When anyone challenges the Al Gore version of global warming, defenders do not counter the data and analysis. They just tell the critics to shut up or try to discredit them as pawns of the evil oil or coal industry. They always claim that the science is settled and supported by a consensus of scientists. I have a stack of scientific articles that dispute much of their analysis. If they are so certain of their conclusions, why don't I find articles that dispute the findings of the skeptics? Could it be that their motives are more political than scientific? There is much more at stake here than the loss of snow on the ski runs.

Donald D. Moss