Global Warming=Terrorism

[Rigs11]

Allright righties, You've run out of excuses. We all know how good you repugs are at fighting terrorism so listen up! Looks like some reports have surfaced stating that global warming can lead to increased immigration and threaten our national security. Damn that mother earth...she's a terrorist.Hilarious! Oh and also human suffering but you guys don't care about that right? To each his own!

Report: Climate change threatens security
Global warming may increase illegal immigration, terrorism

WASHINGTON - Global warming is likely to increase illegal immigration, create humanitarian disasters and destabilize precarious governments and could add to terrorism, all of which could threaten U.S. national security, according to an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Logic suggests the conditions exacerbated (by climate change) would increase the pool of potential recruits for terrorism," said Tom Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, who testified before a joint House committee hearing Wednesday.

Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central and Southeast Asia are most vulnerable to warming-related drought, flooding, extreme weather and hunger. The intelligence assessment warns of a global spillover of those troubles: increased migration and water-related disputes, he said in prepared remarks.

Climate change alone would not topple governments, but it could worsen problems like poverty, disease, migration, and hunger that could destabilize already vulnerable areas, Fingar told the committee.

But he warned that efforts to reduce global warming by changing energy policies "may affect U.S. national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself," he stated.

"The operative word there is 'may,' we don't know," Fingar said.

Periodic assessments
The national intelligence assessment on the national security implications of global climate change through 2030 is one of a series of periodic intelligence reports that offer the consensus judgment of top analysts at all 16 U.S. spy agencies on major foreign policy, security and global economic issues. Congress requested the report last year. The assessment is classified "confidential."

It predicts that the United States and most of its allies will have the means to cope with climate change economically. Unspecified "regional partners" could face severe problems.

Fingar said that the quality of the analysis is hampered by the fact that climate data tend not to focus on specific countries but on broad global changes.

Africa is among the most vulnerable regions, the report states. An expected increase in droughts there could cut agricultural yields of rain-dependent crops by up to half in the next 12 years.

Parts of southern and eastern Asia's food crops are vulnerable both to droughts and floods, with rice and grain crops potentially facing up to a 10 percent decline by 2025.

As many as 50 million additional people could face hunger by 2020, and the water supply — while larger because of melting glaciers — will be stressed by growing population and consumption. Between 120 million and 1.2 billion people in Asia "will continue to experience some water stress."

Shortage of water resources
Latin America may experience increased precipitation, possibly cutting tens of millions of people from the ranks of those in want of water. But from 7 million to 77 million could still be short water resources because of population growth.

Fingar's statement strikes a considerably less ominous tone than a report issued a year ago by the Center for Naval Analyses on the same subject.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, accused the White House Tuesday night of trying to "bury the future security realities of global warming" in Fingar's prepared statement. On Wednesday he said the classified assessment itself is "first-class."

Fingar said no one in the White House changed any of his public testimony.

The Center for Naval Analyses report, written by top retired military leaders, drew a direct correlation between global warming and the conditions that lead to failed states becoming the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

"Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror," stated Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, who commanded U.S. and allied peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in 1996.

"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the previous report said. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations," stated the report, which drew on 11 retired generals and admirals.

California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said Congress' call for the intelligence agencies' report was "a dangerous diversion of intelligence assets." He said the issue should be studied by climate scientists, not intelligence agencies.

Republicans on the committee used the hearing to argue for domestic oil drilling and nuclear power to reduce reliance on foreign energy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25372743/

[Rigs11]

And the white house taking care of bidness:rofl:


White House tried to silence EPA on emissions
Agency official quit after administration refused to read e-mailed proposal

White House officials last December sought to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from submitting a proposed rule that would limit greenhouse-gas emissions from new vehicles, agency sources said yesterday. And upon learning that EPA had hit the "send" button just minutes earlier, the White House called again to demand that the e-mail be recalled.

The EPA official who forwarded the e-mail, deputy associate administrator Jason Burnett, refused, said the sources, who insisted on anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.

