4 votes

Warming Forecast: New-and-Improved 'Hockey Stick' Graph (Be afraid...be very afraid.)

Along with this doozy:

As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up.

Look over here, not over there. Here, here's the warming. Er...huh?

ARTICLE & GRAPH LINK: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/18/2484711/ipcc-rep...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your right its the end of the

Your right its the end of the world. Just for you I am going to go out and shoot a bunch of animals, save the planet and all. I will put your name on it so you get credit for saving the planet from those terrible, terrible breathing animals and all there CO2 pollution. Got to do my part for the cause.

Sarcasm aside, your ignorance shows

exactly how complex this issue is and that it cannot be handled by simple minds.

By 'killing a bunch of animals', you'd be hurting the situation, not helping it. People flippantly assume that animals produce more CO2 than they use up but they fail to consider the entire chain of events. If you take some desolate, half dead prairie land and put a large herd of buffalo on it, you don't get more CO2, you get less. Those animals fertilize the ground and make the grass grow more and then they stampede a bunch of it into the dirt before it's rotted (rotting emits methane). This means that many times more methane than the animal produces is actually captured in the grass and buried underground. In short, it's a carbon negative process. Same thing with prairie herded cattle, but the industrial complex makes more money from centralized herds that are very carbon positive.

So, once again, you sheep have allowed the media to persuade you into believing the issue is something completely different than it really is. Sound familiar?

I get to ask you now, Do you want to fix the issue or keep screwing things up (like the economy, the environment and the ecology) by arguing things of which you know nothing about?

here's what else I know about (just in case you doubted me)

From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Phil Jones

,rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu,tcrowley@duke.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, keith.alverson@pages.unibe.ch,mmaccrac@comcast.net,jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@virginia.edu

"...This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?


And this guy was "cleared" by 4 different investigative bodies of any scientific wrongdoing??? Here he is encouraging his colleagues to threaten not to publish, or even cit papers from this journal that "strayed off the reservation." This is how these "global warming" butt-clowns maintained their death grip on the peer review process. I think what I've presented here shows that their investigations were whitewashes and that this guy should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Link to excellent PDF compilation/explanation of the leaked e-mails compiled by someone with no axe to grind:


The offending e-mail is on page 28 of 150.

Here is a link to the actual entire e-mail itself and, in context, what was written in the last paragraph is even more appalling:


What do you think of your precious climate(gate) scientists now Tamckissick? I have a suggestion for you. You should abandon that group of chicken-littles before you have made such a fool of yourself that your reputation as a legitimate advocate on any topic you comment on is totally unrepairable. Despite the help they are receiving from the bankster cabal in charge of the planet, these climate change butt-clowns have lost all credibility and are going down. Time to abandon ship. The reason they will go down is because they are wrong, and they even know it themselves as their e-mails so purely reveal.

Oh and BTW, I have the entire set of e-mails from the whole group of conspirators at my disposal and this is just one of the juicier tidbits. It shows that what I said in my original comment about Mann to be absolutely true. The rest is also true as I've just refreshed my mind on the subject so it would be unwise to challenge me on this topic unless you enjoy pain...


Paul C. Hanson

NO ONE doubts there are corrupt people on both sides

What does that have to do with the science or the facts? Zero, that's what. I don't concern myself with the drama any more than I concern myself with anyone else's summarization. I look at hard data, I apply hard science, I model feedbacks and then I compare that to every new piece of data that I find.

Doing this and debating this topic now for over a decade (way before this issue went mainstream), I have learned of nearly a hundred positive feedback loops. These are offset by very few, but often much larger negative loops. What people don't often discuss is that CO2 is dramatically affecting the single largest negative one - that being re-radiation of heat into space. It doesn't matter what the sun does regarding high and low "cycles", if the energy leaving isn't as much as what's coming in, temps will rise.

