http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

?

Hmmmm, Global Warming is not “disputed, or theoretical”, it is an observation. The following diverse and numerous empirical observations lead us to the unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

CRU temperature trend:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

NASA GISS temperature trend:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Satellite readings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Radiosondes:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html

Borehole analysis:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

Glacial melt observations:

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129

Sea ice melt:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html

Sea level rise:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Proxy Reconstructions:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Permafrost is thawing:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500

All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

This evidence leads us looking for an answer why? Well there is the undisputed fact that C02 levels are rising. And happen to know exactly where that “new” C02 comes from because of “molecular fingerprinting”.

And as a result of modern spectral analyses we know exactly what that C02 does in the atmosphere.

We are looking a spectrum of threats from GW, the easy to understand of them, like drought, could seriously diminish our ability to make food.

The worst of them are absolute catastrophic, are you really willing to throw the dice?

By the way do you know that almost 2/3’s of our country is in some form of drought right now?

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Finally, with regard to your theory about the Bush Administration dependent upon a coming catastrophe so they can read your e-mail (which, btw, Karl told me Dick was fascinated with) perhaps a few days after the 9/11 anniversary was not the best time for you to advance that point.

It’s not like it’s an entirely unfounded view. And personally, I see no problem in criticizing the government’s response on the anniversary, much less several days after. Criticising the government is not disrespecting those who died, nor is it disrespecting those who’ve worked in the aftermath to make things better, with the exception of the administration itself.

I’m not familiar with “Red State.” Some sort of conservative blog I suppose? If you frequent it, well then, good for you. You’re providing a service not unlike the one Publius and I attempt to provide in this liberal echo chamber.

As for changing my stance when directed to by Party HQ, I haven’t received any of the talking points since Karl left the WH. The whole operation’s really gone to hell in a matter of weeks. It’s just me now – all alone.

Finally, with regard to your theory about the Bush Administration dependent upon a coming catastrophe so they can read your e-mail (which, btw, Karl told me Dick was fascinated with) perhaps a few days after the 9/11 anniversary was not the best time for you to advance that point.

There are no procedural maneuvers, privileged communication, favorable judges, sympathetic juries / venues, quashed evidence, plea bargains, coached witnesses, or stare decisis et non quieta movere – in short, there is no hiding from the truth for a scientist (or those that push their beliefs into the arena).

If I may borrow your logic for just a sec’ :

Any President who’s administration(domestic spying, patriot act, clandestine/indefinite incarceration, dear God I could go on for ever…) depends on the existence of a coming catastrophe should be viewed with skepticism.

Now follow the money…..

To follow that logic, we should all be skeptical of Holocaust historians, because if the holocaust never took place, they’d be out of a job.

I have said it before and will say again, Smails, IP, etc.. will change their minds when they are told to do so. The day their party issues a new talking point accepting ‘mans hamfisted acceleration’ of climate change, they will follow suit. Until that time, you would have more luck convincing an Oreo to commit suicide by dunking itself in a glass of icy cold milk.

Great, now I want a cookie!

If climate change was only about the environment we wouldn’t have an argument. But its about war,peace,economics,and the stability of civilization – things we always regulate.