So are you going to answer the question or dance around with your hand on my ass all night?

Oddly enough NASA is an organization made up of individuals who have their own opinions, I wouldn't build your glass house there, were I you. Climate certainly is a major factor in biology, as is quantum physics, solar physics, astronomy, chemistry, math, etc etc etc. The fact remains, this in no way qualifies biologists as experts on atmospheric phenomena. I didn't learn biological evolution from a astrophysicist for the same reason I didn't learn about climate change from a biologist.

A "consensus" of climatological centers means in and of itself nothing, whether that be regarding evolution (which by the way I am a firm supporter of evolutionary theory), global warming or parasite-host theory. In science we don't do research to find evidence for our hypothesis, we do research and then formulate a hypothesis. Unfortunately in the new science of "climatology" this happens bass-ackwards.

If you feel the need to have the last word, thats fine it can be yours to have. I would however, invest some time into actually reading many of those papers you find on Google scholar, you may just be surprised what you learn.

Makes you look kinda foolish when you post that below the answer you know and yes I have read those many of those papers thank you and no the vast majority of them did not surprise me. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it has its a*** backwards.

wow you have alot of good points there. I dont know where your getting your info but pretty much everything you said is completely wrong. 1. Artic ice levels are way below average. 2."those things that orbit the earth" aka a satilite have show dramatic increase in global temperature. 3. Polar bear levels are at a extreme low and or soon to be put on the endangered species list. Where are you reading this crap? Might want to check out afew sources before you start debating on a subject. btw great thread thread starter you really put alot of time into your points

CO2 is a major climate factor. Millions of dollars are spent on understanding it more to help prevent further damage to the atmosphere. Nobody in the scientific community has ANY doubt that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas and is effecting our climate. You've have to be completely ingnorent to disagree.

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the man-made global warming hypothesis(which in conjunction means that they disagree that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas or at the very least believe there are other much more powerful factors effecting our weather). Linky

I believe this subject be tought in more detail in schools around the world. After all we did screw up the planit now its the next generasion who should figure out how to prevent it.

I believe this subject be tought in more detail in schools around the world. After all we did screw up the planit now its the next generasion who should figure out how to prevent it.

I believe this subject be tought in more detail in schools around the world. After all we did screw up the planit now its the next generasion who should figure out how to prevent it.

That is a matter of opinion. There's no denying we have made it harder for some other species to survive, thus screwing up the planet for them. But we have also made it a much easier place to survive for other species, including ourselves.

About the only thing we can actually do is build fewer cities, farm less forests and other such things along those lines(but with a growing population that isn't really possible). No matter what we do, the climate will change just as it always had. It's not very intelligent to think that following the Green movement will make it all better and we'll be able to keep the current climate for the rest of human existence.

As for this being taught in schools, I am very sad to say it's been made a mandatory part of the California curriculum. I'm sad because the mandatory part is pro-AGW.

Oh, no fears. I believe the concept of global warming is fairly well actively being instructed to the younger generation. I'm undecided over the underlying question, but see no harm in reducing humankind's footprint. Hell, I believe more in Gaia than Jesus, personally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thS0cimuqFY...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_j***Q9-WI...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD44HO8dNQ...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv09zUQ50f0...feature=related

this is what is causing global warming every few years some country test one of these in the oceans so if global warming is real this is the cause, this will boil the oceans,and the ones the test on land they do in Siberia you think that heat is good for the atmosphere.

OH yea off topic but peak oil thats another scam we have enough light sweet crude for 150 years and then another 100 years of the hard to get oil which we will not need If people would just wake up!!

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Fun to know.

I've given many lectures and speeches on global warming, a competent and objective scientist can not truly disagree that this is happening. However, we should not be talking about global warming and this is where environmentalist have failed. We've been talking about global warming and how it's happening and how to stop it for years and it has been like running into a wall. Lets not talk about global warming ever again, lets not talk call it climate change again. Lets talk about jobs, lets talk about more money, lets talk about the economy. NOW people will listen, don't even mention global warming just do it. We need to focus on changing the way we get energy among other things. The government should give incentives to companies who use alt forms of energy and to farmers who make organic food. Lets not punish those who aren't but lets not reward them. It should be easy being "green" it should not be more expensive.