You're being duped into believing this is about the NWO and carbon taxes and a new control mechanism over the people. Those are probably true, but they're like politicizing a dam break. The downstream homes don't give a crap what the politicians are talking about. They're interested in getting out of the valley!

Here's what I know a little something about... Michael Mann

The author quotes an e-mail from Michael Mann in his article. By including that, the article loses ALL credibility. Michael Mann should have crawled under a rock and stayed there after his e-mails were released. As the original person who "wet-dreamed up" the first hockey stick graph and helped sustain it by blatant cover-ups of actual conflicting data and threats to peer-reviewers to prevent publishing of opposing research and opinion, he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I'm thinking there may be a violation of law somewhere and he should probably be in prison. Or, at a minimum, sued by people involved in the economy (that is every man, woman and child on the freaking planet) for economic loss due to his malfeasance, obfuscation, cover-ups and outright lies. Gimme a break.

Without a "supposed crisis" these researchers would be standing in a bread line tomorrow because the research grants would dry up. They have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of global warming. And in Michael Manns case, we were able, thanks to some hackers, see just how far they are willing to go to do so.


Paul C. Hanson

Latent heat of Fusion, is small change.

it is only 144 BTU's per pound.
latent heat of vaporization is where the action is. it is 970.3 BTU's per pound.

clouds are FAR more powerful than ice.
factor that in and get back with me on your air temp theory.

Sorry but ice is FAR more powerful than vapor, not visa-versa

Water heat values for each type of heating:
Evaporation: 970 BTU/lb Fahrenheit
or 2260 Joules or 334 Calories per gram Celsius
Melting: 144 BTU/lb Fahrenheit
or 334 Joules or 80 Calories per gram Celsius
Raising Temp: 1 BTU/lb Fahrenheit
or 4.186 Joules or 1 Calorie per gram Celsius
(I'll use Calorie per gram per degree Celsius because that's the standard)

You need to relearn how to apply what you've learned. Let's get the terms straightened out for you first and for the other readers.

Latent Heat of fusion - making/melting ice requires energy while the temperature doesn't change.

Sensible or Specific heat - raises the temperature of a material while not changing state (freezing or boiling)

Latent Heat of vaporization - boiling or condensing a material while not changing the temperature. Yes, this includes evaporation.

The increased heat that is causing increased evaporation amounts to . This is because we are only looking at the increase in vapor (about 6% per degree of temp rise) on an amount that is .001% of the ocean volume. This means there is 0.00006 x 334 = .02 times the energy in water vapor that there is in the ocean per degree of rise. This new vapor's mass now contains latent heat that HIDES the temperature change.

It is, however, massively dwarfed by the latent heat stored due to ice cap melting. About 2% of the ocean volume is ice which has melted an arguable 50%. This means that .01 x 80 = .8 times the energy of a degree rise in the ocean.

That means that the ice stores and hides 40 times the energy of water vapor when heat is added to the Earth. Your theory is wrong, not mine. When you heat the planet, not all of it shows up as a temperature increase.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that by increasing temp from increasing the CO2 you increase the water vapor (and hide more heat) while causing more heat trapping. This is the same as melting ice increases the dark colored ocean vs. light (reflecting) ice.

Long story short is that you can't screw around with this topic using high school science. It's much more complicated than that.

what on earth are you talking about!?!???

thermal storage? gas (vapor) vs liquid????

you make NO sense at all and I don't need to look ANYTHING up.
for every 2 gallons of rain that falls (per hour), over a TON of refrigeration occurs.
yes, this heat is moved mostly from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
the transport medium is latent heat of vaporization. it is not a thing, it is a process. latent heat is NOT hidden at all! you just cannot measure it with a thermometer. it is not sensible.

this is BASIC A/C dude. you are out of your league.
no, I am NOT going to discuss superheat or subcooling with you. it has to do with latent heat of vaporization, and you CLEARLY do NOT know what that is yet.
what do you THINK moves the heat in a heat pump?