The proposed rule was EPA's response to an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the agency had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to take up the issue of regulating automobile emissions that contribute to global warming.

Burnett, who resigned from the agency earlier this month, sent the e-mail to the White House Office of Management and Budget at 2:17 p.m. on Dec. 5 and received the call warning him to hold off at 2:25 p.m., the sources said. The EPA is expected to release a watered-down version of its original proposal within a week, highlighting the extent to which Bush officials continue to resist mandatory federal limits on emissions linked to global warming.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that White House officials never opened EPA's e-mail. In March, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee disclosed documents showing that the White House had overruled EPA's findings on the impact of vehicle emissions on climate change.

Leave problem for next president?
Burnett refused to comment on the White House calls but said in an interview, "In early December, I sent an e-mail with the formal finding that action must be taken to address the risk of climate change," adding that he resigned his political appointment because the agency had been stymied in its efforts to respond to the Supreme Court. "The White House made it clear they did not want to address the ramifications of that finding and have decided to leave the challenge to the next administration. Some [at the White House] thought that EPA had mistakenly concluded that climate change endangers the public. It was no mistake."

The Supreme Court ruling held that the Clean Air Act compelled the government to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health or the environment. Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson is expected to issue an "advanced notice of proposed rulemaking" either this week or next that outlines the issues but takes no stand on whether to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment on the exchange, saying in an e-mail: "We don't comment on internal deliberations. As Steve Johnson said, both publicly and in congressional testimony, this was a decision he made on his own."

Congressional Democrats and several public health and environmental advocates said the fact that EPA changed its proposal under White House pressure will delay implementation of a national cap on carbon emissions and affect upcoming rules on fuel economy standards for automobiles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25379956/

[cutthemdown]

global warming isn't going to make terrorism worst because none of the horrid things predicted are going to occur. Besides it's not man made so there isn't much Bush can do about it.

But terrorism is bad enough regardless. This whole angle you are going for riggs is just stupid.

[Rigs11]

Wow. please enlighten us with you vast knowledge of how you could possibly know that this isn't going to happen. Especially since the effects of global warming are already being observed, not to mention the many scientists that state that we are responsible for it. Deciding that something doesn't exist will not make it go away. I know that's how you repubs think and all.

[Bob]

Brought to you by your friends at the Socialist Propaganda Network for Obama Worship Studies and Research. You guys want illegal’s to come to America to get driver's licenses and vote for your guy, and don’t believe in the threat of terrorism anyway -- so this should be considered good news for you.

[Bob]

Wow. please enlighten us with you vast knowledge of how you could possibly know that this isn't going to happen. Especially since the effects of global warming are already being observed, not to mention the many scientists that state that we are responsible for it. Deciding that something doesn't exist will not make it go away. I know that's how you repubs think and all.

Yes, yes, the debate is over ... do not speak, only look at our selective data that ignores the past decade worth of temp trends.

Can we just start the trails for oil executives now --as Hansen asked for -- for their "crimes against humanity" and the world?

[Rigs11]

Brought to you by your friends at the Socialist Propaganda Network for Obama Worship Studies and Research. You guys want illegal’s to come to America to get driver's licenses and vote for your guy, and don’t believe in the threat of terrorism anyway -- so this should be considered good news for you.

Actually genius if you bothered to read the first article it stated that the reports were made by US intelligence agencies. Oh I forgot you only believe the crap that spews from the embarrassment that you call a president.The illegals are already here, where the fucck have you been?

[cutthemdown]

We always have floods and natural disasters it only seems worst and worst because media reports on them more and more.

Plenty of scientists disagree with you riggs so i am not alone.

[Rigs11]

We always have floods and natural disasters it only seems worst and worst because media reports on them more and more.

Plenty of scientists disagree with you riggs so i am not alone.

And plenty of scientists agree that it exists. I'm willing to wager, many more than your scientists.So you think we should do nothing and take a chance?

[Bob]

Actually genius if you bothered to read the first article it stated that the reports were made by US intelligence agencies. Oh I forgot you only believe the crap that spews from the embarrassment that you call a president.The illegals are already here, where the fucck have you been?

