ok, now we're getting into alot of specifics here. The North Pole has not always been covered in ice, even in recent history. Also, where did the name Greenland come from? or Vinland, for that matter ? These are very northern areas, yet in (relatively) modern times appear to have been quite a bit warmer. Again, I want to reiterate that I am absolutely NOT for pollution, but I just don't think that we are causing significant climate change. Another sticky point: there is no way to measure "average" temperature. In fact, there really is no such thing. I have a friend who is a biochemist who has a company that makes viral cultures in a "large" reactor. Large meaning about 50 gallons. He tells me that there is absolutely no way for him to measure the temperature of the solution to an accuracy of better than 2 degrees fahrenheit. HE'S A SCIENTIST. And we're supposed to believe that we can measure the "average" temperature of the earth, a much more chaotic system, to accuracies of 0.2 degrees? This is ridiculous in the extreme. My sincere hope is that this whole climate change fad is really a masterful way to convince people to switch to nuclear power instead of burning hydrocarbons for electricity generation. Perhaps that's all it is -- get the environmentalists to start backing nuclear power. And that would be a very good thing for the world. Wayne

Nope,I'm worried that the weather "experts" will ever be able to predict the weather with any accuracy. How can they say they know all about global warming etc... when they can't tell the day before if it rains or not? I predict they are just trying to look like they know what they are talking about when really they're guessing like the rest of us! PJ

"Gewiss! Seguro! Oui!" or as Curly of the Three Stooges would say "Why Soitenly!" You don't need blame to face a problem. You just say "Hey, that's a problem. Let's see now ... how can we fix that?" Let me throw a big word out there that I learned a long time ago ... Tautology This word has a lot to do with repetition and the dictionary will tell you that the nature of the repetition is needless or useless. How does it apply to this discussion? Well on the face of it, I would have you know that once you have encountered a problem, it is indeed useless to go and repeat the same encounter with the problem. In my own mind, I relate it to the more auto-actualization or reactive nature of rational beings like humans. We learn to drive a car and it comes naturally. After we master it, we no longer devote any mental energy to it. If there is a problem with the way we drive an automobile, we no longer think about it or devote any rational mental resources to it. We just go about it by rote. But in fact, there were problems with driving automobiles all through its history. And to get us all to change, we had to be hit in the face with a shovel, changing laws, taxes on fuels and finally, hybrids and alternative fuels. But before we are forced to change, we cling to the tautological repetition of the problem. In immediate terms, it is a less expensive solution in terms of brain power; We refuse to expend any energy on the problem, unless forced to. So, the long term problem escapes solution, if left to ourselves as individuals. Thankfully, there are enough of us that some of us see the train coming, step off the tracks and start yelling at everyone else on that tracks that the train is coming. Some folks have described this tautological nature of mankind as 'The Frog in The Frying Pan'. The frog is at first comfortable sitting in the frying pan. As the heat is turned up ever so slowly, the frog doesn't budge. It doesn't want to make the effort to analyze the problem and eventually, we have a frog that 1) leaps out of the frying pan with a burned underside and feet or 2) a fried frog. Our nature then can be very reactive and much less disciplined, especially if we feel that the change threatens us - greater expenses or some associated cost, having to learn something new, etc.. We react first and learn later ( if at all ). Many people in fact, fear change for reasons such as these. Fewer thrive on it. So, the tautological nature of humanity, based on the way the human brain operates by rote as a means of keeping rational energy expenses low, combined with fear of change ... makes people behave in cyclic or repetitive ways which most of the time is not a problem, even if the repetition is useless. But sometimes, it traps us into a cycle that is self destructive. A person who understands what I have just said then, will realize that the human mind can both, fall into the trap of potentially destructive tautological functioning, but also, that the human mind can be trained. They then set about disciplining themselves, so that when they face a problem, they avoid defensiveness and the tendency to avoid expending rational energy and acceptance of rote repetition. They train themselves instead to react by recognizing that the problem may possibly be real and further, to trigger the expediture in rational energy to analyze it. By doing so, they evolve solutions and either adapt to change by changing their ways or auto-effect change, something most folks are not often capable of. They are the first to step off the tracks in the face of an approaching train and warn the others. 'Thinking outside the box' is therefore a bit different than what you may have always accepted it to mean. Many people don't even conceptualize that the box has an inside and an outside. I prefer not to be a frog in a frying pan. But in reality, sometimes even I do not avoid it. And I have for a long time now, practiced disciplining my mind to react by expending the rational energy, hopefully, not needlessly. BTW: Crisis management is well, tautology in action, after the shovel hits someone in the face. :) Hmmm. I suppose I can be long-winded and wordy at times. People have told me that. Luckily, flapping ones lips doesn't prevent ones feet from letting them step off the railroad tracks.

Thank you for posting that. Quite timely with Gore getting the Noble.