"We're dedicated to providing balanced coverage, but balanced does not mean equal. There simply are not that many credible skeptics around."

I don't know about that Laura. I think you choose to willfully ignore the skeptics and mostly post what you think will affirm global warming. I appreciate that AccuWeather has the courage to post opinions from people like me who think the global warming hysteria is a fraud, but I still think you folks are biased in favor of global warming.

There are plenty of skeptics out there though, and they do get their information published. I just never see it in your posts. Here are a few of them; David Deming, University of Oklahoma, Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University,Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Professor Patterson has this to say: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

I'd also like to draw your attention to this letter from sixty scientist skeptics to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Among other things, they state, "The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational." http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

Not all of these skeptics deny that warming is occurring, but they question how much if any can be attributed to mankind.

And Professor Lindzen of MIT has publicly lamented the intimidation used to silence scientists by "global warming alarmists." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Professor Lindzen also had this to say about Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth: "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended- at least not in terms of the actual science."

Here is an article by Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax in which he states, "The fact that the temperature started to go up around 1890, when man-made production of CO2 was neglidgible, indicates that forces other than increasing CO2 were responsible for the heating..." And he concludes, "...it is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down in the coming years, decades, and centuries regardless of what we do." http://www.heartland.org/pdf/2329bo.pdf

Here are some more skeptics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

As almented by Professor Lindzen, the major media choose to ignore the skeptics Laura. It seems to me that if you want to provide balance, then you need to dig a little further than what you do and begin providing posts from the skeptics. As it is now, you and AccuWeather have no balance.

hi.

i'm from singapore and i came across this site randomly.

i think we humans are constantly contributing to global warming without realising it. with the crazy weather that's been going on around the world recently, it feels like global warming seems to be taking effect.

how long more do you think we have, before the Artic sea ice melts away completely? it's worrying.

If this has already been discussed please forgive the repetition: I recently heard an explanation of why Greenland was called "Greenland". Seems the Vikings named it that when they discovered it and word has it that they reported the growing of grapes among other "green" things there. Could it be that "Global Warming" is a cyclical phenomenon as well as "Global Cooling"?
Also, wasn't it not long ago that the environmental hypists were trying to sell everyone on global cooling?

Paul

IM IN THE PLUMBING AND HEATING TRADE IN MASACHUSSETTS ITS BEEN CONSIDERABLY WARMER HERE OVER THE PAST 4 WINTERS IT DOESNT GET COLD TILL MID JANUARY..ID SAY THATS GLOBAL WARMING!CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG THANKS!

Hey just discovered the blog! Very informative, and helpful for those of us coming from a layman's perspective.

Hello...this is my first awareness of this site. I'm thrilled to see it and have the opportunity to offer comments. I'll look forward to articulate, fair, reasoned and thoroughly-scientific discussions regarding this topic. Thanks.

Hi, I've been wondering for a long time now... and sorry if this is in the wrong place, but how do you get the "feels like" temperature? You know, when the forcast says it's for example 35 but feels like 23*? How do they determine that?

Do you believe there is merit that its not global warming but maybe earths normal cycle or warming and cooling? I beleive that global warming is mass hysteria since we only had the technology in the last 20-30 years to study a lot of this. I know they can do ice core samples and all that and try to establish a pattern but this "blobal warming" is just a milisecond on the time of earths existance...your thoughts?

One of the aspects of global warming that I think is rarely mentioned is that this planet has been warming for many thousands of years. From what I have read the last ice age collapased 12 thousand years ago without any contirbution from mankind. There are indications of vast cities and civilazations that are now under water far out to sea.

Why all of sudden is this continued warming being blamed on mankind alone, what of volcanos that spew incredible amounts of CO2 into the air with each eruption. What of the massive amount of methan that is trapped in huge bubbles on the sea floor.

I just always find it interesting that mankind thinks that they are the only thing going on here on earth. 99% of everything that has ever lived is extinct without much help from man.

My last point is this, if we are to blame then why don't we do more to curb population growth which has doubled in size over the past 50 years.

I think that maybe the best possible solution for the planet is an extreme pandemic. That will end this nonsense about the self importance of mankind in a continually evolving ecosystem.

Count me in as a skeptic and also as a person who understands that the combustion of fossil fuels is a GOOD thing for the environment. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere means more vibrant plant life on the planet which in turn means a greater food supply for all of us who don't produce our own food.

