.html

[FormerReaganite]

Polarcap2 seems to disagree with anything and everything stated by "liberals." So then if we call him intelligent, well-informed, and good-natured, he will have no choice but to disagree with us, since he cannot possibly agree with anything a "liberal" says. What a pity.

[realpolitic]

great point!!

[RomeoMD25]

Historical and climatological facts do not support the threat of Global Warming.
During the last "Climatic Optimum", from 700 to 1200 AD, the planet was much warmer
than it is now. This led to a population explosion in Scandinavia (which gave rise to the Viking Age)

Later, during the "Little Ice Age" of 1400 to 1800, Norse settlements in Greenland were wiped out
and Iceland nearly followed.

[FormerReaganite]

You watch the History Channel too, eh? Most of what is presented in their "documentaries" is pure speculation, not hard fact. That has become more of an entertainment channel than an actual history channel.

[realpolitic]

"The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around AD 800-1300 during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries". Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century."

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=%22Climatic+Optimum&page=1&qsrc=2106&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMedieval_Warm_Period

[polarcap2]

ya gotta laugh at fruitcakes trying to quote a NASA scientist (not a climatologist) who says "may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe." - notice the use of "MAY" - the use of the word MAY in English denotes speculation, as in "New York City MAY get hit by an asteroid" or "..May be the target of alien attackers from outer space" - in any event it was the NASA computer modelling and the same personnel who predicted global cooling in the '70s along with the 'fact' that consequently 75-80% of animal life would be extinct by the year 2000 - makes these guys real credible, huh!? Also, ice should now be in the suburbs of Chicago, world-wide starvation should have reduced our population by 2/3, etc. Sheesh

[CitizenSovereign]

Before making the determination that all climatologists are for the same idea of global climate change, read some work by Roy Spencer.
-Chris Henderson
politguard.com

[ReedYoung]

The "discrepancy" Roy Spencer found was resolved by last year.
http://www.grist.org/article/A-roomful-of-cynics/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm

And while we're on the subject of deniers, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is a lying sack of dog mess.
http://www.grist.org/article/Roy-Spencer-Inhofe-650-is-bogus/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/whoopi-goldberg-calls-gle_n_205845.html
Eat it.

[FormerReaganite]

Polarcap2: You are further displaying your naiveté with statements such as

"notice the use of "MAY" - the use of the word MAY in English denotes speculation, as in "New York City MAY get hit by an asteroid" or "..May be the target of alien..."

This is proof that you never actually read science research studies, nor have you an ounce of training in the field of statistics. The word "MAY" is always used because all (serious) research is based on a level of *probability.* Since this is so, scientists do not say "never" or "always" they say "MAY." Your ridiculous observation reveals your blatant ignorance.

[Sepulchre]

There are not facts in science. There are hypothesis, which are untested assumptions, and there are theories, hypothesis that stood up to repeated observation and testing. Gravity is just a theory it is not a fact. So scientist try to avoid absolutist speech. 'May' is a common word among scientists because they realize that science is fluid, it moves and builds upon itself, as knowledge expands so does science, and it allowed it's fluidity for that reason.

By the way NASA does hire climatologists, now guess why?

[realpolitic]

Polarcap is trotting out all the usual conservative disinformation on warming, including the myth about global cooling.

According to "THe Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus...

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then."

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

[FormerReaganite]

I did not pay a lot of attention to all of this back in the 70s (I was in high school then) but from what I can recall, wasn't the "global cooling" scenario a probable result of nuclear war? (They called it "nuclear winter")

[GeneralDisarray]

polarcap2
Member Since July 2009

Go back to Politico were they buy your B.S.

[SayLessDoMore]

FYI -- Good chance polarcap2 is misrepresenting his/her "bona fides." Anonymity of these forums let people premise their arguments on experience, skills they don't necessarily have. Case in point:

Mr. Raccoon profiles him/herself as a business owner arguing from a scientific foundation . . . BUT won't, or can't, answer the challenge to share authoritative links. Press him/her hard enough, and he'll resort to name-calling.