Tell ya what... You go find an actual thermodynamics professor

and tell him both stories and watch as he laughs you out of the freakin' building. "out of my league"??? Sorry, but you obviously can't even speak in terms not related to refrigeration. Every single thing you quoted has zero relevance to what I said.

Super heat? Really? You're now taking the discussion into super heated steam? ...As in steam above temps of 300-400 degrees AND pressures over 250 degrees F? What the F does that have to do with this discussion? Are you just trying to sound intelligent to win an argument you're over your head in? I've designed boilers and I think your the one who's out of his league. ...by the way, this applies to sub-cooling but I only learned about that academically and have no personal experience with it.

Last question: What does the refrigeration (or more accurately the condensation) process have to do with how much heat the Earth has accumulated? You do remember that we're talking about the Earth heating up but it doesn't show (another way of saying hidden) on a thermometer, right? That's latent heat, as I clearly explained BEFORE you tried to re-explain the same damn thing.

Go back to slinging air conditioners. You're not ready for serious science yet.

superheat is a condition.

it has NOTHING to do with steam in particular wise azz.

I was NOT talking about thermal storage. you are.

so, ice is heating the earth? by melting?

subcooling increases the refrigeration effect. it does so by decreasing the flash gas.

but I am talking about heat transfer. you are just being an azzhat.

You're thinking of this like a refrigeration system. It's not.


Please show how this applies AND THEN show how it alters the current discussion on GW. We're discussing whether the Earth's energy balance is still in balance (stable temps) or if it's heat content is increasing. Which processes involved inside the closed system cause the results doesn't matter as much as what the results are.

"so, ice is heating the earth? by melting?"
No. I never said or implied that. What I clearly said was that the increased total heat content of the Earth is not all showing on your thermometer because it's being hidden. You obviously understand the basic concept of latent heat so you should easily grasp the concept that it takes lots of the increased total heat to melt ice. This artificially appears on your thermometer (which measures sensible heat) as no heat increase. Do you get it now?

This is why I was talking about thermal storage WHEN I STARTED this comment line.


The Earth's energy balance is a Refrigeration system.

is the earth on fire? or is it cooling off?
(my bet is that it is on fire)
you are correct that the thermodynamic balance is VERY affected by water and it's important, (if misunderstood) properties.

the primary source of heat is that shiny thing up there. it emits radiant heat. (it does not heat the air, only surfaces)

some of this heat can cause heat gain in the summer. it can melt ice! ;)
most of it hits water and even where it hits on land it increases evaporation. most of the evaporation occurs at low level (high pressure) areas.
evaporation at low level, high pressure. creates convection. the heat rises.... AND.. the pressure and temperature drop.
clouds form, (blocking sunlight) and when they precipitate out of suspension..... heat is transferred to the upper atmosphere.

yes, that meets the classic definition of refrigeration. it is a heat conveyance system.

"evaporation at low level,

"evaporation at low level, high pressure. creates convection. the heat rises.... AND.. the pressure and temperature drop."

As water evaporates it does rise, because water vapor is lighter than ambient air. But temperature does not drop. Water vapor is he most potent of greenhouse gases, accounting for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for 3%, all the other gases account for the remaining 2%. Evaporation of water increases air temps by capturing and retaining heat from the sun. Water vapor in the form of clouds may make you feel cooler down on the surface because they are preventing the heat from reaching you, but they are still gathering heat and warming the air as well as retaining heat that is trying to escape the atmosphere.

Any heat that is TRANFERRED, not lost, is negligible when it is considered how much heat is gained in the form of water vapor that captures heat from the sun. In a vapor cycle machine this would be like adding a huge blow torch to the liquid once it had exited the condenser and heating the liquid to the point that gassed BEFORE it reached the evaporator. The Sun is that blow torch that is not present in the vapor cycle cooling. In fact in a vapor cycle it is seen that the lines after the condenser are insulated to prevent as much heat gain to the liquid as possible.

