The amount of misinformation and unsupported and irrelevant conclusions in the Democratic blog is mind-boggling.

Greenland Sea ice is right at the 30 year mean
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

Temperatures in the interior of Greenland have not made it above freezing for more than 13 months, and then for only a few hours. Scroll backwards through the monthly history.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/8/5/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

What crisis? Boxer and her crew seem to have gone completely over the deep end with their hysterics. Scary to think these people have the power to make decisions which affect our lives.

Wow, Northern Hemisphere sea ice has seen a dramatic decrease very recently:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

But hey, Timbucktoo will be a couple degrees below normal today. Surely, this means AGW isn't real. Nothing to see here, move on.

I did not think it was possible to refute the findings that global temperatures have increased or that Greenland had become warmer in the last century and I find that neither blog pretends that Greenland�s Ice is not affected by the current global warming trend.

One report blames global warming and encourages a cut in co2 emissions while the other agrees with the cause but makes the argument that the region is warming but only very slightly which is normal and has nothing whatever to do with co2 emissions.

These blogs clearly represent the views of the supporters of either one of the two parties preferred. In this situation the incumbent power is encouraged to support the view of its greatest financial benefactor and its benefactor shows its support in return by funding the incumbent.

In these circumstances the incumbent government will always throw their support behind the greatest economic benefit to its nation which will always be a high co2 emitter. The party in opposition in response will offer the voters a different choice, voicing alarm at the dangers the incumbent represents and in this case will make promises to cut emissions.

Knowing that such action may have a negative economic outcome the opposition will promise that the changes will have minimal economic effect and will not be made until after the election in some far off point undisclosed in the future.

Once in power the opposition will change places with the incumbent and play the same rules as before, knowing that even though things change they only stay the same.

Morano is correct, Boxer (need this even be said?) is wrong.

Morano is correct, Boxer (need this even be said?) is wrong.

There is no alarming sea level rise - even the IPCC admits it.

No effect, ergo, no cause.

The interior of Greenland, much like the interior of Antarctica, is increasing in ice due to increased precipitation, something that we expect with global warming.

The coast of Greenland is losing ice rapidly:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/160992main_mass_trend_greenland_md.jpg

Ice loss surpasses ice gains on the depleting Greenland ice sheet:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html

Combined sea ice loss exceeds the gains even if you look at Antarctica and Greenland together:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

Keep deny, deny, denying, but the rest of us are looking to figure out solutions.

"Greenland Sea ice is right at the 30 year mean"

Patrick, I suggest you have a look at the link you provided. It doesn't show sea ice "right at the 30 year mean"; it's actually below. Why don't you have a look at the link Mark suggests: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

What's up with some of you? Are you blind?

I wonder what planet Morano is from.

Honestly, that guy did not even need to travel to Greenland to write up most all of that nonsense. He just regurgitated the typical misleading distortions that many deniers favor. His only relevant comment was from the guy with the sheep. 2 weeks more pasture time is a good thing.

In Boxers blog, it was the Greenlandic Minister of the Environment who made the most relevant comments. In summary, there simply is not as much sea ice as there was when he was younger. Therefore, there is not as much hunting time on the ice. Also, the polar bears are coming in to town since they can hunt on the ice either.

Boxer did make a mistake by mentioning droughts. While the science does indicate a slight increase in droughts, the largest single impact of global warming will be increased precepitation, both annual and daily extremes. Especially in Canada, Northern Europe and the Northeast US.

Greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to hold more humidity and transport it over longer distances. So, tropical moisture will be able travel further.

"Keep deny, deny, denying, but the rest of us are looking to figure out solutions."

Great idea, Mark!! You go off and figure out solutions and the rest of us folks who are obviously intellectually-challenged for not agreeing with you, will continue to struggle to catch up with you.