Probably dealing w/ a kid. Not a mature adult, in any event.

[realpolitic]

I think many of the conservative posters get paid to post here.

[polarcap2]

hey fruitcake - check links below or do your own research on non-political web sites - even a brain-challenged lefty windbag has a chance to learn some factsl, though I know this is supposed to be a fact-free site for lefties

[J242]

Scientific Institution? Yeah, probably just as "scientific" as the Discovery Institute and as open-minded as "Bob Jones University"...

[ReedYoung]

No, no, encourage it to stay here and be debunked. I don't want to chase it to politico.com. Bring 'em on! :D

[Jeffersonian1]

With the epic antics of Sarah Plalin, Mark Sanford, John Ensign and Michael Steele, each apparently attempting to top the other for some dubious distinction, I have one, modest suggestion for the Republican Party as it attempts to regain some sembelance of credibility:

Just stop making sh*t up.

[ReedYoung]

And the rest is silence.

[FormerReaganite]

We know that solar radiation is blocked by airborne volcanic fly ash. This results in temporary reductions of surface temperatures. Polarcap2 has been insisting that global temperatures have "flat lined" since 2001, therefore CO2 *is not* causing global warming. This is a completely wrong-headed conclusion, considering the massive cooling effect of the abundant volcanic activity over the last few years. Perhaps Polarcap2's arguments begin to fall apart here.

Solar radiation reduction from volcanic eruptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png

Here are several recently-active volcanoes. While these are not eruptions as major as Pinatubo in 1991 which cooled the planet for two years, the sum total is a considerable amount of volcanic ash. (Is this the reason for the "flat-lining?")

Soufrière Hills Volcano (Montserrat)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soufri%C3%A8re_Hills

Mount Etna (Sicily)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Etna

Mount Redoubt (Alaska)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Redoubt

Fourpeaked Mountain (Alaska)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourpeaked_Mountain

Cleveland Volcano (Alaska)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Cleveland_(Alaska)

[FormerReaganite]

Link repost

Solar radiation reduction from volcanic eruptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aMauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png

[SayLessDoMore]

Also, the comment about warming "flat-lining" is just plain wrong:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Ocean heat is a far greater long-term problem than anecdotal observations about atmospheric temperature.

[realpolitic]

No, I think the reasons temperature have declined the last couple years has to do with the solar minimum and the cooling la Nina we have been having. Scientists see solar activity picking up and it may soon convert to a solar maximum, augmenting the warming.

[FormerReaganite]

Yes, a number of causes. If it were not for these, there could be worsening climate changes already. We may just be getting a break until the storm comes...

[Concerned American99]

Obama Dismantles Free Press

One of the lessons history teaches us is that the further a country moves to the left, the more restrictive its press becomes. In a true Marxist state, the press is an extension of the government and acts as the party’s official mouthpiece. Competition, freedom to report accurately, and dissent are not allowed. Punishments for transgressions are swift and severe. The most egregious example of this was the former Soviet Union.

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/07/02/freedom-of-the-press-under-fire/

[nellie]

spam

[Sepulchre]

And this had what to do with the subject of this article and thread? Nothing would be the correct answer.

Post something relavant.

[overcat]

Who in the government pulled this ad? Oh, let me answer that - no one. You're completely wrong, and you're trying to connect this to the current admin when in fact this is about a media outlet choosing not to air partisan MISINFORMATION for the republicans.

The country isn't moving to the left, the country is moving forward.

