The most exciting form of football, I reckon, is Australian Rules Football. watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_hqosNvv5E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIOvSv9Q1Gk&feature=related

without being rude to her?
really?
Anyway, Will, as I have said before, I am an atheist who accepts the theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection; I too urge people to examine the facts (whereby I do not mean taking what alarmists say on such sites as realclimate.org as gospel). So how will you dismiss my appeal to use logic and science, and to reject irrational, alarmist pseudo-science?

In Canada, at least, the news is finally getting some air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

Clean air and clean water, wrightsrong52, are undoubtedly Good Things; but we have no need of enormous taxation schemes which will do nothing for the environment. There are many ways to improve the environment all over, and many ways of bringing clean water and aiding civil society by the construction of infrastructure throughout impoverished parts of the world; but putting bureaucrats in charge of carbon-trading schemes won't achieve that, and believing in fraudulent pseudo-scientific nonsense won't help either.

Reducing pollution is not by itself anti-capitalist; halting development because of dogmatic anti-industrial fervour, whilst feigning to care for the environment, however, is foolish and, when predicated on irrational,...

to Hal Donahue for assuming that he might oppose the exposing of the AGW pseudo-scientists.
Surely, he, like all fair-minded people, would support a thorough investigation of the people and institutions behind the wicked scam of AGW.

missed that; still, Hal Dumb said what the original Hal Don would have spouted, no doubt.
Thanks, ADL.

to want scientists to apply the scientific method, is it Mr. Donahue?

Is it anti-scientific to be against fraud and dishonesty and conspiracy to break the law? Is it anti-scientific to expect scientists to examine the evidence without bias and to engage in honest and diligent research rather than pseudo-scientific politically motivated scaremongering?

See Lord Monckton's account: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/or iginals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scan dal.pdf"

Wally refers to Dr Roy Spencer; here are his top ten of AGW hates:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blo gwatch/top_10.pdf

Proud Liberal, how then do you respond to a liberal atheist, who accepts the theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection, but who remains unconvinced by the illogical arguments of AGW catastrophists?

jax33, you ask:
"Is the water taken up by evaporation,dropped in the same area or is it carried by winds to other regions?

It's up tp you; Antarctica is a mighty large place.

Proud Liberal, you say: "I've got 4000 scientists a year who publish in support of global warming. You've got Steve Molloy and Steve McIntyre.
"I win."

If one hundred, or one thousand, or one million, or one billion people deny that the angles of two right angles equal the three angles of a triangle, but just one person say they're wrong, I'll go with the minority.

The leaked e-mails prove that many scientists could not publish peer-reviewed articles questioning the claims of Mann and Jones et al, because Mann and Jones et al. had...

jax33 asks:
"If it gets warm enough to melt the ice in the artic regions,will it not increase evaporation at the same rate?"

If the average summer temperature in Antarctica rise drastically from -10º C. to -5ºC., how much more melting shall we see there, do you think? Antarctica has the least rainfall of all the continents, so, if we should see more precipitation due to the increased evaporation, do you think that the snowfalls will just melt into the Southern Ocean or, falling onto land with sub-zero temperatures, do you think that it might just add more ice?