| Page 2 of 2 < |
At the Least, the Debate Is Heating Up
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
I'm still waiting, however, for The Post to run just one article explaining why, despite all of this alarmism, we had no hurricanes above Category 3 during the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and why none of any size hit the United States. If we are to believe Al Gore's claim in "An Inconvenient Truth" that hurricanes Rita and Katrina in 2005 were the products of global warming, how does he explain away the 2006 hurricane season?
I'm pretty sure that residents of Denver, having been hit by three blizzards in as many weeks, would welcome some global warming right about now.
The bigger issue, though, is this: Many of the same global-warming doomsayers of today were warning 30 years ago of forthcoming cataclysmic global cooling. Were they wrong then, or are they wrong now? And if they were wrong then, why should we believe them now?
-- Joseph Parisi
Annandale
