I do read the comments, but I missed this particular article. I can understand the author being upset that his research is being used to support claims he finds unsuportable, but I also think he is biased toward a particular conclusion without conclusive evidence. From what I read in the article his research shows that there is no global warming more than it shows that there is. I'd have more respect for him if he remained neutral on the issue, because studies focused on a particular area don't show squat on a global level, and we won't know for certain if the earth is warming for 300 or 400 years, and even then it may be uncertain because in a geologic timeframe 300 or 400 years is insignificant.

Anyway, there is nothing that can be done about it because we aren't causing it, and we and all of nature is adapting to it as it happens. So the truth is that it really doesn't matter. The people who are being shrill about it just want more money, or they want to destroy our economy by restricting our production. That is what it is really all about.

The studies are interesting, and maybe someday they'll help us predict the weather correctly at least one day in advance. I'd love to know exactly what tomorrows weather will be rather than have some idea of what it might be like. But since our scientists can't predict the weather a day in advance with total accuracy, I'm sure not going to believe them about global warming because it is most likely they are completely wrong.

(It would be interesting if someone would do a statistical analysis of how often weather prediction is correct (

If Prof. Doran's study was the only one showing evidence of a cooling Antarctica, I may tend to give his rebuttal some credence. However, there are numerous studies out there that show that the majority of the Antactic continent is indeed cooling. Here are a few examples:

Liu, J., Curry, J.A. and Martinson, D.G. 2004. Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003GL018732. (This article documents that the sea ice extent around the continent has been increasing since 1979.)

Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science 296: 895-899.

Kwok, R. and Comiso, J.C. 2002. Spatial patterns of variability in Antarctic surface temperature: Connections to the South Hemisphere Annular Mode and the Southern Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2002GL015415.

Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I. 2000. Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology. Journal of Climate 13: 4441-4451.

Comiso, J.C. 2000. Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements. Journal of Climate 13: 1674-1696.

All these papers suggest a slight cooling trend over the past 3 decades when conventional wisdom says that the Antarctic should be warming.

Dr. Doran expects us to believe that his models are a better indicator of real world conditions than actual real world conditions. Hmmmmmmm...

Global cooling? Can't be!

How can one differentiate between localized and global warming?

Does global warming include the oceans?

What was the greatest "Ice Age"? Permian?

Why did it come after a period of global cooling during global warming?

Are glaciers built from the top or the bottom?

How? Humidity due to warming?

In the last 600,000,000 years what happened to the tremendous CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that were present in the Cambrian?

Regards, Ted Gilbert

A good example of why most scientists have no business delving in politics. If his research shows that the bulk of Antarctica is cooling, then so be it. How can he try to control who uses the information?

Should he have altered the data to suit his own political beliefs?