As you can see below (larger image link at bottom), water is by far the most important of greenhouse gases, covering more of the light spectrum than any other, and overlapping with most of the others.

Larger image

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Your graph illustrates the end result of what I've been saying

Looking at your chart... Compare the "Total Absorbtion and Scattering" with the "Water Vapor" sections. If you account for scale difference, you'll see the bite shape that's missing from the water vapor section (from about 12um to 18 um) is not the same shape as the one missing from the total. Now look at the upgoing thermal in blue and you'll see that the previously referenced chunk is gone. It's not getting transmitted back out to space but it's clearly not getting trapped by the water vapor. The only other blip in line is the CO2. And in the same way, you can see that the Oxygen has a very non-proportional spike in the total that's not in the water vapor.

With this in mind, remember that the wavelength of this heat leaving is related to temperature. As the graph shows, the chunk that CO2 stops the most is that radiating from the colder sources. I think this may be playing a role in the poles melting more than they've been predicted to.

So, as I've been leading towards, CO2 (and evidently more than I knew, O2 does too) has a strong insulating relationship with infrared thermal radiation. I find it interesting how small the result from methane shows on this graph. Makes me wonder on the source.

I'm also curious as to what the purple, blue and black curves represent in the upper right. Are those supposed to be seasonal, diurnal or something else?

The chart and sources are at

The chart and sources are at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transm...
You'll find identical/near identical results in the IPCC data. Their data is available with only a minor search.

The thin sliver that does not over lap water vapor, around 3 microns, is at 100%. From the report:
"It should be noted that while some bands are saturated (i.e. 100% of radiation in that band is absorbed), that does not imply that further increases in greenhouse gas concentration have no effect on that band. Rather additional greenhouse gases will cause the radiation to be captured closer to the Earth's surface which still increases warming. However rather than doubling as concentrations double, the overall effect proceeds only by small increments giving rise to a logarithmic progression rather than a linear one."

Keeping this in mind, also consider that while CO2 is touted as a powerful green house gas, it is only powerful if H2O is ignored. "overall effect proceeds only by small increments", small increments of a gas that only accounts for 3% of greenhouse heat to begin with. Meanwhile there are large areas in H2O, where H2O is not overlapped by any other gas, and is not absorbing 100%, where increases in H2O result in large increase in temp and decreases result in cooling. Also keep in mind that H2O, 95% of the greenhouse heat, has a short cycle of about 9 days, so changes in H2O are seen quickly. BOTH cooling and heating, regulated by the Sun's output.

Increasing CO2 is not going to result in increasing global temps. 100% of the radiant heat is already being absorbed by water and CO2. There ARE some areas where increased water vapor could result in higher temps. Increased CO2 will only change the location of those temps. CO2 closer to the ground will be more regulated by water vapor effects, which are close to the ground.

The Sun has gone through a weak cycle resulting in cooling. The IPCC is scrambling to counter the truth by changing their methods, measuring something different. This is not the first time they've done this. They also changed the location where they monitor CO2 to areas near volcanoes. Volcanoes emit CO2...

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

I was talking about 15 um, not 3

I understand your point about over saturation beyond 100%. It still affects but at very minimum and decreasing amounts.

But at 15um or in line with the "l" in "Thermal", there's a large chunk being retained from 12-18 or so. That's supposed to be ROUGHLY linear from 10 to 20 if it was all about water vapor's role. Instead, we see a large area (maybe from 12 to 18 - it's hard to read between ticks and a log chart) where almost all the heat is trapped. What are you attributing that to? You can't claim it's water vapor because that curve doesn't match at all. However, it perfectly matches the CO2 curve.

It simply points toward the following statement:

Water vapor is 95% of the insulator AT MOST WAVELENGTHS but in other critical wavelengths (like longer ones from lower temps), it pales in comparison to CO2.