Us environmentalist have FAILED in this aspect, admit it we screwed up we are just as bad as those that are listening. We are using the same methods to teach and educate that worked for us in the 60s. We need to CHANGE as well, not just everyone else. Please if you want to stop global warming and all of that do NOT EVER talk about global warming again, people won't listen and it's not going to do a damn thing. Again, instead talk about something new that is going to make changes for the good like JOBS. You realize how many new jobs we can create as we revamp everything? Those who may "lose" their job will have a new and better one right away. Talk about people making money and now people are listening. The government needs to step in and start doing it's part as well. Don't send another penny into global warming research, invest all of that wasted money (including money in the middle east but that's not this topic lol) send all of that into revamping the way we live and creating jobs through that. If we do all of this we will have stopped/slowed down global warming.

In all honesty YES global warming is a natural thing however, we are speeding it up a great deal. We aren't helping the situation and we can't handle the huge changes that can happen. Now you see what is wrong with those sentences now? Yes, they're true by they preach of "doomsday" and such so people are going to be like "Oh well what's done is done" or "I'll be dead by then, I don't care." I invite all of you to read this article called "The Death of Environmentalism" if you care. It states what I've just said and then a lot more. We BOTH need to admit that we are wrong and we BOTH need to CHANGE. And we need to make it appealing to people. In all honesty after my post here this thread should be locked and we should start a new thread and making changes that are A. Going to be good for people , B. Going to be good for the environment, C. Not going to scare people.

Edit: Here is the article www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

You should make a post about this. I read it earlier this morning ... sheds a little light on the so called CONsensus

Well technically it belongs in this thread, so here's the list now that it's up. It's very obvious that the debate is far from over whether the news would like you to believe it or not.



And here's a link to the article they attached to their petition. The figures on that page should say enough.

I hate to tell you Sir. but you are extremely misinformed along with a large majority of the American public. Those scientists are in the pockets of big oil, just think of common sense how can this many different countries all AGREE on ONE thing???????? It's unheard of because it's true, but again global warming isn't the issue, one of the reasons is because of all this information that is statistically biased. I know what I'm talking about I've given plenty of speeches on this and in all honesty I wish I hadn't. Because as environmentalist we need to change our strategy and get away from what we're using now. I explained it a bit in my previous post, I hope you will go read it and I'm sure you'll agree with it. It's the only way things will get done because people are people.

In my opinion you are the one who's wrong. From all the data I've seen the man-made global warming hypothesis is a load of crap. Nothing but a huge scare tactic to push political agenda's. We could argue back and forth with examples to support our opinions, but that would be a waste of time since neither of us would convince the other.

I do hope you acknowledge that there are many thousands(and probably much more) of scientists who disagree with the AGW hypothesis though.

Did you even read my above post? Global warming isn't even the issue.

Edit: I'll even outline some inarguable points.
1) NO ONE can deny that we need to revamp out entire energy system.
2) NO ONE can deny that we need new jobs and this can and will create A LOT of new jobs if it is handled correct which in turn is more money. Which is what people want.
3) NO ONE can deny that AFTER we revamp out entire energy system we need to break our addiction to oil.
4) NO ONE can deny that we aren't helping the situation by releasing all of the pollutants and such.
5) Do not worry about #4 because if we do #1-3 we will have already handled #4.

This is how we need to look at things because as you said arguing about global warming is a waste of time. I agree with you to an extent that it is a scare tactic, but again I believe it's happening and it is natural we are just speeding it up. That is why it's a waste of time because scare tactics do not work. It's a scare tactic to accomplish some of the things I said that NEED to happen but it is just a poor strategy. Talk money and jobs and people will listen and we will make the changes that our society 1000000% NEEDS. In all honesty the phrase Global Warming should be banned because it's a waste of time debating it and we won't get anything done. Money + jobs = ears for change.