What a photo-op for the Senator. She looked into the faces of the handful of local eskimos, who are still well fed and looked after by their government and calls it a catastrophe, yet in her entire career, she has never taken the opportunity to stare into the faces of the millions upon millions of starving and ravaged children in the rest of the world, because it's old news.

She should be ashamed of herself for thinking that we fell off the old turnip wagon yesterday.
That trip will have done her more harm than she realizes.

Now that things are beginning to die down, as more and more folks are beginning to see the smoke and mirrors of this human induced scare, it will be real tough for those that fell for it, to admit that they helped to elevate the needless spending, to promote the global scam of the century.

Mark:

You and all the others involved in this promotion, could'nt find a solution if you were swimming in one. Real solutions require real problems.

Andrew

"There is not as much sea ice as when he was younger". No kidding.
In the 1970's there was a global cooling scare. The movers and shakers can remember the 70's when it was in a cold spell. However, they don't remember the 30' and 40's when it was warmer. From their limited perspective, the world is warming OMG it's a crisis.

There certainly is more meat on the bones in the minority (Rep.) blog. Can't wait for their fall report to hear the AGW crowd wail and moan try to shoot the messenger.
No one is doubting the warming, it's the cause of said warming that the fight is over.
Andrew, none of them should have gone to Greenland in the first place. It was a waste of taxpayer dollars. And why in the world would you call what those scientists are reporting nonesense? Because they are bursting the AGW bubble you've publically comitted yourself to? In time you will see the light as all of us non-believers have, some just take longer than others to convince.
It's like someone said here the other day, it's like alcoholism...admitting you have a problem and seeking help is the first step to recovery.

A great article about the religion of AGW denialism in this week's Newsweek. Brett, you should post a new topic about this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

A recommended read.

Andrew:

But the really important thing in all this is what did the IPCC say about Greenland?

I mean the blogs are cute but hardly any sort of consensus right?

Obviously, if the Greenlandic minister remembers more ice when he was younger, it is clear that AGW is occurring and republicans are at fault. I just want to make sure,though, that since I recall walking to school in 6'-0" drifts when I was younger, without shoes mind you, and uphill, does my memory really just balance out his recollection and there is no warming at all?

Interesting archaeological discussion about the collapse of agriculture in Greenland as the climate cooled during the mid-14th century. It is still much too cold to farm in Greenland, so apparently the climate is considerably cooler than 700 years ago.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.

It is now 397 days since it made it above freezing in Greenland's interior.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076

Why are folks really worried and intent on trying to reverse climate change?

Try realizing that as we blog, scientists are tracking 875 potentially hazardous asteroids that could dessimate the climate and all life on earth in a matter of days.

Yellowstone's supervolcano is a few years overdue to explode and can achieve similar results.

These events are certain to happen and the next hundred years of slight global warming will pale in comparison.

Quit worrying and stop the nonsense. There's far worse things coming our way and there won't be solutions and it won't look like it does in Hollywood movies.

These events are certainly going rain on Al Gore's charade.......I mean parade.

"A great article about the religion of AGW denialism in this week's Newsweek. Brett, you should post a new topic about this."

Interesting source Mark. In the future before you label people "right-wingers" maybe you should consider the sources you cite in particular their political leanings.

I will have to agree that the minority presented a much better case and at least had refences to documented studies to back up their viewpoint. As far as the hunter claiming that the sea ice doesn't form until March (??), that can indeed be compared to our grandparents walking 10 miles to school and back in 6 feet of snow when it was uphill both ways! NOAA has a great site from which one can monitor the forming and melting of ice and snow cover. There is also a history of this cover on a daily basis back to the late 90s. Yes, there has been a decrease in Arctic ice. But it's hard to see where the hunters claim is substantiated. There may be the slight possibility that alochol consumption or other factors have confused his memory a little. At any rate, I'm not sure how local heresay now qualifies a scientific evidence. It doesn't matter, in a couple of decades when we're freezing our tails off this will all seem a little humorous. I have little trust in the weather authorities or their monitoring capabilities. Not only are their prediction capabilities limited, but recorded values sometimes seem to be grossly in error. To give an example, three different online weather sources reported a high temperature of 91 degrees(F) in Oakdale, Tennessee yesterday, but I live in Oakdale and the temperature never climbed above 85 degrees. Oakdale is a very small town (Pop. 350) , so the urban heat island effect is not present. The actual town sets a couple of hundred feet lower than my place, so I'll give a generous factor of a possible 2 degree Fahrenheit differnce. Still 4 degrees error. This has been consistent throughout the summer. Where do they get these readings? Are these being kept as accurate historical data? No wonder the climate keeps getting warmer!