[polarcap2]

uh - not true, undercat - the reason the station didn't want to air the ad is because it showed a tape segment from Bambam's campaign where he stated that "prices would skyrocket" if they brought in cap and trade, which he is now doing - obviously this was a political decision to not embarrass bambam

[polarcap2]

and coming soon to the USSA

[Birdman]

Do you really believe the stuff you write or is someone paying you to spread Bull? Just curious because none of what you stated is factual. In fact what you are saying is this country is becoming communist. That certainly is a laugh when in fact it is moving back to the center where it belongs but we have been so far right that the totalitarian state we have existed in has confused people into thinking we have moved to far left. Well I got news for you, historically we are still right of center, but then what would a died in wool republican know about freedoms. Considering your God GW Bush imposed more laws on the average man and circumvented due process more than anyone single president. BTW if some TV station decided to exercises their right not to air a commercial as long as others in the same market do so there is no harm,.. And this hardly represents control of the media as you claim. You want control of the media? Look no further than Rupert Murdoch, but of course you might have trouble seeing why he might be a problem after all he blindly supports the GOP.

[polarcap2]

so Murdoch controls CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, etc etc etc???

[realpolitic]

Yes, he must get paid to post here because polarcaps2 juvenile posts waste his time and ours.

[realpolitic]

According to the study "Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.....


"It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past
50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases."

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-all.pdf
p.11 of 180

Let's see how polarcap2 dismisses the study without bothering to even look at it.

[polarcap2]

here we go -

more than 700 scientists disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

[SayLessDoMore]

For those who missed it below, polarcap2 ACCEPTS the NOAA data on climate as fact-based. Therefore, take a look at it yourselves and determine if "the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001."

FYI, the heat content of the world's oceans has increase -- since 2001 -- by about 6x10(22) joules [ sorry about the "(22)" ... should be superscript - haven't figured out how to do superscript on this site yet ].

EVERYBODY WHO ISN'T A RACCOON FEEL FREE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CLIMATIC DATA polarcap2 ACCEPTS:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[J242]

Great job of ripping off text from a WSJ article and not quoting or linking to it in order to try and sound more educated. Fail...

[realpolitic]

The WSJ article was nonsense and taken from Senator's Inhoffe's bogus list of skeptical scientists. Only crazy denialists equate bogus lists with real peer-reviewed science. Because they do not have the background to discern real information, it is almost impossible to talk with them.

What did Joanne Simpson really say.

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

"And she goes on to talk about how NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission can provide more complete information by testing the predictions of climate models. Simpson is skeptical, but she's using the word with its original meaning, not the way that "global warming skeptics" use it."

Itoh was taken out of context roughly the same way. It shows how juvenile minds like polarcap2 are so easy manipulated by masters like Rupert Murdoch.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx

[realpolitic]

More on Inhofe's list where the editorial in the Wall Street Journal comes from...

"First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx

[FormerReaganite]

PolarCap2: Why don't you create a nice film documentary and go on TV with your propaganda. Be sure to provide *indisputable* evidence of your claims.

Everything you have presented so far is no better than innuendo and distortion of fact.

[Sepulchre]

I have only read through this page, but he seems very uneducated about science. As a scientist I tend to see this a lot. However once people who have no real grasp of the science involved get an idea in their head about it, there simply is no arguing with them. Nothing you tell them will change their mind because they will not grasp what you are telling them or they will simply refuse to believe it or listen.

It is a sad comment about the educational system in this country.

[realpolitic]

Yes, but also it is commentary about the mentality of conservatives.

"A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

[SayLessDoMore]

You're right. At best, he is recycling talking points; doesn't seem to have actually read any of the overwhelming amount of research - some of which is, in fact, controversial - and when pressed, resorts to name-calling.

Emerging evidence is that this is an adolescent probably goofing around.

[polarcap2]

so you are accusing NOAA etal of distortion of fact? I would tend to believe them rather than you since what you have presented so far is no better than innuendo and distortion of fact.

[SayLessDoMore]

Wait ... you ACCEPT the NOAA data? Then why are you arguing against the reality of warming trends in our oceans and atmosphere?

Or maybe you think you can just throw the sources at people with your own spin?

EVERYBODY WHO ISN'T A RACCOON FEEL FREE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CLIMATIC DATA polarcap2 ACCEPTS:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[MGhamma]

Actually polarcrap2, you're the one being accused of distortion of fact. And rightly so. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly ignorant arguement.

[realpolitic]

According to the International Panel on Climate Change study...