I'll admit I just skimmed through your first post, it was pretty long and I didn't thoroughly read it. I more or less agree with this post, but I think the global warming thing is an important factor to at least a few of your 5 points.

1) I agree. I believe this should be the world's top priority in terms of new technology research. Whether we go drilling into every remaining natural habitat in the world to buy just a few more years or not, the oil will run out eventually and when it does we need to have a new source already in production at that time. I believe H2O will be the future fuel once there isn't a world oil economy for it to destroy anymore.

2) I agree. Although there are many different area's besides new energy with which new jobs can be born from, there will still be an entire world of gasoline-powered engines to replace/dispose of.

3) That will happen whether want it to or not. Most likely we will NEVER give it up by choice, we'll just continue to drain ever little oil reservoir we find until there is literally none left to be found.

4) Here is where opinion starts to matter. I support the preservation of the remaining natural habitats and the reduction of our impact on them, but when one person says "pollutant" two people might think of completely different things. Smog, corporate wastes and other such things are what I consider pollutants. People who believe in AGW believe that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Billions of dollars/other currencies are being wasted every year around the world to try and "fix" one of the 3 basic elements for life on Earth.

All that money and manpower would be much better used on much more important matters, such as new energy sources and the practical implementation of them into society for example. I just don't think it's right that such a widespread lie is being used as a mascot of the green movement to push their beliefs on us(even if I do agree to an extent with some of their opinions).

It looks like I agree with you on the road we should take, we just seem to have different views on how to travel it.

ahhhhhhh This was probably already said but: Global warming is a fact. People are speeding it up. BUT! It's a NATURAL cycle in the earth's life. It'll happen, it would have happened, it is happening, whether we want it to or not. Changing from gas to ethanol isn't going to make it go back, it's going to happen anyway. Everything can't be perfect and merry and wonderful forever, something IS happening--CO2 levels are increasing, albeit not as vastly as many people claim--and it can't be avoided. It's a cycle. The earth warms, it freezes, and it regenerates, and it starts all over again.

Well what I meant from pollutants I meant ones that harm us, for example a lot from mining and such. Also Carbon Dioxide in our case is technecally a pollutant because it is a fact that it is speeding up the process but I agree with you that we are wasting money and trying to directly reduce this and this is because of people talking about global warming. That is the exact reason why I hate the topic because if we just do what I stated and what we agreed on before it will completely take care of that problem. The problem with CO2 is it is natural like you said but it all isn't natural in the atmosphere, we put too much of it there. Would it have happened anyway? Yes, but a loooooooooong time from now, we just sped things up a lot. Again I hate talking about this and global warming because people don't listen or they want to "fix" it. If you did believe it was occurring it's already 100% too late to do anything to "fix" it. We can just not add to the problem.

Again I can care less about the planet itself, we can destroy pretty much everything on this planet and life WILL go on. It's jut a matter of with or without us, so we need to focus on us, people. I think that's a huge problem with talking about global warming is it's too general and it scares people. Focus on humans and making life sustainable for humans, and making money for humans, and making sure humans continue on. Lets be honest here, I don't give a crap about if that polar bear dies or not, I really don't. What I care is if my children live and if my children have a good life. We need to fix our priorities, end the wasted money into research about global warming and finding ways to stop or hide Carbon output. If you honestly care enough to do some things, good for you, keep on doing it. But as a society we need to do the things we said before, and that will take care of all our problems. Now some may say we'll still have a lot of problems that we need to take care of and it's still not going to fix everything and the world is going to end and we're going to burn in a fire but I don't see them giving any sort of reasonable solution. We need to take step 1 and we honestly haven't even taken a step yet because people can't agree on anything. The one thing everyone can agree on though is making money and improving our quality of life and that is what we need to do. If anyone truly wants to make a change...never talk about global warming EVER again. Talk about what is truly important.

