2/29    Here's the only sensible middle ground reasonably non-partisan
        article on global warming I've ever seen.  The executive summary for
        the lazy: we don't really know, it's frustrating but we don't think
        the end of the world is upon us.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/weekinreview/29revk.html?ex=1078635600&en=f83f2670a1159542&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
        \_ so...by "non-partisan" you mean information-free?  Personally,
           the more i learn about the data and simulations behind climate
           prediction, the more I'm skeptical of *any* statement on either
           side.  If someone says "everythings fine, don't worry about
           a couple hundred ppm of extra CO_2", my answer is "bullshit."
           If they say the sky is falling, and CO_2 is some majic thermostat
           that the global climate must follow, I also say "bullshit."
           \_ Not at all.  It simply admits that there might be some bad shit
              going on but they don't know how bad, they don't know if we're
              at all close to a magic tipping point, they're concerned about
              it, seem to believe it would be prudent to take it seriously,
              but aren't yet ready to declare the sky is falling.  It was
              honest.  How much information do you want?  They admit they don't
              have enough and in fact say how difficult it is dealing with
              people who want solid hard facts such as yourself when those
              facts simply don't exist to that level of certainty.  You seem to
              be mostly in agreement with the scientists in the article and
              with me.