And one could make a leap from there, saying, "Enough heat is lost to space by being radiated from objects at lower temps that this gives CO2 more weight than expected." True?

I'm preparing for a weekend

I'm preparing for a weekend vacation and don't have time to continue this conversation. I would suggest that people study AT LEAST as much about H2O as they do about CO2, the IPCC certainly is not going to talk about it nor the Sun. Their report dismisses 95% of the greenhouse effect and the single heat source of the earth as insignificant factors. They instead concentrate on insignificant MAN MADE effects, that will allow them to regulate man. Never mind that the man made effects, on a gas that is RELATIVELY insignificant, are themselves insignificant in comparison to the CO2 emitted naturally.

The IPCC wants you to believe, and seem to be pretty good at effecting that, that Man's emission of CO2, which is tiny in comparison to nature, which is a weak greenhouse gas relative to "another" gas, and is already at saturation meaning that further increases have a diminishing effect, further increases which Man only plays a small role in total emissions, a small role in a deminishing effect..... SO THAT THEY CAN TAX YOU and reduce man's already small role in increasing the emission of a gas that has 3% and diminishing effect on global temps, temps that BTW are not effected by things like the other 95% of greenhouse gases and the SINGLE HEAT SOURCE of the Earth.

If you have cows, they produce methane. We need to tax you because methane is a greenhouse gas. Never mind that methane is insignificant, never mind that wild animals all over the earth (that btw don't produce an income from which to tax...) will continue to produce methane...we need to tax YOUR income steam. And once the tax is implemented, and science finds that they made a huge mistake and we're not all going to die after all....will that tax be eliminated? History shows that no it won't, it will be justified by other means. It is only the implementation that is difficult to achieve, maintaining it after implementation is a given. And the tax is not going to reduce CO2, it is only going to increase cost of CO2. But the objective is not to reduce CO2, but to profit from it. There's no NEED to take action that would actually reduce it. The countries that use the most, the wealthy countries, will pay the most...the ones who use the least, poor nations, will sell their credits to the wealthy. A transfer of wealth scheme. Once implemented it won't be reversed, no matter what science discovers.

It was reported in March that we have reached the dreaded 400 ppm CO2. This is suppose to be a 3 million year record est. Yet temperature is not at 3 million year records. The IPCC's own data, the Al Gore hockey stick, shows clearly that temps lead CO2, CO2 lags. According to the "common knowledge" we should be at record temp BEFORE reaching 400ppm as temp leads not precedes CO2 levels.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

PS Tamc... In regards to that

PS Tamc... In regards to that statement:

"It should be noted that while some bands are saturated (i.e. 100% of radiation in that band is absorbed), that does not imply that further increases in greenhouse gas concentration have no effect on that band. Rather additional greenhouse gases will cause the radiation to be captured closer to the Earth's surface which still increases warming. However rather than doubling as concentrations double, the overall effect proceeds only by small increments giving rise to a logarithmic progression rather than a linear one."

What is wrong with that statement that it should actually be...
"It should be noted that some bands are saturated (i.e. 100% of radiation in that band is absorbed),"...PERIOD, end of statement?

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You're still not addressing three things

First, and small, is that by heating lower due to a higher concentration than needed for 100% saturation, there are other consequences. Things like the heat is trapped lower and has a higher effect of heat transmission back to the ground.

Second is that spike in the graph where water vapor is missing it's contribution. It's in line with CO2 and ramps this entire section from pretty low to nearly full insulation.

Third is that water vapor cycle is just that. It's a cyclic process that has an overall cooling effect. Picture a car radiator with low flow. It allows the heat to build up in the engine. By increasing the water flow (cycle time in water cycle), you get more of the hot mass to the radiator, raising the radiator's average temp and allowing it to give up more heat to the passing air. I believe this to be the normal balance the Earth has to overheating which has done so since the beginning of the water cycle. CO2, however, is the restriction in the water hose.