I would love for global warming fad(and the new laws and taxes coming about because of it) to fade into memory like the acid rain and ozone layer scares too. That second paragraph reminds me of something I heard a long time ago. Just some quote that went, "The world will not be destroyed, it will merely change."

Yea, exactly and yea when I think about it even though we did sort of "fix" the ozone problem...it was just a bandaid and didn't even access the real problem. Kind of like if you have a hole in your boat and you stick gum in it. Here we just need to get a new boat in a sense. I think I'm going to start a thread soon here for brainstorming ideas on how we can gear things toward people to benefit everyone. I just think we need it off this global warming thread so we can stop thinking about that and just focus on what matters. Yes I believe global warming is real and I pray to God that I am wrong. Even if I am wrong we still have major problems. So I think we need to try to access this without thinking of global warming. If anything think of people and how it will help us, I don't care about the animals unless it effects us. If an animal goes extinct and it does not HURT us, I really don't care. We need to start thinking realistically for us and only us. How can we help ANYTHING if we can't even help ourselves? That's what we need to do, we aren't the "superior" species life will go on. Lets make sure it goes on with us. (Btw no doomsday stuff in the thread when I make it like I just said lol, but you all know what I mean) So when I can word everything right i'll make it unless one of you has the idea then go ahead and make it and we'll get started. No flaming or bashing or saying someone has a stupid idea, because all that will happen is when you have an idea and even if it's an amazing idea that person will just say "that's a stupid idea" because you bashed them. =D

You know I never actually knew if we ever fixed that ozone problem, the news just stopped telling me about it one day when I was younger so it went "out of sight, out of mind". As for the concern over animals, I think we should at least try to avoid the killing off of species that could have been avoided. I'm a big fan of the discovery and preservation of pretty much anything(wildlife, remaining habitats, accurate history, new/old/controversial technology and pretty much any kind of other information).

As for you hoping you're wrong on global warming(the natural kind), it's still better than global cooling ^^.

Yea I agree with the preservation I was just talking in reasonable standards saying that we aren't immune as they aren't. And with "global cooling" global warming leads to it...what happens is when the ice melts it cools down and shuts down the gulf stream which puts us in a new iceage. Not Day After Tomorrow crap but, pretty close just not as rapid but rapid enough. That's the one danger with us speeding up global warming, I hate talking about it because it seems doomsday but you're obviously more than mature enough to understand it lol. Either way it WILL happen one day, it's just a matter of when and we're not helping the situation. It's interesting to know that one day where I'm typing out this post it will be under 100 feet of ice, and one day New York City will be 100% demolished by a glacier. Again it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and there is nothing we can do about it. We can't stop mother nature and no matter what we do mother nature will fix herself. While we're on the subject one day the world will come to an end, the sun will supernova about 10 billion years from now and we're screwed lol. I don't know it's just interesting that we see ourselves as so powerful and superior to everything as humans when we really are just as fragile as any animal.

you can't trust wiki foe legit info... anyone can edit it...

Well feel free to try and vandalise it and see how long it lasts.

Hi,

Human activities are creating excess greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and lead to global warming. Global warming and climate change issues are perhaps the greatest threat to this planet. It's a rise in temperature of the earth's atmosphere. So we have to stop it or try to bring the average down.

===================================================
flitcher

http://www.goinggreenbuzz.com

Hi.

A more simplistic statement I have not yet seen, save from Al Gore, and those who actually buy into his nonsense.

Hint: The global warming trend that has been observed over the past couple of decades was reversed in the past year. Man had nothing to do with either trend.

The planet has naturally been warming for over 10,000 years. Men had nothing to do with it, just as they had nothing to do with the past many cycles of warming and cooling that have been documented throughout the 1000 millenia preceeding us.

A thunderstorm develops 10 miles to your west. It's a microscopic pimple on the surface of the Earth. You, nor any force of man can do a thing about it. It will build, it will rage, and it will rain on you, maybe blow down your favorite tree, maybe even spawn a tornado, no matter what you think or do. If you think that man has any influence whatsoever on any global climatic trend, you are sadly naive.