Rick Fanning

In the Minority Blog, Marc Morano, who represents Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), made the trek to Greenland and states that according to the latest peer-reviewed scientific finding the current climatic conditions in Greenland are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

REPLY: GOOD! Stick to your guns! And fight this nonsense! Oh, incidentally, does anyone out there know why Greenland was named Greenland? I don't think it had to do with ICE AND GLACIERS!!!

P.S. Yes, Marko Rolo, Guiltline Tom and all of you other Al Gore Boot Lickers out there, your favorite denier is back back back!!! Back from the Delaware/Maryland Shore, where we had BEAUTIFUL GLOBAL WARMING!!!! No Rain!!!! No Cool Canadian (no offense Brett) Garbage, and nothing but pure sunshine, massive heat, and comfortable water temperatures!!! AND IT WAS FUN!!!! Can't wait for my next beach/global warming trip! At least my trips won't be at TAXPAYER EXPENSE!!!!.....;-DDDDDDDD....

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Your correct Michael J., Mark this is the same Newsweek that reported a new ice age in the 70s.

Mark did not link the October 23, 2006 article in the same magazine which tries to debunk new ice age theory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Along with stating that our current problem of global warming will negate the Milankovitch cycle that are believed to trigger climate change and blame the clean air laws in the United states and Europe for exacerbating the supposed AGW problem. They also state this fact '(Although) the intricate web of positive and negative feedbacks that control climate are still not fully understood'

What a tangle web we weave.....

To all, but especially Mark :

The first two links are to articles which expose the outright lies and omissions in the Newsweek article Mark touts as the latest testament of the AGW religious fanatics.

The third link is to an article exposing where these biased, radical environmental journalists come from, and the last link is to a site where you can find balance against the mainstream media propaganda machine.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/05/newsweek-disgrace-global-warming-deniers-well-funded-machine

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html

http://icecap.us/index.php

"Yellowstone's supervolcano is a few years overdue to explode and can achieve similar results."

Wow -- and you guys call us 'alarmists'.

"Interesting source Mark. In the future before you label people "right-wingers" maybe you should consider the sources you cite in particular their political leanings."

Yes, we know your shtick. The media is liberal, evil, blah, blah, blah.

Interesting how the deniers didn't address the links I posted, in particular the drastic loss of Northern Hemispheric sea ice. It's quite clear that the only 'science' that deniers have mastered is the science of the artful dodge.

Mark's link is an entertaining read. It shows clearly the desperation now evident in the AGW crowd as they realize that the end of their influence is near. They have very little time left to enact their left wing policies before the truth begins to gain acceptance in politics. Here is a quote from a main organizer of the Kyoto scam from before the first meetings the early 1990s:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" Maurice Strong

And they came damn close to achieving their goal.

Seems Mark's article has has been noticed. And sonudly criticised as very bad and biased non-journalism. See this link:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

WOW. Kudos to Mark. What a find. A bit more looking has turned up many articles soundly denouncing That Newsweek article as some the worst reporting in recent history. It appears to be more damaging to the AGW cause than several scientific paper put together.
It is really bringing out good inforamtion from all over showing the silly AGW agruments to be well..... Silly. Thanks again Mark. Keep em commin.....