Acne Home Remedy For Sensitive Skin

Hi, I have had geographic tongue since I was a baby, 30 now. My tongue is usually cracked on the sides with dime size or smaller red or white rings on average. During a flare up I can have large pink raw patches that even bleed (rarely). Also during the flare ups spices, acidic foods, and even salts can cause swelling and increased soreness. I have noticed over the years that its not an allergy to the foods but rather a reaction to my diet. Some months I will do great and the condition becomes asymptomatic, and other months its hell on my tongue (literally).

I have a wide variety of other problems, one of the worst is my back and shoulder acne that in my early This is no ordinary acne, they are pissed off round boils that last for months and I get them on my head and face too. For this problem I have noticed that diet directly effects them as well. Also lots of sun tanning (vitamin D) makes the condition vanish in just a few weeks after a winter long of pain suffering and hiding out. It is notable that I have had milk intolerance since I was a baby also that eventually grew to the need for an epinephrine pen.

I am now researching to find a connection to these problems and possible vitamin deficiencies. I encourage everyone with symptoms like these to help each other in finding cures and at least helpful “natural” ways to heal these conditions. I know it can be done because I accidentally heal myself yearly it seems, I just learned exactly what the problem is, or what exactly the cure was.

In this world the internet is a great tool for research, and in my personal opinion doctors are not a wise bet in this case. I too have received all of the familiar responses from many doctors over the years. You know, “the shrug of the shoulders, an antibiotic and/or steroid prescription, and a bill”. Come to find out this behavior from doctors may be causing many of the more complex problems arising today. Yet they still do it, why, because it pays the bills. It works like a charm every time, they write a prescription, you go fill it, everyone gets paid including the pharmaceutical companies, and as a bonus, you come back for more.

Finding the true help you may seek on the internet can be a daunting task. 99 times out of 100 sites you click on will only be trying to stir up the pain of your symptoms so you will follow like sheep into trying their useless product, you know the one many say is “the secret cure”.

There is no secret cure… If there was a real 100% cure for anything I care what it was, it would not be a secret for long, and you might actually find someone talking about it on a blog like this “without a link back to their website that sells a product”. fall for these BS cheap anchor methods. A personal tip from me is that if the website scrolls past the first page its a scam, and your the victim. even read on unless you want to be totally freaked out about your symptoms to where you sleep and find yourself thinking about buying a product that probably has nothing to do with your symptoms at all. Does it sound like I could write one of these pages? That is because I have read way too many, the internet is flooded with them.

There are real cures out there for all of us to find and share. The problem is that in America (where I live) its not about having a cure that works. Its about having a product that sells and makes MONEY. Sadly enough this is why so many people in America and all around the planet are suffering. Health should come first in our world, not money, but that is my opinion.

Most doctors only want to treat you for what can be diagnosed on paper, there are laws in this county in that prohibit many natural treatments from being prescribed. I claim to know the facts, but what I do know is we can treat help each other by simply posting blogs like these and playing an active role in the discussions on such blogs. maybe we can all link our blogs together and share are research on this issue. I too want some answers that work. If I sound like a raving maniac its because I am just so fed up with all the BS previously mentioned above in this post. I think a lot of us are.

I am on the candida diet as well and I will be adding Vitamins D3 and B12 slowly.
I do believe candida is more common today because of the misguided use of antibiotics. If I had 100 bucks for every time in my life I received antibiotics for the common cold I could buy something really nice!

Just my 2 cents…

A glut of misinformation is spread and actual truths are ignored, often to a ridiculous degree. A prime example of this is the issue of drilling for oil domestically in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Here are some well-researched facts about ANWR. Notice these are facts – not opinions!

** The total acreage of ANWR is 19.6 million and only 1.5 million in the hemisphere would be used for oil exploration. If oil is found, only 2000 acres would be affected by drilling!
** The ANWR caribou will not be by the drilling, in fact, if ANWR turns out anything like our drilling in Prudhoe Bay (similar to ANWR), the caribou can look forward to an increase in family and friends! (The caribou population of Prudhoe Bay has multiplied tenfold since we began drilling in the area.)
** Alaskans are overwhelmingly in of drilling. The two Alaskan senators it, as does the Alaskan legislature (Democrat & Republican), and the people of Alaska.
** In a bad economy, drilling in ANWR has the potential to create over 700,000 new jobs, lower gas prices, decrease our dependence on expensive foreign oil, and create billions of dollars in tax revenue collected from the oil companies.
** Because of our technological advance, the drilling does little damage to the land and residential wildlife.
** The breathtakingly beautiful pictures of ANWR shown by the media are very different than the stark landscape of the hemisphere. The of ANWR that we wish to drill on is icy and cold. The wind-chill can reach 110 below zero. And winter is not pretty… especially the 56 continuous days of utter darkness!