Well, glad I struck a nerve --

The illegals are already here yes, and the Obama/McCain ticket will only make it worse -- but that is ok for those on the left who want their vote. It is ok for many on the right who want to have slave labor.

My point is that global warming is used as a pretence for everything and everything -- and in this case perhaps for things that many on the left want -- more illegals, and more pretending that terrorists are creations of Bush, nothing more.

[Rigs11]

Well, glad I struck a nerve --

The illegals are already here yes, and the Obama/McCain ticket will only make it worse -- but that is ok for those on the left who want their vote. It is ok for many on the right who want to have slave labor.

My point is that global warming is used as a pretence for everything and everything -- and in this case perhaps for things that many on the left want -- more illegals, and more pretending that terrorists are creations of Bush, nothing more.

Don't flatter yourself. You can honestly sit there and tell me that you would rather have undocumented illegals rather than documented ones?And that the repubs aren't grasping for every last vote knowing that they are going to get lose the election with mccain at the helm?Turn off the Limbaugh already.

[TexanBob]

Everything I know to debunk global warming, I learned in the fifth grade.

1) Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water.
2) When water heats, it evaporates into the atmosphere.
3) When it cools, it forms clouds and those clouds make rain.
4) The rain returns to earth where most of it runs into lakes and oceans thus returning to the state in step 1.

If, by chance, the globe was warming, the result would be increased evaporation which would mean more clouds, more rain and more cooling.

God has invented his own natural air conditioning system that accounts for subtle changes in the planet's temperature. Isn't He wonderful??

That system regulates temperatures on the planet because two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. Even the global warming zealots admit they only have data for land-based areas, not at sea where more than half the planet exists.

Man is not able to change this equation no matter how many hybrids, florescent light bulbs and cloth diapers we use. To think man can cause global warming or that man can change it by subtle lifestyle changes is the height of arrogance and hubris.

The only scenario I can think of where man would be powerful enough to permanently affect global climate would be in the event of global thermonuclear war - if we are ever stupid enough to do it. Short of that, the entire debate is nonsense and proof only of how gullible and dumbed-down many people are.

[BroncoBuff]

global warming isn't going to make terrorism worst because none of the horrid things predicted are going to occur. Besides it's not man made so there isn't much Bush can do about it.

But terrorism is bad enough regardless. This whole angle you are going for riggs is just stupid.
That's some pretty dry humor there, cuts.


But I do get it :~ohyah!:

[W*GS]

Everything I know to debunk global warming, I learned in the fifth grade.

1) Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water.
2) When water heats, it evaporates into the atmosphere.
3) When it cools, it forms clouds and those clouds make rain.
4) The rain returns to earth where most of it runs into lakes and oceans thus returning to the state in step 1.

Yes. So?

If, by chance, the globe was warming, the result would be increased evaporation which would mean more clouds, more rain and more cooling.

It's more complicated than that. What kinds of clouds are created matters, as does their albedo.

That system regulates temperatures on the planet because two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. Even the global warming zealots admit they only have data for land-based areas, not at sea where more than half the planet exists.

Entirely false. Ever hear of satellites?

Man is not able to change this equation no matter how many hybrids, florescent light bulbs and cloth diapers we use. To think man can cause global warming or that man can change it by subtle lifestyle changes is the height of arrogance and hubris.

Completely wrong.

[Rigs11]

Everything I know to debunk global warming, I learned in the fifth grade.

1) Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water.
2) When water heats, it evaporates into the atmosphere.
3) When it cools, it forms clouds and those clouds make rain.
4) The rain returns to earth where most of it runs into lakes and oceans thus returning to the state in step 1.

If, by chance, the globe was warming, the result would be increased evaporation which would mean more clouds, more rain and more cooling.

God has invented his own natural air conditioning system that accounts for subtle changes in the planet's temperature. Isn't He wonderful??

That system regulates temperatures on the planet because two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. Even the global warming zealots admit they only have data for land-based areas, not at sea where more than half the planet exists.

