Oh no, thanks a LOT for that link to her article. I don't read Peggy Noonan, but i read that whole thing and i wish i had never heard of her.

Good Christ, that was painful.

Why is it that some people are so quick to jump on heat waves as "obvious" evidence that global warming is imminent and overwhelming, but are then the first to sneer when someone asks where the hell the global warming is during a cold snap?

Because people are stupid. Especially people who think things are "obvious."

Foamy-mouthed environmentalists, take note: when you argue that today's weather is somehow significant evidence for long-term global climate change, you give right-wing gasbags the ability to muddle the real scientific debate.

She's an irrelevant relic... and it shows.

I hope that her place in hell is right below Reagan's asshole and she has to swallow everything that comes out of it.

And I hope that Reagan's place in hell is sucking Roy Cohn's diseased cock, which will give him chronic diahrea

BC, et al..

It's not that heat waves or today's weather in isolation are evidence of global warming. But heat waves that occur every year, and get worse every year, and every year setting the new record for the hottest year ever, THAT IS evidence. Not to mention all the, you know, EVIDENCE.

Oh, and if you bothered to understand the science even a little bit, you'd know that extreme cold snaps are a result of global warming too.

The problem is that people on the right, possibly you, are trying to make a debate where there is no debate. You might as well debate gravity.

What a maroon.

Whether or not global warming is occurring, whether or not humans cause it, and whether or not it is actually bad for the planet's survival (as opposed to just humans suffering the consequences of our actions)...

EVIDENCE is not looking at temperature records that only go back slightly more than a century in the U.S. and not much more in other parts of the world.

EVIDENCE is not assuming that the warming trend is bad or not part of a typical cycle for the Earth.

And EVIDENCE is not forgetting that the Earth has been much, much hotter in the past than it currently is.

Science is actually about discussion and debate of evidence and what the implications are. It's not about making dramatic declarations - a la Gore's movie -- and then running around screaming in hysteria about it.

That's just a little bit too much irony for one post, Micky. The opinions of climatologists are essentially unanimous in finding that global warming is both real and anthropogenic in origin. They have already addressed your points using all of the available evidence (i.e. not just temperature records), and found that long-term cycles are not sufficient to explain the degree to which our climate is changing. Some climatic variation is natural, but that's not the variation that we're concerned about.

OK, even if there is no global warming, even if this is just some pipe dreamed cooked up by mad scientists, don't you think that curbing emmissions is a good idea anyway?

Look at pollution: it's causing huge documented increases in Asthma. It's arguably causing huge increases in cancer.

Look at the world: What's going on in the middle east right now is a direct consequence of our dependency on oil

Unless you're an idiot like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, you can't avoid the conclusion that there are some real environmental problems, and they can all be traced to human activity.

We can only hope that Peggy Noonan dies of heat stroke.

I liked GW's comment awhile ago, saying, to the effect, "Global warming is happening, but isn't caused by human activity. But we need to see what we can do to alleviate the warming." If humans didn't contribute to the warming, how could they contribute to stopping it? But that's Bush logic for you: no stem cell research, it kills kids.... Just keep throwing the embryos away.

One word: Whore.

And that's really unkind to all the hard working women and men who have to sell their bodies and minds for food and shelter.