Posted by tvleavitt (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why doesn't the Suffolk News-Herald identify Mr. Taylor's affiliations, or his authority to declaim on this subject?

Mr. Taylor himself fails to cite any sources for his claims (scientific or otherwise), however valid, in this article; specifically, he fails to substantiate how the author of the study, Eric Steig, is a "well-known global warming alarmist".

He also fails to mention that he's made a career out of being a "climate skeptic" via his position at the Heartland Institute, described by The New York Times as "a Chicago group whose antiregulatory philosophy has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors," and extensively funded by Exxon (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact... for details).

All in all, a rather toothless and worthless rebuttal. I urge anyone reading this article to go search the web for a more credible, reputable, and comprehensive analysis before coming to any conclusions.

Posted by mossface (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was going to comment in a similar spirit to that of tleavitt, but in a bit gentler fashion. The article Mr. Taylor refers to quite clearly brings up the issue of Antarctic temperature, and explicitly mentions the fact that the Antarctic record has historically presented something of a cooling trend. The Nature article shows that a portion of western Antarctica appears to be warming, however the area warming represents something like a quarter of the total land mass of Antarctica (or perhaps less, my recall of the map is less than stellar). However, the warming in that portion is significant enough to offset the cooling apparent on the rest of the continent.

What we must understand is that global warming affects global weather patterns. Areas of the globe will be affected differently. It is entirely possible that some areas will actually cool as a result of global warming. What is of greater significance is global temperature averages and trends.

It is my opinion that these debates will continue for some 30-40 years (until those who have grown up under the previous paradigm have passed on), by which time newer generations will be presented with a clearer trend.

I am very pessimistic about the power of debate when it comes to influencing individual opinions. We all hold our opinions, and the more they are attacked, the more firmly we hold to our point of view. Mr. Taylor has his, tvleavitt has his/hers, and I have mine. It is doubtful that any of us will change our opinions based upon debate.

Posted by Night_Sailor (anonymous) on January 25, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the obvious explanation of the insignificant warming trend is a modest portion of Antarctica.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/4117...

There is plenty of evidence to explain the tiny increase in warmth in parts of Antarctica. It is due to a chain of volcano's, one of which has the strength to punch a hole in the ice, and at some point, spew ash over 23,000 km. In short is it a very active underwater volcanic region. One that is warm enough to punch a hole in the ice above.

I've read other articles in the last 10 years describing the warmer than expect waters that were traced to volcanic activity. But these articles are rarely mentioned in the news, because it contradicts the politically correct global warming theory. Frank an honest discussion requires that all factors be presented, not just those that support your position.

In fact global warming is a good thing. Warm periods are associated with population growth and increased food productivity. However trends go both ways and global cooling is associated with reduced food production and population growth--famine.

So, while it is smart, and prudent to do everything we can to protect our planet, we must recognize that mankind does not have much, if any control, over climate change. The sun is the primary variable, and volcano's are the secondary contributing factor to climate change.

Man really does not even make the list because the often claimed carbon factor itself naturally limits warming by the increase in particles in the atmosphere that reduce the effects of the sun's rays.
Search "Global Dimming" for more information. Mankind's role is quite small compared to Solar activity and Volcanic activity.

Search on "Little Ice Age" and Volcano's and read about the year with no summer. These are factors that directly correlate to climate change.

If man does have an impact it is that we can, if we wish, trigger volcano eruptions with nukes to increase the dust in the air and bring on global cooling. But before we consider that option, we need to recognize that we don't have enough data over a long enough time span to draw any solid conclusions other than what we already know--the earth's climate natural varies due to the influence of the Sun, the Earth's orbit, the Earth's tilt, volcano's, way down at the bottom of the list hardly worth mentioning--mankind's impact.

The Earth's climate has been either warming or cooling for billions of years.

It has done so long before mankind arrived on the scene.

Posted by dave999 (anonymous) on January 25, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taylor works for the heartland institute that has received $800,000 in funding from Exxon. STOP BELIEVING THESE IDIOTS WHO ARE FINANCIALLY VESTED IN LYING TO YOU

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ex...

Posted by dave999 (anonymous) on January 25, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heartland exxon funding
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...