New Poll Shows Growing Skepticism of Global Warming
By Nick Loris
A new poll from Harris Interactive Inc released today found that:
“Just 51 percent of adults questioned said they believed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would cause the Earth’s average temperature to increase. Two years ago, fully 71 percent of respondents linked greenhouse gases directly to global warming.
The Harris results follow polls in recent months from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, the The Washington Post and ABC News, and The Wall Street Journal and NBC showing a similar decline in the percentage of people who believe climate change is real and is caused by emissions from fossil fuels.”

We should remind you of the costs of addressing this ‘problem’ with cap and trade legislation. Heritage analysis projects the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed in the House would:
-- Reduce GDP by $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
-- Destroy 1.9 million jobs in 2012, which could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing would lose 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
-- A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and $1,241 more in 2035;
-- A family of four will reduce its consumption of goods and services by up to $3,000 per year;
-- Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035.
We should also remind you that the environmental benefits of cap and trade are nonexistent.
Interestingly, Harris conducted the poll November 2nd through 11th. In other words, the respondents answered before the news of Climategate broke, or as the always-witty Mark Steyn calls it, Warmergate. Skepticism is only bound to grow and here comes that funny little word transparency again. Reason senior analyst Shikha Dalmia writes, “A complete airing of the science of global warming, which is looking less and less avoidable by the day, might eventually vindicate the claims of climate warriors. Or it might not. The only thing Obama can control in this matter is which side he will support: The truth, or–what he accused his predecessor of–ideology.”

God I hope that this bill doesnt pass. I literally mean that in the form of a prayer . This is only another way for the mega-corparations to make billions, people you have got to stop being led around like sheep and wake up.
http://cei.org/gencon/019 ,02898.cfm
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/04/28/gores-inconvenient-enron /
does the flag represent anarch- capitalism ?
The bisected flag represents two things, the black typifies what anarchist flags look like (all black) and the yellow/gold is intended to be symbolic of gold or "sound" currencies and economies.
That's pretty much the gist of it. It's a rare view (of course) and different people have different stories of how they got to this type of thinking.
Something along the lines of objectivism?
Objectivism is a kind of philosophy that is often used to rationalize capitalism . While I don't buy into the entire objectivist package, I agree it has many insights that leave people better off when they study it.
Anarcho-capitalism is basically "Libertarian-Anarchy" so to speak. It holds that government (as an agency of monopolized coercion) doesn't really solve many of the problems in society that it is proported to.
The key advocate of objectivism (Ayn Rand) never made the full leap to anarcho-capitalism. But one can definitely be both (AC and Objectivist).
I think this might be a decent primer (referring to the book itself mentioned):
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
When any dissenter is denied an opinion on the basis of consensus alone then you're bound to have a flow of skeptics come forth.
Besides, it's bound to cool for the next three decades anyway:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause-print.html
With climategate out I think the debate is bound to change sooner than expected.
And since when are the practices of silencing dissent, hiding data, and manipulating data the hallmarks of good science ?
These sounds more like political techniques than they do scientific techniques.
Furthermore, the people who support the hypothesis of AGW do so with the same fanaticism of religious zealots.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.