The most man has ever been able to muster is an unhealthful effect on his local environment. This is evident in most major cities, and is something we should work toward fixing...not for the survival of the planet, but for the welfare of the people who pollute that local environment. The planet doesn't care, and can adequately handle anything mankind might attempt to toss it's way. It always has, and it always will.

Oh, the irony.

Look Everybody:
I started this thread, and I hadn't even realized it had continued past page 2! Fortunately, someone PMed me about it...

OK. Global Warming skeptics, just answer these questions.
That's all I want you to do.

1. Look at this chart of global temperatures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Comparison.png
Just explain this: Why does it just-so-happen that the global temperature goes up exactly when the Industrial Revolution kicks off?
Not to mention it goes up higher then it was in 2,000 years.

2. Look at this chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6...rature-plot.svg
Can you please explain why the global temperature follows exactly the graph of the CO2, if it is not related to the CO2?

3. CO2 is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. It is KNOWN to trap rays inside the Earth's atmosphere. So, why, exactly, would more of it NOT make it hotter? In other words, why is the simple science behind global warming wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2

4. What alternatives reasons could there be for the Earth warming.(I know you will have some, and I know why they are wrong).

5. Even if there is another cause for Global Warming, why is it not a good idea to get off of oil as soon as possible?

6. Why couldn't CO2 AND ANOTHER cause contribute to global warming.

And stop all the hate. Gosh, some of you are worse then people in SvS!

Cheers,
SQLserver

I could go and grad all the links and graphs showing you how the warming trend started BEFORE the industrial revolution, then it started cooling again during the global cooling scare, then began warming again. I could go grab charts showing how the climate is thought to regulate CO2, not the other way around, but we don't know enough about the climate to make such assumptions yet no matter which side you believe. The man-made global warming scare isn't even a theory yet as it has yet to been observed as fact, it's just a hypothesis.

The reason I won't do any of the above is because it won't matter, neither of us will convince the other he is wrong ^^.

But you acknolewdge that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere IS NOT a good idea at all, right? And, you understand that we need to switch to alternative energy sources ASAP, right?
Beyond that, I could care less.
And, even if the Warming is natural, then pumping CO2 into the atmosphere probably will make it even worse.

If Global Warming is just 'propaganda', then it's the best use of propaganda I've ever seen.

Cheers,
SQLserver

You're looking at a representation of 2000 years out of a 12,000 year warming trend. If you actually look at the data that's has actually been collected (the past 125 years of so)you'll clearly see there is no correlation between the industrial revolution and warming.
In fact, during periods of excessive industrial development, the planet's temperature cools. Lets try this one...





This actually came from an environmental web page....and it clearly indicates nothing happeneing during the beginning of the industrial revolutiuon, and in fact, during the peak years of WW1, when industry was churning it out at a massive rate, a drop in temperature...as well, you'll clearly see a drop during the peak industrial activity of WW2, and another in the latter 1970s (which of course prompted the global ice age nonsense back then). Wait until you see the massive drop when the past two years of data are posted on this chart!

What you're looking at are natural cyclical variances than no one notices in reality, and which are representative of a 12,000 year long warming trend (again, completely natural), which are being, for the first time, looked at under a microscope. There is nothing herein to indicate man's influence.






No one said it's not related to C02.

What you don't seem to understand is that C02 rises as a function of temperature. Temperature doesn't rise as a response to C02....more people should study atmospherics.







It is in response to hotter temperatures. Not the cause of hotter temperatures. The amount of C02 introduced into the atmosphere by humans is miniscule.




No, you don't know they're wrong. Obviously, you don't understand atmospheric mechanics, and you assume the hype you've been fed must be right...despite the fact that the top minds in atmospheric science all disagree with the man-made global warming idea....



There is no reason not to. Hydrocarbon pollultion has rendered major cities into hell holes. I'm all for it. However, this environmental wacko baloney, and the villification of oil companies is not the way to accomplish any such goal, because the oil companies are the ONES WHO WILL DEVELOP THE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FUTURE.