I am a scientist who is somewhat skeptical of global warming being principally due to man's activities but more importantly very skeptical of the quality and impartial review of the scientific evidence.

In my field, I see an increasing epidemic of "experts" rushing to judgement on many issues. During the last 15 years, most of these judements have been proven wrong.

Global warming theory has all the characteristics of a bandwagon effect. First the issue has become highly politicized and much of the debate has become emotional rather than intellectual.

I have met more than one climate expert who is skeptical but "keeps quiet" because of the "bullying" occuring on university campuses across North America.

It is important to remember that:

1. in the 1970s there was a worldwise consensus that the earth was cooling. Apparently they were wrong which shows the limitation of our ability to predict climate change.

2. In a recent debate, experts on both sides of the issue agreed that there may be as many glacial areas increasing in size as those melting. How could such a major departure from our perceptions not be highlighted in the press and debated amongst scientists?

I will leave it at this and look forward to comments.

Eric
----

Dreama - Not really the right place, but I can answer your question. There are a number of "feels like" temperatures. There's wind chill in winter, apparent temperature and heat index in the summer, and AccuWeather.com's own RealFeel year-round. All of these take into account various factors which affect how quickly heat is taken away from the body. Obviously the wind is the biggest factor in the winter, as it pulls heat away from the body. In the summer, high humidity causes slower evaporation of sweat, which is our primary means of cooling. The RealFeel takes both of those into account along with some other factors.

None of these "feel like" temperatures is calculated using an easy or straight-forward equation. Meteorologists use a chart or enter the numbers on a computer and let it crunch the calculations for them.

I hope that answers your question. Kind of nice to have a question I don't need to do research to answer.

Eric - do you have any citation for your second point? I'd be interested in checking it out.

I disagree with the assertion that Accuweather is biased in favor of man-made global warming studies. If anything, I have always thought that most of the mets at Accuweather go out of their way to try and disprove the growing perception that global warming is real and mostly man-made. Joe Bastardi, Joe Sobel, Jesse Ferrell, Steve Pennstone, Bob Larson, etc. make their skepticism known in their blogs. Those who either have no opinion or believe in human-induced GW are silent on the issue (Paul Yeager & Elliot Abrams come to mind)

The reason it may seem that there are more articles supporting the GW theory is because a large majority of recent scientific studies support it. In addition, real-world observations as seen today support it. If 95% of all the recent scientific studies support anthropogenic GW, then don't expect Laura to go out of her way to find the remaining 5% of the skeptical studies just to satisfy the corporate apologists and "skeptics" that frequent this blog.

Yes, there are a few credible scientists skeptical of GW. But there are much more who believe it is real.

Mark Hastings: "I think that maybe the best possible solution for the planet is an extreme pandemic. That will end this nonsense about the self importance of mankind in a continually evolving ecosystem." Really Mark? Is that what you want for your 9-year old boy as well? You and BrooklineTom, who also thinks misery is a great way to motivate people, will be in good company on this blog.

Mark: "I disagree with the assertion that Accuweather is biased in favor of man-made global warming studies." I haven't read the other blogs, Mark, but Laura's blog is biased. You can decide if that is good or bad; I find it typical.

"If 95% of all the recent scientific studies support anthropogenic GW..." You pulled the 95% number out of the air Mark, and you know it. Professor Lindzen believes many scientists are being intimidated into silence and he documents it in the link I provided in my first post, above. Then there is censorship at the scientific journals, as Professor Lindzen says, "...there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest." If the skeptics can't get published, how are you supposed to read of their work?

In addition, I have read several other scientists complain about how their work is being hijacked by both groups to either prove or disprove global warming when their research does nothing of the sort. And I have to add, that any scientist who says their research or discovery proves the truth or falsehood of global warming is a charlatan, because no respectable scientist would ever make such a claim.

"...then don't expect Laura to go out of her way to find the remaining 5% of the skeptical studies" Yes, it is her duty; she is the one who stated this blog is balanced.

"...just to satisfy the corporate apologists and "skeptics" that frequent this blog." Yep, got the color of your stripes, Mark - and I think they're pink.

I would agree with Mark. I don't see Accuweather as biased in favor of man-made global warming. Many of their very qualified staff have expressed concerns with current GW theory and some of the links / connections that have been proposed.

Admittedly, there is more evidence, at this point, for GW than against it. However, I'm still skeptical. Laura, it's a good site. You'll never make everybody happy. As I learned from my dad.

