<p>fundingfather; You are in denial, global warming IS real.</p>
<p>Take a die, slightly loaded to increase the odds that you’ll roll a 4. Roll the die six hundred times. You count the number of times you’ve rolled a 4: it’s 110. </p>
<p>The first time you rolled a 4, was it caused by slight loading? There’s no way to tell for sure. Was the overrepresentation of fours caused by the slight loading? Again, you can’t be sure; occasionally, an unloaded dice will you the same result.</p>
<p>But it wouldn’t be wise to bet even money that the next thousand times you roll the dice, the number of times you roll a one, two or three will exceed the number of times you roll a four, five or six.</p>
<p>backhandgrip: Please point to a part of my post that indicates that I do or do not believe that global warming is real. The existence or non-existence of global warming was not the point of my post. Nor was the point the purported cause of potential global warming.</p>
<p>I don’t think this situtaion is necessarily an either/or proposition but perhaps a combination of all factors - cyclical weather patterns further fueled and worsened by global warming and sea level rise. We had horrendous hurricanes in the Chesapeake Bay region in the fifties and sixties and then came a lull. I was amazed to see so much new (sea level) development along the eastern shore marsh banks when I returned home after 20 years away. It’s just a matter of time really before these homes are flooded and destroyed.</p>
<p>Backhandgrip, you’re confused - it’s Patuxent who doesn’t believe in global warming. Fundingfather just thinks: a) it’s Clinton’s fault, like everything else, and b) it’s complicated, which justifies doing nothing about it.</p>
<p>a)kluge, as you may or may not recall (probably the latter), I am the one CC conservative who has openly defended Clinton on at least two occassions.</p>
<p>b) this isn’t one of those occassions: yes, it is complicated which is why the Clinton administration did nothing about it; it is also why 99 US senators (sounds pretty bipartisan to me) voted for a motion to not endorse a treaty such as Kyoto.</p>
<p>So, when the dems want to stop playing politics with the issue then someone can take a look at from a real perspective.</p>
<p>Actually, FF, I was proud of myself for remembering that it was 'tux, and not you, who said there was no evidence of global warming. 
I’m afraid that remembering the place all the different CC righties inhabit on the “bad things Clinton is really responsible for even though they happened while Bush was in office” bandwagon is indeed beyond me. Sorry if I misstated your position. So what’s the “real perspective” on global warming that the dems playing politics are preventing us from taking a look at?</p>
<p>The mere fact that the Dems continually change their positions to play “gotcha” politics prevent any serious discussion about things like global warming, the Iraq war and any number of other issues. They went from a position of “let’s not sign the Kyoto agreement but instead just ignore it” under Clinton to “how dare you jeopardize the global climate and our global standing” under Bush when he had the courage of his convictions to state what they all felt.</p>
<p>Likewise, they went from “Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and will one day use them against us or the region and therefore must be removed from office” under Clinton to “Bush lied” when Bush had the foresight to predict the future and the conviction to do something about it.</p>
<p>This kind of political sport can only lead to potential tragedy and certainly is not something good for this country.</p>
<p>Right, because the Republicans are in politics for lollipops and sunshine.</p>
<p>I hate partisan hacks.</p>