C02 wouldn't, and doesn't. It's an after effect of warming...not a cause.
Men have nothing to do with it. It's a natural cyclical occurrance which has been recorded in data occurring many times over hundreds of thousands of years. The Sun has much more, if not everything to do with it...as well as natural orbital perturbations. Decades from now, people will be laughing at Al Gore (if they're not already...since his global waming over the past twenty years has been utterly reversed by nature in a mere year), just as they have laughed at similar morons who predicted a global ice age in the latter 70s.

It's utter nonsense.




Hate?

What are you talking about?

It's merely pointing out the obvious to the uninformed.

Global warming has been a fact for millennia! Man made global warming is a weak hypothesis, which resembles mythology. The danger is in the number of gullible people who actually accept this weak hypothesis as some sort of scientific theory or even fact!

There is NOTHING to support it.

This is a deeply disingenuous argument. CO₂ rises lagging rising temperatures does not somehow erase the greenhouse gas properties of CO₂. That is, the only statement one could accurately make here is that CO₂ is not the cause of the initial warming, historically. The statement that CO₂ is not a cause of warming isn't simply unwarranted, it's just blatantly wrong in terms of basic thermodynamics. An external forcing that causes warming and, eventually, rising CO₂ levels faces a CO₂-induced amplification of the initial forcing. There may well be a positive feedback and subsequently even warmer temperatures because of the additional CO₂ in the atmosphere.

It doesn't follow that because something else can cause warming, CO₂ cannot.

No, it doesn't follow.
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

C02 is not the cause of the warming on the Earth. If we could somehow manage to put a significant amount of it into our atmosphere, it would contribute surely. However, we can't, and it's not.

Global warming=cutting usa economy.

Sorry, so how much extra CO2 would make an atmospheric difference?

how come we're blaming CO2 and not the increased radiation from the sun?

Because we have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 35%. Which is a pretty seizable increase. They are plenty of studies (and it has nothing to do with trying to affect the US economy Daniel).
CO2 has increased dramatic through us and is increasing exponentially, it is also known to be a greenhouse gas and at the levels we have released it at even with out it being the strongest greenhouse gas it can have a major effect.

No we haven't increased the CO2 levels by 35%. There are other sources that have pumped more CO2 than we have. So yes the CO2 lvl may be up by 35% but it hasn't been all human. A Single volcano pumps more CO2 than all humans do. Also CO2 levels were higher when the dinosaurs were on the planet.


One more thing if man is the only factor in global warming. Why are 6 other planets and pluto experiencing global warming.

Yes but those sources are not constant, we are.
During the time of the Dinosaurs yes, CO2 levels where higher yes, so where sea levels and temperatures and of course desertification.
I never said it was the only factor.

Sorry that volcano in Hawaii has been blowing it's top since 85? Besides a volcano doesn't have to be blowing it's top to give off gas. Or haven't you watched any of the volcano movies.

Yes, but it is not the same as our consistent output which is exponentially increasing and add to it the fact that CO2 was shown to be rising considerably before then.
I don't get my information from movie's daniel, I used scientific papers instead.

Delete, double post.

Where do you think the movie got their scientific information from. there is also the mid Atlantic rift that is one very long volcano.


I noticed you didn't try to answer my question about the solar system.

Well, Matt says ...



And of course, you argue that "we" haven't done that. Well, we have contributed, but you're correct fundamentally.
The problem with using percentage numbers is that they do not reflect the true scale of things. The figure of 35% also doesn't indicate a time range.

We generally talk about global warming since 1980, when global temperatures were just about at the mean value, as calculated by our esteemed climatologists.

Since 1980, atmospheric carbon dioxide content has increased ~ 14.7%.
Still, that seems like a big deal!

However, what it really means is a 50 PPM increase in atmospheric C02, from ~ 334 PPM to ~385 PPM.
That really means that C02 has risen from it's 1980 level of .033% of the atmopshere to it's current level of .039%.

These are both really small numbers.

