If all you can scrape up is one pseudo-scientist (who happens to be on your payroll) to say that ... whales breaking wind causes global warming, they'll give you equal time, even if ten thousand Nobel laureates say the opposite.

It turns out there have not been ten thousand recipients of the Nobel Prize since the inception of the prize. But then, here at the Sun-Sentinel we never let the facts interfere with the opinions.

It turns out that it is impossible for climate scientists to get papers published, research grants, academic promotions, or tenure unless they are in agreement with the global warming PC crowd. Interestingly, many scientists close to retirement (who no longer care about their professional careers) are doubtful of the wisdom of the global economic destruction being promoted by the Al Gores of the world.

Chan says:
Thank you for your comment, Lolly. I was using hyperbole to make a point. By using an absurd number like ten thousand, I assumed that it would be clear I wasn't serious.
As they say in journalism school, "Never assume anything."

Hi Chan:

I understand the hyperbole. Obviously we have a real difference of opinion regarding the validity of the global warming hypothesis. I recommend The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark.

One thing I do like about you is your ability to think critically about issues. You also draw great pictures.

Chan says: Thanks, Lolly. Who could ask for a better blog supporter? I 'll look for the book.

Chan & Lolly,

Nice to see reasonable people disagree agreeably for a change!

If I might interject re: global warming...? I find it very difficult to find fault with NASA and NOAA stats, measurements and hard, indisputable evidence of our polar ice cover dwindling annually at an alarming rate. And thus find it difficult to understand how anyone could dispute this clearly visible evidence. Causation is more difficult to pinpoint, of course...no quibble there with why...I just don't know for certain...and not sure anyone else does. All the other so-called 'science' I've seen on this comes from sources that, as far as I know, haven't ever put anyone on the moon, built a space shuttle, orbited a space station or mapped and explored much of the oceans. So I think it makes a little more sense to buy into NASA & NOAA findings...at least until someone with better credentials can prove they're wrong. Thanks! Always open to other thoughts, though!

George Q

So I think it makes a little more sense to buy into NASA & NOAA findings...at least until someone with better credentials can prove they're wrong.

I do not detect any of that critical thinking. I don't even detect any healthy skepticism. But, having an open mind is a great start. Don't just look at the sources; you should actually read and understand the arguments.

My dictionary indicates that credentials refers to something that gives confidence. From your short note, it appears government sanction is what gives you the most confidence.

At best, government tends to be politicized. I am not talking Democrat vs Republican, since they are really two sides of the same coin. I am talking about money and power. Here are two sources to hopefully enhance your economic education:
Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson
Gene Callahan - Economics for Real People

Both books are available as free downloads. Do a search.

It doesn't sound like you have read anything critical of the global warming hypothesis. The Chilling Stars I alluded to above doesn't so much deny the CO2 warming hypothesis as much as it describes another (I think more reasonable) hypothesis to explain fluctuations in global climate.

Continuing the conversation here.