[Sam Cree]

One thing is for sure, everyone is confused on Bush's stance on this issue, whether they should be or not. It's discouraging, but I doubt it will become clearer. If Bush wants to hedge issues to get what he needs to fight terror, I understand, I just don't think people will vote for a second rate "democrat" when there are real ones (unfortunately) handy.

I don't see that science has any clear conclusion on what man's effect is on global warming; a meteorologist I spoke with indicates that sunspot activity may well be the main player. My belief is that the computer models used are seriously flawed.

When scientists can figure out tomorrow's weather for one city, maybe then they can have a shot at the whole planet for decades at a time.

[alnick]

I don't see that science has any clear conclusion on what man's effect is on global warming

So you agree with Bush's position, then.

[jpl]

I don't see that science has any clear conclusion on what man's effect is on global warming.

If more of today's scientists actually had integrity and intellectual honesty, they would acknowledge that there is in fact enough data to reach a fairly sound scientific conclusion. And the conclusion is this: man's effect upon global temperatures is not really measureable, and is in all likelihood nonexistent. At best, it is pure guesswork.

The reason why so many scientists refuse to honestly acknowledge this conclusion should be pretty obvious. Government funded global warming research has become an industry. A not insignificant percentage of the employees at NASA have in fact made it their life's work. To acknowledge the truth would quite probably mean and end to the gravy train, and having to find a new career is just not easy for most people.