Man is not able to change this equation no matter how many hybrids, florescent light bulbs and cloth diapers we use. To think man can cause global warming or that man can change it by subtle lifestyle changes is the height of arrogance and hubris.

The only scenario I can think of where man would be powerful enough to permanently affect global climate would be in the event of global thermonuclear war - if we are ever stupid enough to do it. Short of that, the entire debate is nonsense and proof only of how gullible and dumbed-down many people are.

Go back to school. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere trap heat from being released into space.The higher concentration of gasses, the less heat escapes. Man doe increase this by releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere.

[spdirty]

Go back to school. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere trap heat from being released into space.The higher concentration of gasses, the less heat escapes. Man doe increase this by releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere.

every time you breathe you exhale CO2. So please, be environmentally friendly...

[SonOfLe-loLang]

It's so simple, the overall temperature of the earth is rising. Glaciers and polar ice caps are melting. If the ocean rises and desalinates (is that a word), weather patterns will change and possibly drastically. If you want to make the retarded argument, despite significant scientific evidence, that its happening naturally then fine, but even that moron Bush finally admits something is happening.

[Rigs11]

every time you breathe you exhale CO2. So please, be environmentally friendly...
Wouldn't expect any less than the close mindeness black and white mentality from you.The true issue is how much extra CO2 is generated by raising livestock,driving cars,and burning coal to name a few.

[NodJello]

One of the contentions of true believers in man made global warming is that there is a direct correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 levels. The numbers say something different

(Figure 1) Comparison of Global Mean Temperatures from Climate Research Unit to Estimated Atmospheric CO2 levels from ice core samples.

Year …………….. Temperature …………. CO2 levels (ppm)
1958: ……………….. -0.019 …………………… 314.9
1959: ………………. -0.073 …………………… 315.6
1960: ……………….. -0.118 ………………….. 316.3
1961: ………………. -0.031 …………………… 317.0
1962: ……………….. -0.034 …………………… 317.7
1963: ……………….. -0.009 ………………….. 318.4
1964: ……………….. -0.277 …………………… 319.2
1965: ……………….. -0.210 …………………… 320.0
1966: ……………….. -0.150 …………………. 320.8
1967: ……………… -0.147 …………………… 321.8
1968: ……………… -0.159 …………………… 322.8
1969: ……………….. -0.025 …………………… 323.8
1970: ……………….. -0.073 …………………… 324.8
1971: ………………. -0.181 …………………… 325.8
1972: ………………. -0.066 …………………… 326.9
1973: ………………. +0.058 …………………… 328.0
1974: ……………….. -0.206 …………………… 329.2
1975: ……………….. -0.161 …………………… 330.3
1976: ……………….. -0.240 …………………… 331.5
1977: ………………. +0.006 …………………… 332.6
1978: ……………….. -0.059 …………………… 333.7

As you can see from the 20-year sample the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has continued to rise at a fairly steady rate, but the Global Mean Temperature fluctuated from being marginally warmer to marginally cooler. The correlation of higher CO2 levels and temperature appears to be non-existent.

When examining the estimates from ice-core samples of atmospheric CO2, it becomes clear that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising since 1000 AD. Well before the industrial revolution.

[Bob]

Have temps gone down over the past decade? It is increasingly difficult to get straight answers as there is too much Big Green and Big oil influences pushing science into the relm of faith.

[cutthemdown]

It's so simple, the overall temperature of the earth is rising. Glaciers and polar ice caps are melting. If the ocean rises and desalinates (is that a word), weather patterns will change and possibly drastically. If you want to make the retarded argument, despite significant scientific evidence, that its happening naturally then fine, but even that moron Bush finally admits something is happening.

You hit on my thinking on this. The Earth is warming the argument is why and what the consequences will be. I think what we can to do adapt is most important.

IMO trying to Al Gore the Earth isn't going to work. For ever person that conserves 10 more are born. It's math that just won't add up. What we need to do is put resources into adapting to the changes. Also I read that the models they used for predicting the weather patterns from a less salty ocean where not scientific. The Earth has warmed and cooled before we will just have to adapt.

