<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting link, but the NOAA-15 satellite was used by NASA to show global warming. Here is an abstract about that very data you linked to:
[A</a> study of the NOAA-15 AMSU-A brightness temperatures from 1998 through 2007](<a href=“http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011267.shtml]A”>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011267.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, ethanol has a greater eco footprint than gasoline. When people are talking about the use of ethanol, it is to be “independent of foreign oils”, not as a solution to global warming. Anyone who says that is incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a very interesting point, and I agree with it to an extent. The problem I have is when commentators (left or right) are telling people to ignore the science / don’t believe it / imputing their own opinions… when they really don’t know anything about the subject. But your right: people aren’t able to accept things in subjects they don’t understand, whether it’s science, history, etc. We need to do a better job educating the public, not just on specific issues like global warming, but on basic science/history/etc so at least they can understand the evidence being presented, as opposed to needing to listen to hot-button commentators.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to touch that!</p>