[robertthebard]

Frankly, I wouldn't care who was funding the "research". I'm not overly political, and politics certainly doesn't motivate my view point. I delete more "Obama is trash" type emails from my mom than I click spam when going through my emails, some of them w/out even reading. I have come down against policies of both of the recent presidents, and frankly, I will continue to do so, if I disagree with them, even if I did vote for them. The biggest problem I see is that people have forgotten how to think for themselves, and if that's politically motivated, I'm not going to try to fix it.

I have turned off perfectly good movies as soon as they start with the preaching of GW as the cause of a disaster. A theme that's been all too common lately. That's the doom and gloom scenario that I keep referring to. However, it's not like I just waste resources, and try to use things up because they are there. My car gets 35ish MPG, and I put $10.00 worth of gas in it a month, the only things running in my house now are a couple of fans, my computer and my a/c. There are no lights on anywhere in my house, despite how dark I have to keep the place to minimize my migraines.

As I've said before, conservation is good, and I do my part. However, and we can hash and rehash whether it's happening or not, scaring the populace with the "green" agenda isn't right. That agenda truly is green too, since everyone doing the research is getting paid, and they are getting paid to find exactly what they are finding. If they supported articles like what's in the OP, they'd be out of work. However, if there's any doubt that doom and gloom are a tool of the green agenda, just check out the ScyFy Channel's regular programming schedule, I'm sure you won't be hard pressed to find "Nature is a Mother" days, and can see in those movies just how financially motivated GW really is.