This means flood control, crop management, water management, seawall technology etc etc.

[cutthemdown]

Wasting billions trying to stop the earth from getting warmer is like trying to go to the mountains and sweep the ground until there is no dirt anymore.

[W*GS]

One of the contentions of true believers in man made global warming is that there is a direct correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 levels. The numbers say something different

What bull**** website did you get that from?

[DBruleU]

What bull**** website did you get that from?

You're hilarious!

What do we honestly do to stop GW? Since you work at NCAR, and you're the resident expert, what can we do to really stop GW and escape our impending doom by melting/drowning?

[labronx]

The real issue here is population growth. I don't think that the current global economic and agricultural infrastructures will be able to supply the huge demand. Throw in politics and u have the perfect recipe. While sides decide who and what to back, the "issues" continue to go ignored and grow. This leads to frustration then unrest, upheaval and eventually revolt and/or "terrorism".

You can only ignore a hungry child for so long. Eventually it will someday come back to bite you in the a$$ .

And if not he, then his child will to yours.

[DBruleU]

The real issue here is population growth. I don't think that the current global economic and agricultural infrastructures will be able to supply the huge demand. Throw in politics and u have the perfect recipe. While sides decide who and what to back, the "issues" continue to go ignored and grow. This leads to frustration then unrest, upheaval and eventually revolt and/or "terrorism".

You can only ignore a hungry child for so long if you do it will someday come back to bite you in the a$$ .

And if not he then his child to yours.

You're right. We should get rid of 90% of the worlds population.

Oh wait...some nutcase already proposed such a thing.

[W*GS]

Have temps gone down over the past decade? It is increasingly difficult to get straight answers as there is too much Big Green and Big oil influences pushing science into the relm of faith.

Temps haven't gone down.

[W*GS]

You're hilarious!

What do we honestly do to stop GW? Since you work at NCAR, and you're the resident expert, what can we do to really stop GW and escape our impending doom by melting/drowning?

We can mitigate the worst effects by greatly reducing our CO2 emissions and sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

[alkemical]

We can mitigate the worst effects by greatly reducing our CO2 emissions and sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

Like maybe...carbon negative type fuels or plants?

[DBruleU]

We can mitigate the worst effects by greatly reducing our CO2 emissions and sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

Yeah, but what's the best and most feasible way for most Americans? Buying a Hybrid? Light bulbs? Not breathing?

And is that even going to make one iota a difference on the Ozone layer? What if 15 years down the road the earth continues to cool and we've wasted billions of dollars on something that doesn't even need to be addressed?

I just see GW as a way to control the masses with the fear that Manhattan will be under water if we don't all buy into this man made GW, considering there is massive amounts of money to be made as long as the general public believe this crap.

[BroncoInferno]

Yeah, but what's the best and most feasible way for most Americans? Buying a Hybrid? Light bulbs? Not breathing?

And is that even going to make one iota a difference on the Ozone layer? What if 15 years down the road the earth continues to cool and we've wasted billions of dollars on something that doesn't even need to be addressed?

I just see GW as a way to control the masses with the fear that Manhattan will be under water if we don't all buy into this man made GW, considering there is massive amounts of money to be made as long as the general public believe this crap.

This is what religion does to your brain, folks. It ain't pretty.

[DBruleU]

This is what religion does to your brain, folks. It ain't pretty.

What? Think logically?

[labronx]

You're right. We should get rid of 90% of the worlds population.

Oh wait...some nutcase already proposed such a thing.

Where did u get that I was trying to insinuate getting rid of 90% of the world's population? or even that I was hinting at population control??

Reading comprehension issues.

The point I'm trying to make is that REGARDLESS of whether or not global warming is REAL or NOT the huge population growth will push us to our limits in being able to sustain the demands of humans on this planet.

IF Global warming is real then multiply the effect times.....I don't know....50?

[W*GS]

Yeah, but what's the best and most feasible way for most Americans? Buying a Hybrid? Light bulbs? Not breathing?

Solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal. Use your imagination.

And is that even going to make one iota a difference on the Ozone layer? What if 15 years down the road the earth continues to cool and we've wasted billions of dollars on something that doesn't even need to be addressed?

I just see GW as a way to control the masses with the fear that Manhattan will be under water if we don't all buy into this man made GW, considering there is massive amounts of money to be made as long as the general public believe this crap.

Whatever. You're far too ignorant to make intelligent commentary.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Yeah, but what's the best and most feasible way for most Americans? Buying a Hybrid? Light bulbs? Not breathing?

And is that even going to make one iota a difference on the Ozone layer? What if 15 years down the road the earth continues to cool and we've wasted billions of dollars on something that doesn't even need to be addressed?

I just see GW as a way to control the masses with the fear that Manhattan will be under water if we don't all buy into this man made GW, considering there is massive amounts of money to be made as long as the general public believe this crap.


The best way to combat it is buy supporting politicians that understand global warming is a real threat. Personal conservation is great and should be encouraged, but its no substitute for good public policy.

And even if you think global warming is a farce (because youre a moron), releasing ourselves from the dependence of foriegn oil is smart economically and for the environment.

[BroncoInferno]

What? Think logically?

Sure. It's real logical to ignore what someone who actually works in a particular field--a field you are completely ignorant about--has to say about that subject.

[Spider]

right now part the country is on fire , and in other parts is flooding ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Everything I know to debunk global warming, I learned in the fifth grade.

No one wants to hear about what you learned in your final year of school.

[sisterhellfyre]

The best way to combat it is buy supporting politicians that understand global warming is a real threat. Personal conservation is great and should be encouraged, but its no substitute for good public policy.

To buy supporting politicians...?

Perfect! That goes on my list of Top 10 Typos!

Regards,
m.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

whoops:)

[El Minion]

One of the contentions of true believers in man made global warming is that there is a direct correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 levels. The numbers say something different

(Figure 1) Comparison of Global Mean Temperatures from Climate Research Unit to Estimated Atmospheric CO2 levels from ice core samples.

Year …………….. Temperature …………. CO2 levels (ppm)
1958: ……………….. -0.019 …………………… 314.9
1959: ………………. -0.073 …………………… 315.6
1960: ……………….. -0.118 ………………….. 316.3
1961: ………………. -0.031 …………………… 317.0
1962: ……………….. -0.034 …………………… 317.7
1963: ……………….. -0.009 ………………….. 318.4
1964: ……………….. -0.277 …………………… 319.2
1965: ……………….. -0.210 …………………… 320.0
1966: ……………….. -0.150 …………………. 320.8
1967: ……………… -0.147 …………………… 321.8
1968: ……………… -0.159 …………………… 322.8
1969: ……………….. -0.025 …………………… 323.8
1970: ……………….. -0.073 …………………… 324.8
1971: ………………. -0.181 …………………… 325.8
1972: ………………. -0.066 …………………… 326.9
1973: ………………. +0.058 …………………… 328.0
1974: ……………….. -0.206 …………………… 329.2
1975: ……………….. -0.161 …………………… 330.3
1976: ……………….. -0.240 …………………… 331.5
1977: ………………. +0.006 …………………… 332.6
1978: ……………….. -0.059 …………………… 333.7

As you can see from the 20-year sample the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has continued to rise at a fairly steady rate, but the Global Mean Temperature fluctuated from being marginally warmer to marginally cooler. The correlation of higher CO2 levels and temperature appears to be non-existent.

When examining the estimates from ice-core samples of atmospheric CO2, it becomes clear that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising since 1000 AD. Well before the industrial revolution.

What bull**** website did you get that from?



That's from John Christy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy), more info (see below) on him (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903) from ExxonSecrets.com and here is an NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089) as well

--------------------------
FACTSHEET: JOHN CHRISTY
DETAILS
Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.

Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics

[W*GS]

Christy ought to know better.

Suffice to say that CO2 isn't the only driver of mean temperature.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html)

Excerpt:

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history,
ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet.

Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.