"If you're making everybody happy, you're lying to somebody."

(Because you will NOT agree with everybody)

Have a good one.

I believe the blog is not biased in favor or against the GW theory.

Laura's doing a great job in this blog. I agree with Greg, you just can't make everybody happy.

If you want some evidence of the balance people try to keep in this blog (except our super-skeptical friend WoodNfish), you should read the articles published in December about the drought in Australia.

There you have, many people started blaming Global Warming. However, in this very blog, people were free to state that GW may not be the responsible for that. I did comment on it. Laura said the comment was good... So, if you are one of those who think this is not a balanced blog, I would suggest you carry out some research and you'll see that (not 95%) most of the undertaken research are showing some agreement in favour of GW.

Keep on posting, it makes life interesting

The real question is not whether Global Warming exists, it does, the earth has gone through cooling and warming cycles over the years. The real question is why is it warming so fast? The warming of the past has taken hundreds to thousands of years and was based on a number of factors such as sun activity, greenhouse gases, volcano activity etc. Scientists have been looking at this too and from everything I have seen is that we should be near the same temperature as the beginning of the 1900's. But of course it has been much warmer, the top 10 warmest years have all occured since 1990. The sun activity is cyclical and right now it is pretty normal, what has gone up? Greenhouse gases, 30% higher than normal. That is substatial!! Greenhouse gases trap heat so they are doing a good job at it. Now as ice melts from areas which were covered will cause further warming due to the lack of reflection.
Do some research in scientific journals you will see that most if not all agree that greenhouse gasses are the cause of warming. Also watch the movie "Inconvienient Truth" It is an eye opener.

tyskigolf, the earth isn't warming fast, youare just being fed junk data to make you believe it is. Here is a link to the average global temperature: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm

Also, what are you calling agreenhouse gas, CO2? CO2 does nothing to raise the temperature in the atmosphere. Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas in the form of clouds. Most of the water vapor in the atmosphere comes from the oceans.

(March 06) to be more accurate, the slope of the best fit straight line to 25 years of data is 0.0076 �C per year. Not a lot!

Once again, woodNfish can't decide whether he wants to argue long-term or short-term.

This piece cites twenty five years of data -- a blink of an eye.

Here is another view -- showing a ONE HUNDRED FORTY year perpective. Still short, though.

The ONE THOUSAND YEAR graph is even more interesting. Notice the uptick at the far-right of the graph. Still, even a thousand years isn't very long.

How about FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years?

We see four spikes before the present -- at about 130,000, 240,000, 320,000, and 400,000 years ago. Those spikes are comparable to the present -- and the most recent happened BEFORE RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY.

Recent data suggests that the MOST RECENT of these spikes may have overlapped the oldest Homo Sapiens, which are perhaps 200,000 years old. So humanity wasn't destroyed that time. I'm sure woodNfish takes comfort in that.

I do not. This is happening, it's real, and I prefer to do what I and we can to deal with its effects as best we can. We no longer have the luxory (if we ever did) of hiding our collective heads in the sand and pretending that nothing is happening.

I distinctly remember plans being hatched in the 1970's to cover Greenland with soot via air drops in order to absorb sunlight and heat the earth to combat global COOLING.

WoodNfish - I'm confused, from your posts it seems that you are in agreement with me that mankind is not entirely, if at all, to blame for this current warming trend. Personally I am more worried about the continued poisioning of our planet and over population than I am about it being a little warmer.

As to pandemics and my 9 year old son, I live in a very rural part of the country and have set myself up to be able to live for several months without needing to see anyone. No contact, no exposure, less concern for being infected.

Hi all Americans,

please remember that the North Americans are spending the double Energy as an European!!!!!!!

Don�t use airconditioner, don�t drive such big cars,
please use heat-insulation, ....

Please take a look here: http://www.rmi.org/

And please stop making war for your Energyhunger!!!

regards
R�diger Hocke Frankfurt Germany

Shoot this one down guys: I'm not buying that scientist can tell anyone what the average temerature of the earth was, with in a degree, 1000 yrs ago or even 500 yrs. Technology has improved greatly over the past 200 yrs. I'm thinking the measuring devices, and the reading of, and recording of, temeratures was nowhere near as accurate as now. Is it possible that improved technology in the accuracy of thermometers and recording of numbers could play a factor in global warming? I can just see a scientist of 100 yrs ago, out on a cold day(-25) reading that mercury and writing it down in one heck