Good debate,

I think that I see the malfunction.

it is the COLD pipe that is insulated, NOT the liquid line.
the cold pipe is the vapor return line. yes, the cold pipe is the one that has the heat in it.

I am trying to be helpful. this should be easy enough to verify.

Yes, I made a mistake. In a

Yes, I made a mistake.

In a vapor cycle machine this would be like adding a huge blow torch to the gas side once it had exited the evaporator and heating the gas. The Sun is that blow torch that is not present in the vapor cycle cooling. In fact in a vapor cycle it is seen that the lines after the evaporator are insulated to prevent as much heat gain to the gas as possible.

The water cycle is like refrigeration, except that the very things that one would do to make a vapor cycle (DX if you like), efficient are INCREASED in nature. The Sun is akin to adding an immense amount of heat to the return line of a vapor cycle.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

DX means direct expansion.

or "refrigerated A/C" as they call it out west. a "swamp" cooler is an evaporative unit, also popular out west. (low humidity areas)

the point that I was trying to stress, is that it is the COLD pipe that has the heat in it, being returned to the system to be rejected to the atmosphere.
on a low temp (freezer) application, it is normal and also desirable for there to be ice on the return line!
and yes, it also has the heat in it!

A/C is technically just high temperature refrigeration. as you have noted, they all work on the vapor compression cycle.

it matters not how much sensible heat is gained on the way up. as the warm humid air rises, it gets colder due to altitude.
what evaporated at low level, high pressure, high temperature. -relatively- now finds itself in a low pressure low temperature area. (ambient)
when it precipitates (condensates) the 970.3 BTU's that were collected at the surface, are rejected to space. this only happens when it rains of course.

heat rejection due to rain, blows away ice melting.
and that was my main point.

I have learned a LOT on the metals thread.
have fun asking A/C guys how the cold line can have the heat in it!
(they will all KNOW that it is true, but I will bet they cannot explain it.)

ew thinkprogress

I heard briefly something about the meteor that hit in Russia a few months back. Something about how it effected the planet. Unfortunately all I heard was that since I was leaving the house as I heard it.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

I just thank God every day

I just thank God every day for the current Grand Solar Minimum in 24 that is half the output of solar cycle 23.

Great bumper sticker

There is a great bumper sticker that says:

climate change (noun): what they renamed global warming after the earth got cooler for 10 years in a row.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I find it funny that they

I find it funny that they always use the evil oil and gas industries huge profits as paying for anyone who doubts the veracity of global warming. Yet the amount of money that would be made off of a cap and trade system would dwarf about any economic system on the planet, it would be right up their with food etc. There is individuals that are hopeing to make billions by using the world governments to take it from every business for a new slush fund for them.

Every human in the world produces CO2 if they can market and control such a large item, they might as well be selling air. They are every bit as profit hungry as those they try to villafy. Billionaires like T Boone Pickens off of wind farms getting subsidies from government. Get rid of the scare and they lose a fortune.


As the final paragraph stated:

"Continued inaction on climate change risks the end of modern civilization as we know it."

So feudal slaves, pay your carbon indulgence taxes. Her Highness, Lord Gaia, must be mollified at all costs--and Gore needs another rubdown.

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” - Ron Paul

Who benefits?

Nuclear power companies will sell their carbon credits to finance the flooperoo called nuclear power.

Nuclear power costs more to produce than fossil fuels electric power. Just like ethanol.

Government always does everything wrong while maximizing waste and cronyism.

Free includes debt-free!

95% bullsh*t

"study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels"

Are those the same United Nation "experts" who's emails were hacked and they were exposed for saying, "its important to embellish the global warming statistics to get more people on board"?

Be Afraid

Be very,very afraid
and please send your checks payable to Al Gore and never question the higher taxes the government will make you pay so they can save you. Of course they have to make u believe people are responsible first because if people realize earths temperature is the result from the sun, no guilt = no $