First, I want to recommend the following article by a meteorologist who "gets it". Brian Sussman does an excellent job of putting the global warming facts in perspective in this article entitled Global Whining vs. the Truth.

In his article he references best-selling author Michael Crichton, which I am placing verbatim because it provides a powerful perspective on the size of the issue!

Perhaps you still believe in Global Warming. And perhaps you believe in the Easter Bunny, too. My recommendation is to stick with the Easter Bunny, because no politician has figured out how to get money out of your wallet over that.

In case you want a perspective on what your scientific ignorance or political leanings is going to cost you (not the oil companies, power companies, etc.), here is a headline that should shock you into thinking a little more about what you could be facing with regards to cleaning up a phantom problem would be:

$45 trillion needed to combat warming

I suppose they are teaching the scientific method still in school, but I guess they just do not teach it in journalistic schools. Why would I say that? Because of Global Warming, or lack thereof.

Using the scientific method, you have a theory from which you derive hypotheses. You test your hypothesis through observations (often by means of an experiment). The observation either supports or disproves your hypothesis. At some point, if a confluence of observations and experiments disprove your hypotheses, then you must consider that your theory is wrong. Wiki gives a very good synopsis of the Scientific Method, including the quote, “Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.” Read the article below and see if you do not come away thinking, as I do, that the scientists are taking their own negative observations and using them to reinforce their belief in global warming.

And I love this quote by Einstein, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein was a real scientist (not a politician), and a statement like this says that he could accept that his theories could be wrong if the observations did not support them.

So, here is another chink the armor of the theory of anthropomorphic global warming. Another experiment where the observations just do not fit. The World’s oceans have not warmed up over the last five years, according to NASA scientists that are running some very sophisticated tests. In fact, they say that the oceans have cooled slightly during that time.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat , by NPR.

At some point, there may come a day of reckoning when the media looks back and realizes that a group of scientists proposed a theory that was based on bad math and not supported by observations, but that it because a political expediency allowing politicians, celebrities, governments, and businesses to use this so called crisis to their own advantages. Unfortunately, the press will not likely hold their own selves accountable.

Of course, many people with limited background in sciences and mathematics have already made up their minds, which is clearly evident when you read statements like this, “Personally, it seems to me that science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity increases global warming.” Do you think they may change their opinion after reading the above article? My theory of human behavior says that it is not likely.

Here is a great editorial on something I have been saying for some time - Global Warming researchers were "cooking the books" with regards to their statistical analysis and prediction of increasing global warming (and laying it at the feet of Mankind).

Climate Panel on the hot seat, by H. Sterling Burnett, Washington Times

Please note the commentary on the mathematical analysis conducted by Dr. Ed Wegman, George Mason University. For those not familiar with him, Dr. Wegman is a brilliant and respected researcher in Statistics.

Shame on Governor Kaine of Virginia. He appears to be going down the path of promoting Global Warming and reprehensibly pursuing punishing regulations and, perhaps, taxpayer-based funding (i.e. taxes) so that the great state of Virginia can be on the bandwagon when it comes to detering MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming). This has all the appearance of contemptible pandering to those that know little about science but a lot about political extremism. When you see politicians embracing science issues you'd better hold onto your wallets!

The Governor's blue ribbon commission states that they are asking for input. Well, I made my thoughts known after the Governor's Secretary for Natural Resources, L. Preston Bryant, published a letter in our paper recently.

Here is Mr. Bryant's bio. He is an accomplished politician with an English major background. He is certainly eloquent, but it does appear he is somewhat light on the sciences. That is not going to help him if he has to explain how unimportant things like error factors are in weather measurements directly related to the climatological statistical models used to prognosticate the potential calamities associated global warming.

Here is my response to Mr. Bryant's article:

Why is a U.S. Government Agency, NASA, blocking climate data and how they calculated the results of their analysis? Shouldn't that be illegal? After all, we taxpayers are providing the funding for NASA to conduct this research. Think it isn't happening? Read this article about Steven McIntyre, of the infamous Climate Audit website.

Science data (particularly if federally funded) should be open to all. The very nature of discovery and understanding is to question and analyze. When I hear pundits say "The debate on Global Warming is over", I am at a loss because I don't recall exactly when that debate ever occurred and who decided it was over. And it is looking more and more like there are many that do not want this topic to be analyzed, audited, or debated.

Facts and Fictions of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", by Kristen Byrnes. This is an extremely detailed examination of Al Gore's claims in his movie concerning Global Warming.

A good read. Please note the complexity of issues involved.

I love this quote. "Al Gore doesn’t know what he’s talking about." But, he does know how to make a buck!

What is becoming clearer is that the Global Warming "scam" isn't about saving the Planet (which doesn't need much saving if you ask me), but is about money, influence, and power.

Global climate modeling is far from an exact science, but to the politicos it appears to be gospel.

Here is an article by Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" . It includes a petition purpotedly signed by 19,000 scientists.

It is a fairly long look at the data on Earth tempature data, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and climate impact. It is not very good news for the "Global Warming is Real and the Earth is going to end" crowd. Here are some excerpts:

"Not one of the temperature graphs shown in figures 4 to 7, which include the most accurate and reliable surface and atmospheric temperature measurements available, both global and regional, shows any warming whateverthat can be attributed to increases in green-house gases."

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased."

There are a lot of people who believe global warming is real. Of course, there are a lot of people who believe in the Easter Bunny, too. Global climate modeling involves a complex combination of sciences in aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, and computational mathematics.

The statistical modeling by the leading authors on the existence of global warming was analyzed by a group of Statisticians, including my advisor at George Mason University , Dr. Ed Wegman , and resulted in their congressional testimony, an excerpt of that you can find here .

Here is an excerpt from Congressman Ed Whitfield's (Kentucky) opening statement from the hearings on " Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments ", on July 27, 2006:

"Dr. Wegman was not seeking to impugn the integrity of any of the scientists who work in this area, but it is clear that peer review somehow failed to pick up the flaws in the hockey stick studies. Dr. Wegman simply raises the possibility that, given the evident publishing relationship among the authors of many of the relevant works, combined with the failure to involve statisticians, Dr. Mann's peers may have been too close to the topic to scrutinize the studies as rigorously as they might have. Whatever the case, Dr. Mann's peers failed to catch the errors Wegman, the NRC, and McIntyre identified."

Well, this is another global warming note.

A women-led expedition across the Arctic Ocean to bring attention to global warming was called off because of....(wait for it)...extremely cold tempatures.

An organizer's response to this was the following. "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming...But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Wow. What a really telling statement. These advocates could not prove their point, because Mother Nature didn't want to cooperate. So, they claimed that unpredictibility is a resut of global warming. Based on that logic (or lack thereof) any thing unpredictable is the direct result of global warming. The mail did not come, the dog died, I got an abscessed tooth, a particularly harsh winter, a hurricane in June, etc. If it is upredictable, then chalk it up as further proof of global warming.

Of course, the problem with global warming is that it is a theory that cannot be accurately modeled. Oh, the models show extreme tempature increases, but when predictions are matched with actual data from nature, these models cannot accurately account for the actual observations.

Just one more tiny piece of evidence that global warming caused by humanity is a "belief" and not a fact.