the question isn't whether to believe my eyes or a climate model. the question is who will i believe: scientists who's career goal is to find the truth and tell it like it is, or oil companies whos purpose in life is to make as much profit as possible no matter who it harms? were climate scientists responsible for the deepwater horizon disaster? the exxon valdez spill? i wonder who "namerequired" works for?

the mighty wurlitzer plays on -- with models. based on these, they reach real-world conclusions. meanwhile, "environmentalists" decry the posited warming's effect on polar bears. that's one error compounded by another. polar bears have survived a warm climate in the historical past (e.g., the medieval warming period and before that, the roman warming period -- both of which were warmer than present and neither of which was caused by humans). agw is a classic disinfo campaign. billions have been spent on a propaganda offensive designed to scare people (if only for the sake of the polar bears, we need to cap industry and tax heat and light). data has been fudged ("adjusted") and models tweaked ("optimized") to produce the desired result. it must be comforting though to find certainty in an uncertain world... i notice lately that the climate alarmists have begun to hedge their bets. in this release, for example, they caution that the ice may expand at times, "fooling" people into disbelieving their thesis. another case of their asking the immortal question: who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes or my climate model? anybody remember "global cooling"?