In fact, C02 is a minimal part of the Earth's atmosphere, very minimal, and has little appreciable effect on greenhouse effect at these levels, especially when water vapor is a much more potent, and in fact THE primary greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.

Relative to the atmosphere, C02 has actually only increased over the past 27 years by 5/1000%.


As as to temperature, it is true we've observed an increase in "global mean temperature" since 1980 of (at its peak) ~ 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F). However, that entire increase...which has been on a mild downswing since 2004, has been essentially wiped out in 2007, as we dropped 0.4 degrees C in one year. We are now at 1940 temperature levels. 1940 temperature levels were just a hair above the mean temperature (~0.5 degrees above the mean).

The fact is, the entire past 27 years of global warming, the topic of so much hysteria, has been eliminated.

You have to wonder what this is all about, and question why the increase in global temperature between 1910 and 1940, when there was a heck of alot less C02 being emmitted by humans, isn't mentioned at all....it increased during that period by over a half degree, at about the same rate that it had been increasing from 1980 to the present. And why did it drop between 1880 and 1910 by 0.4 degrees? And what about that 0.25 degree drop between 1940 and 1950, and the "massive" drop of 0.3 degrees in just a year in the latter 1970s, which of course signalled the impending Ice Age that never happened?

The fact is, we are sitting just about at mean global temperature values as we speak. There IS NO TEMPERATURE ANOMALY at the present time.

How much do you want to bet that you'll never see a chart that clearly shows what 2007 revealed? Or, how much do you want to bet that Al Gore will never acknowledge the fact that his ideas have just been eliminated, for the time being (one would've thought that the abject failure of "Live Earth" (Jesus...) would've sent him packing, but apparently not).

What we're looking at in this global warming data is a microcosm of a 12000 year old warming trend. We see the irregularities in what--observed in relation to the 12000 year scale of the real warming trend--is a tiny blip, and we make all sorts of conclusions about it that are essentially meritless.

..makes for an interesting hypothesis, but that's all it is.

We seem to neglect the actual facts in this matter, and prefer to think that we humans can actually effect the GLOBAL CLIMATE.
Mt. St. Helens, as we all know, erupted magnificently in 1980, and when it did it spewed more greenhouse gasses and pollutants into the atmophere in oine 24 hour period than all the automobiles in the United States at the time could've spewed in a decade.

Yet, the clear truth of the matter is that the Earth didn't care, and it cleansed itself of this actually minor annoyance ( a mere pimple on its surface...one of many that have occurred in documented history) rapidly.

Man has demonstrated no tangible or empirically demonstrated effect on the global climate. In fact, measuring something like average temperature globally is highly elusive, if not impossible to any great accuracy.

We know that the planet has apparently been warming for millennia. We also know that if history, which is documented many times over the past 700,000 years or so, repeats itself (which it certainly is wont to do), we will in a few centuies most probably, be cooling again, and that historians, as they do today regarding the nonsensical global ice age predictions of the latter 1970s, will chcukle at today's prediction of doom from something mankind has absolutely no effect upon, nor, despite his advanced sense of self-importance, could possibly have an effect on.


There's a reason for the short term cyclical temperature variants that we've seen since we've been able to accurately observe in detail. The man-made global warming nuts tend to ignore this, but the fact is that the engine that powers this planet is cyclical itself. It ebbs and flows in fairly regular rhythm, and it powers the global climate, and whatever temperature changes we see.


That's that bright light we see virtually every day in our skies: the Sun. The most logical, and certainly most plausible cause for what we can observe.

It's power is greater than the Earth's, and the Earth's power makes man look like a microscopic bacteria on its surface, which he in fact is.

No politically motivated nonsense concept will ever equal the real power that drives this planet.

You know mid, I like that you assume I am talking about from the 80's. I personally would start in the 1970's
Global Warming - Science - 1975
Global Warming - Science - 1974

And personally I trust CRU at East Anglia University and NASA, especially as you have yet to list a source for you information.
Wickian did, but his source contradicted the actual report it was based on.