Myth: only a 200-day supply there, so why bother. Fact: The truth is that the latest U.S. Geological Survey estimates are that the entire “1002 Area” contains up to16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If found, this oil could replace all of our from Saudi Arabia for more than 30 years! The reserve could prevent our dependence on foreign oil from getting any worse for decades. Rather than being 56 percent dependent like we are now, it could cut our dependence to around 50 percent, according to the Energy Information Agency.

Myth: They want to destroy the last pristine wilderness along coast, even though 95% of the area is already open to oil development. Fact: The truth is that only 14 percent of the whole 1,500-mile Arctic coastal plain in Alaska is open to oil exploration. Estimates are upon discovery a major oil field could be developed using modern technology, affecting only a tiny 2,000-acre sliver of the 1.5-million-acre “1002 Area” of the Arctic coastal plain — one hundredth of a percent of the entire 19-million-acre ANWR area. Remember that 8 million acres of the refuge are in permanent wilderness and roughly another 9.5 million acres are classified as normal refuge. Only a of the Arctic coastal plain — the “1002 Area” was left open for possible oil and gas development.

Myth: Oil drilling would affect the caribou. Fact: There is absolutely no indication that environmentally responsible exploration will harm the 129,000-member Porcupine caribou herd. In fact, the history over the past 26 years at neighboring Prudhoe Bay shows the opposite. There the Central Arctic caribou herd has more than tripled in size, from 6,000 animals in 1978 to 19,700 today. Caribou will flourish as they have throughout Alaska, where caribou out number people three to two. No hunting by non-Natives will be allowed.

Myth: Drilling would destroy the Native culture. Fact: The fear that Arctic development will harm the caribou and the culture is groundless. Given the strict controls planned to prevent disruption to the herd¹s summer calving grounds nothing will prevent the caribou from passing close enough to the Gwich¹ins — protecting their yearly hunt. The concern for oil development seems recent. Just 15 years ago they issued a request for proposals to lease their 1.79 million acres of land for oil development. No where did they require restrictions to protect the caribou. Only when no oil was found on their lands did the oppose oil work. (See land lease proposal)

Myth:Canada has protected their wildlife, we should do the same. Fact: Canada finally created a national park, but did so only after extensive exploration in the 1960s failed to find oil. Canadians on their Arctic coastal plain drilled 89 exploratory wells and extended the Dempster Highway from Dawson to Innuvik, cutting through the center of the Porcupine caribou migration route. Such development did not harm the herd.

Myth:The coastal plain is last wilderness and must be protected. Fact: Alaska is already well protected. Less than 1 percent of Alaska currently is in private ownership and available for development. Alaska already has 192 million acres of parks, refuges, preserves and conservation system units, including 58 million acres of designated wilderness — 61 percent of all American wilderness. Wilderness in Alaska already covers an area that equals all of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia and Maryland. in the coastal plain lies the Village of Kaktovik and its 222 residents, as well as a number of old radar sites.

Myth: Oil exploration would destroy the habitat of polar bears. Fact: Alaska has healthy stocks of polar bears, estimated at around 2,000. The Administration has positively identified only 15 polar bear dens on the entire coastal plain over an 11-year period. That¹s just one or two dens a year. Given that very little of the denning occurs on land — most on the Arctic ice pack — development will not affect polar bears.

Myth: Prudhoe Bay has been littered with chemical and oil spills, the Arctic having been despoiled by some 17,000 spills since the 1970s. Fact: While some have claimed that oil development at Prudhoe Bay has harmed the environment, the truth is that Arctic slope is still pristine. The few oil and chemical spills have almost always been confined to frozen gravel pads where they have been easily cleaned up. In 1993, for example, there were more than 160 “spills” on the Slope involving nearly 60,000 gallons — the highest level of spills in the 1990s. But only two spills involved oil and all but 10 gallons were into secondary containment structures and were easily cleaned up. Prudhoe Bay is by far the finest oil field in the world — bar none!

Myth: Producing more oil would simply cause Americans to buy more gas-guzzling cars and defeat energy conservation Fact: America needs to be more energy efficient and to develop renewable, alternative fuels. But even with increased energy efficiency and conservation U.S. energy demands are forecast to increase by 19 percent in this decade and by 30 percent by 2020. By then America will be producing just 5.26 million barrels of oil a day if we continue on our current trend — being forced to 65 percent of our energy needs, according to the Energy Information Agency. We will be needing to dock 30 giant foreign-flagged a day — more than 10,000 a year — to the oil we need. That creates much more environmental risk than developing our own resources.

Myth: The vast majority of Americans oppose disturbing the Alaska Arctic. Fact: While there is a lot of misinformation about oil development in Alaska, Americans responsible development when they know the facts about it. A poll by Gordon S. Black Corp. found that 56 percent ANWR leasing, 37 percent oppose and 7 percent were undecided in a poll taken before the recent sharp rise in fuel prices. Americans want to protect the environment, but 74 percent efforts to produce oil and natural gas resources within America. Alaskans do it. The entire Congressional Delegation, the Senate and House, the Governor and 78 percent of residents of the village of Kaktovik, the Native village within the coastal plain, development.

Myth: America need to open the plain while it allows of some of oil. Fact: It is true that Congress in 1995 finally repealed a 1973 prohibition that had prevented any Alaska Slope oil from being overseas. America for four years has a tiny amount of oil, about 5 percent, only oil that was excess to British West Coast refinery needs.

But with the pending merger of British Petroleum-Amoco and ARCO, Phillips Petroleum will take over ARCO oil and facilities and end the need for B.P. recently announced it will suspend any Slope oil by the end of April when current contracts expire because there will be now be excess refinery capacity on the West Coast to handle all Alaska oil.

This is thus no longer an issue. For the record a study by the General Accounting Office last year confirmed that lifting the ban produced twice as much new oil in America as and did so without any observable price hikes on consumers on the West Coast. (Source: Alaskan Slope Oil: Limited Effects of Lifting Ban on Oil and Shipping Industries and Consumers, July 1999, GAO RCED-99-191.)

Myth: Alaskans are so “wealthy” they need to have ANWR opened. Fact: Alaska is far from a wealthy state. It is true that the state has a “permanent fund” — the savings from a of the leases, royalties and bonus payments the state has received as a result of development of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. The fund now stands at about $27 billion and currently pays all state residents a yearly dividend, about $1,500 per person. But Alaska citizens are expected to use their dividends to pay for services that might otherwise be provided by government (thus letting individuals make spending decisions at the local level rather than at the state level). And Alaska, the highest cost-of-living state in the nation and one of the last states to join the union, has billions of dollars of unmet infrastructure and social service needs — no roads cross most of Alaska — and the most fragile economy of any state in the Union.

Alaska always has been dependent on resource industries for its economy. While tourism is still growing, the Administration has been actively seeking to fell the timber industry. It has done nothing to promote a of its historic mining industry, and while our fishery harvests continue at an all-time high, prices for our fish are dropping. The simple fact is that oil accounts for far more than half of gross product, and without future oil development economy will sicken, forcing more and more Alaskans back onto the federal welfare dole.

timber industry has fallen 62 percent (based on employment) in the past decade. Its oil and gas industry has lost 21 percent of its jobs in the same period, and its mining industry is down 16.5 percent. The per capita income is 20th among the states, but ranks 2.7 percent below the national average. The gross product is in decline having fallen to $22 billion from $23.9 billion in inflation adjust numbers since 1991. And proof is that some 32,000 young Alaskans (aged 20-34) have left the state in the past eight years in search of higher paying employment.

That is upsetting since the rural areas still suffer from enormous sanitation and health needs, estimated at more than $1.3 billion — the state¹s rural, Native villages often 19th Century water and sewer services. Forcing predominately Alaska Natives back into a lifestyle of government dependence for no justifiable reason shows a callous disregard for the aspirations of all Americans.

Myth: Opening the coastal plain would destroy the “biological of the wildlife refuge. Fact: This is the most farfetched criticism of permitting oil exploration on of the 8 percent of the wildlife refuge that front the Arctic ocean. It assumes that opening the refuge would harm the Arctic Porcupine caribou herd. But the herd only moves into the area in about three of every 10 years and only from early June into July. The legislation pending would prevent any drilling or development activity during the caribou calving season to prevent any disruption to the herd. The real proof that the coastal plain could be opened without harm to wildlife and the environment is that Alaskan Eskimos have lived in the Far for tens of thousands of years, surviving on the flat, treeless, generally barren and generally frozen coastal plain. Their culture is based on a deep reverence for the land. They depend not just on the caribou of the plain, but the whales of the offshore waters. The Eskimo inhabitants of Kaktovik, who depend on subsistence to eke out a living in the Far would not be the biggest of oil exploration unless they were absolutely convinced from their experience at Prudhoe Bay that oil development can be done safely without harm to their land, the wildlife they depend on and their heritage. By a recent poll 78 percent of Kaktovik residents development.

With respect to “Alternative Energy”, maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other “alternatives.”

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of “green jobs.” Those jobs come cheap, and be paying for them.

There is only one way to drive down the rising cost of gasoline for the long term: significantly increase the domestic supply of oil. We are the only nation in the world with access to known oil deposits on our own land or off our shores that essentially refuses to tap those resources. The main stumbling block is a lack of political consensus, which is in especially supply in an election year. Instead of coming up with real solutions to our growing energy crisis, the Democrats in Congress would rather rail against the oil companies. But oil company executives set the price of oil — and taxing their companies more do anything to lower the cost of gasoline at the pump.

When the original ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was enacted in the early 1980s, oil exploration at sea was a far riskier business. Advances in technology have now made it possible to explore for oil in ways that are less damaging to the environment, protect delicate coral reefs, and reduce the chance of environmentally disastrous oil spills. But the ban on exploration remains in place as if drilling today were no different than it was a century ago. Estimates are that offshore drilling could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil, but we really know until we launch full-scale exploration.

By far the most promising source of domestic oil can be found in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains, but here, too, Congress has put up impediments to getting access to that oil. One large deposit — the Green River Basin that stretches through Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming — is believed to hold 800 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of a of projected U.S. oil Until recently, recovering oil from shale rock had been too expensive to make its extraction feasible. Advances in technology — and the high price oil now commands — now make this source of oil more economical. But again, Congress stands in the way. Just last year, Democrats language in an omnibus spending bill that blocked oil shale leasing on all federal lands.

Global Warming:

We’ve been told that there’s a “consensus” of scientists — most often exemplified by the group of scientists working under the auspices of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — that agrees manmade greenhouse gas emissions are or will wreak havoc on the climate.

Hundreds of scientists may have contributed bits and pieces of work to the gargantuan but just 62 wrote the chapter said to “prove” that man is behind global warming. And just 52 people — many of them the kind of non-scientists the Post would have us believe have no business passing judgment — wrote the “Summary for Policy-makers.” the publication that gets all the ink and drives the climate alarmism because it contains the most provocative statements about the of manmade warming.

Although dispute exists over whether there is, in fact, an actual consensus within the IPCC, head counts of scientists seem to be the name of the global warming game.

Since that is the case, the 31,000 scientist signatories assembled by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs) would seem to trump the 600 or so in the alleged IPCC consensus. Sadly, facts no longer matter.

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

Last data, showed ice cover had shrunk over six months to just 3 million but by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 “while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions”.

A little vignette of the one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired citing this as evidence of global warming.

In 2004 scientists from the University of Bangor made headlines with the prediction that Snowdon might lose its snowcap altogether by 2020. In 2007 a Welsh MP, Lembit Opik, was saying “it is shocking to think that in just 14 years snow on this mountain could be nothing but a distant memory”.

Last November, viewing photographs of a snowless Snowdon at an exhibition in Cardiff, the Welsh environment minister, Jane Davidson, said “we must act now to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change”.

virtually no coverage has been given to the abnormally deep spring snow which prevented the completion of a new building on summit for more than a month, and nearly made it miss the deadline for £4.2 million of EU funding. (Brussels eventually extended the deadline to next autumn.)

Two weeks ago, as America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades, the US National Climate Data Center, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a statement that snow cover in January on the Eurasian land mass had been the most extensive ever recorded, and that in the US March had been only the 63rd warmest since records began in 1895.

While global warming enthusiasts might take cheer from the claim that “average global land temperature” in March was “the warmest on record”, this was in striking contrast to a graph published last week on the Climate Audit website by Steve McIntyre.

Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

Mr McIntyre is the computer who exposed the infamous “hockey stick” graph – that icon of warmist which showed global temperatures soaring recently to their highest level for 1,000 years. He showed that the computer model that produced this graph had been so designed that it would have conjured even random numbers from a telephone directory into the shape of a hockey stick).

On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a “tipping point” where “irreversible change” takes place. This was based on last data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.

Discussion of this on the invaluable Watts Up With That website, run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows how the alternations of the PDO between warm and cool coincided with each of the major temperature shifts of the 20th century – warming after 1905, cooling after 1946, warming again after 1977 – and how the new shift to a cool phase could have repercussions for decades to come.

It is notable that the German computer predictions published last week by Nature forecast a decade of cooling due to deep-ocean movements in the Atlantic, without taking account of how this may now be reinforced by a similar, even greater movement in the Pacific.

Mr Watts points out that the West coast of the USA might already be experiencing these effects in the recent freezing temperatures that have devastated orchards and vineyards in California, prompting an appeal for disaster relief for growers who fear they may have lost this crops.

Mr readers are amused by the explanation from one warmist apologist that “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities – or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it”.

It is striking, in view of the colossal implications of the current response to “the greatest challenge confronting mankind” – as our politicians love to call it – how this hugely debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts.

On one hand our politicians are committing us to spending unimaginable sums on wind farms, emissions trading schemes, absurdly ambitious biofuel targets, and every kind of tax and regulation designed to reduce our “carbon footprint” – all based on blindly accepting the predictions of computer models that the planet is overheating due to our output of greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions – as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).

The fact is that what has been happening to the climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998, was not predicted by any of those officially-sponsored models. The discrepancy between their predictions and observable data becomes more glaring with every month that passes.

It do for believers in warmist to claim that, although temperatures may be falling, this is only because they are “masking an underlying warming trend that is still continuing” – nor to fob us off with assurances that the “German model shows that higher temperatures than 1998, the warmest year on record, are likely to return after 2015″.

In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.

In January 2007, Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain, predicted 2007 would be the warmest year on record.

It turn out that way. 2007 was only the 9th warmest year since global temperature readings were first made in 1861.

2007 was also the coldest year of this century, noted Czech physicist Lubos Motl.

Both global warming alarmists like Dr. Jones and skeptics like Dr. Motl forecast that this year will be slightly cooler than last year. If so, that means it will be a decade since the high water mark in global temperature was set in 1998.

And the trend line is down. Average global temperature in 2007 was lower than for 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. November of last year was the coldest month since January of 2000, and December was colder still.
“Global warming has stopped,” said David Whitehouse, former science editor for the BBC. not a viewpoint or a inaccuracy. an observational fact.”

But observational fact matters little to global warming alarmists, to those in the news media.
“In 2008, your television will bring you image after image of natural havoc linked to global warming,” said John Tierney, who writes a science column for the New York Times. “You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.”

“Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter,” said Steven Guibeault of Greenpeace.
There is no dispute among scientists that the planet warmed about 0.3 degrees Celsius between 1980 and 1998. What is in dispute is what caused the warming, and whether it will continue. The alarmists say the warming was caused chiefly by emissions of carbon dioxide from our automobiles and factories, and that, consequently, it will continue at an ever increasing rate unless we humans change our behavior. The skeptics say the warming trend was caused chiefly by natural cycles, and that it is at or near its end.

“The is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells,” said Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041, he predicts.

The news media promote global warming alarmism through selective Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three.

“When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign the planet was warming,” Mr. Tierney wrote. “When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored.”

Two studies published last year which indicated the melting of Arctic sea ice was due more to cyclical changes in ocean currents and winds than to planetary warming also attracted little attention, Mr. Tierney noted.

And though the record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely the record growth of Arctic sea ice this fall (58,000 square miles of ice each day for 10 straight days) was not.

More than 400 scientists — many of them members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — challenge the claims of the leading global warming alarmist, former Vice President and now Nobel laureate Al Gore, said a issued by the Republicans on the U.S. Environment and Public Works committee last month.
Kailee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said there criticisms should be discounted because 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corp.

Mr. Gore who is the crook, says French physicist Claude Allegre in a new book. made millions in an eco-business based on phony science, Dr. Allegre charges.

Mr. Gore alone, says Weather Channel founder John Coleman: “Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming,” Mr. Coleman wrote. “Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going…In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.”