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

[polarcap2]

this is a political org - the IPCC - most of their 'scientists' are from labs where they mix perfume scents - get some climatologists, like Dr. Timothy Hall, for instance (you can google him)

[realpolitic]

Yes, it must be fun to live in denial world! Deny everything and read nothing!

You must mean the Dr. Hall who says... "Earth is warming to a degree unprecedented for thousands of years, due largely to industrial greenhouse-gas "

http://www.ask.com/web?q=dr+timothy+hall+climate+change&qsrc=0&o=10181&l=dir&qid=9C2E7E6A28BA216732CA239CA7336E03&page=1&jss=1

Now you can google "sanity."

[realpolitic]

Listen polarcap, if you do not have the background to understand the science, we understand. But make an effort to read it!

[nellie]

Hey, if you want to argue w NASA scientists, knock yourself out. I know which one I'll be listening to.

[polarcap2]

the IPCC (UN) report has been thoroughly debunked by numerous qualified scientists and climatologists, noting that they supplied no scientific evidence of global warming, only opinions

[AFVet1A251]

I'll take the bait... give me a CREDIBLE link to a SCIENTIFIC study that proves that global warming, due to man made causes, is a myth.

[AFVet1A251]

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

[realpolitic]

You will believe anything!

[polarcap2]

see above post - and these

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

www.climatedepot.com

[J242]

Wow, three entirely non-scientific sites two of which are just homepages for irritated conspiracy nuts. Yeah, that's great evidence compared to the scientific groups who ACTUALLY directly study the issue. Go chat with your Faux Noise buddies and don't forget to leave your nutty theories about the moon landing being faked at the door as well.

[realpolitic]

For the unread few...

According to Global Climate Change in U.S. study by U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

[polarcap2]

you will note this org has no climatologists on staff

[realpolitic]

Yes, none at all except...

David M. Anderson,
NOAA World Data Center for
Paleoclimatology

Donald F. Boesch,
University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science

Virginia R. Burkett,
U.S. Geological Survey

Lynne M. Carter,
Adaptation Network

Stewart J. Cohen,
Environment Canada and University of
British Columbia

Nancy B. Grimm,
Arizona State University
J
erry L. Hatfield,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Katharine Hayhoe,
Texas Tech University

Anthony C. Janetos,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Jack A. Kaye,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration

Jay H. Lawrimore,
NOAA National Climatic Data Center

James J. McCarthy,
Harvard University

A. David McGuire,
U.S. Geological Survey/University of
Alaska Fairbanks

Edward L. Miles,
University of Washington

Evan Mills,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Jonathan T. Overpeck,
University of Arizona

Jonathan A. Patz,
University of Wisconsin at Madison

Roger S. Pulwarty,
NOAA Climate Program Office and Earth .
System Research Laboratory

Benjamin D. Santer,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Federal Advisory Committee Authors

Thomas R. Karl,
NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Jerry M. Melillo,
Marine Biological Laboratory

Thomas C. Peterson,
NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Michael J. Savonis,
U.S. Department of Transportation

H. Gerry Schwartz, Jr.,
Consultant­/Transport­ation

Eileen L. Shea,
NOAA National Climatic Data Center/
Integrated Data and Environmental
Applications Center

John M.R. Stone,
Carleton University

Bradley H. Udall,
University of Colorado/NOAA Earth
System Research Laboratory

John E. Walsh,
University of Alaska Fairbanks

Michael F. Wehner,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Thomas J. Wilbanks,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Donald J. Wuebbles,
University of Illinois

[AFVet1A251]

Oh, so you want the local weatherman to tell you the climate is changing? All these ecosystems specialists, people from NOAA and all the others aren't enough for you??

[realpolitic]

Wow, I have never seen such unsophisticated science deniers as on this thread. They know nothing and want to shout it to the rooftops to let everyone know. Members of the far right may soon be walking around with their knuckles dragging on the ground.

[polarcap2]

well, can you direct to a credible source of scientific proof that global warming is occurring?

[realpolitic]

You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink!