Exactly my thought.

Its like a cup of coffee, you just poured a heaping cup than you expected and its to close to add the sugar and milk but you try anyways and it juuust touches the rim. Now you have to stir it but the spoon creates the spill.

I hated to spill my coffee, it sets a bad tone for the rest of the day.

Anyways the convergence may set us for a fall.

Too shay, I took the time to read it and Im still not impressed for 2 reasons.

There are many other studies from very reputable sources (Like the Max Planck Institute)¹ that say the exact opposite, though I see they don't get much media attention.

Also There are times when solar irradiance is increasing and the temperature is decreasing, this would indicate the exact mechanism is not simple past and cut the graphs and check for overlap.

But ice around the north pole was melting then. There was less Ice in the Northern Arctic in the 1930s then there is today.¹ You see the data you just are not able to draw the conclusions. Less ice and warmer weather then, no global flooding, no cute-cuddly polar bear extinction. There was more particulates, SO₂ and soot in the atmosphere in the air in the 1930s then there are today.²


So I guess no, its not really a good point unless you choose to ignore the data.

1. Deser, Clara, and Maurice L. Blackmon. "Surface Climate Variations over the North Atlantic Ocean during Winter: 1900–1989." American Meteorological Society 6(1993): 1743–1753.

2. Martine M., et al., Savard. "Atmospheric Pollutants and Trace Gases." Jounral of Environmental Quality 33(2004): 13-26.

Are you another "Careerist Astrometeorologist" just like THEODORE? He has told this forum probably a hundred times not to believe careerist Meteorologists. That is why very few people accept the words of a careerist Astrometeorologist.
For MID.... I am an aviator as well. I depend on VERY LOCAL immediate forecasts for the airport i use, and for the airport I am going to.... this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Global Warming.

I am extremely pleased that you say that Global Warming is not solely the cause of the sun's activity.... 99% of all people here have agreed that the Sun plays a vital role, myself included, but that other factors also influence GC. Where is your argument...?

PS: still waiting for THEODORES weather forecast for the UK.... 1 month would be good.

If anybody want my forecast for Madrid , Spain for the next month I will be glad to give it. let me think, Hot daily maximum Hmmm maybe 38C, humidity... perhaps about 30%, rain? unlikely. UV index Very High. not science, just experience.

Of course there is "human imput" even with the GFS. All computer model ensembles have solutions that are entered into models by people, but it isn't the best way to get a medium-range forecast, only astronomic methods can accomplish this. Most, if not all ensemble models are based only on what is happening at that time, and then attempt to calculate from current conditions what future conditions may look like; however, this method is weak, as many mets and climatologists know, because of the high fluidity of the atmosphere.

No, I am a post doc. I have a BS in physics, a masters in physics, a masters in astronautical engineering and a Ph.D. in physics. I am on my second post doc, pretty standard now for most Ph.Ds to do 2 sometimes 3.

Well, then, that explains why I said, "Stellar" to one of your previous posts...
I should be rather confident that the matter is now well under control!







That's probably a good thing, kiethsco...

However, I never said it had anything to do with global warming. It's always been that way in aviation weather forecasting.
The illustration was utilized in order to support the idea that there is no way to predict that Greenland will melt in 20 years, and such other sundry idiocies put forth by the man-made global warming crowd...when we cannot accurately predict the weather beyond 48 hours...

I would think the most paramount point of logical evidence in this debate, if you can't do it 48 hours from now what makes people think they can do it in 10, 20, 100 or even 1,000 years as some people attempt too. Its nothing short of a guess.

I guess the temperature will rise .032938472398734168347 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years, any takers?

As we saw with Hansen, again one of the fathers of the "movement", his best guess was .35 degrees warming over the 90's. The actual number was around .11 degrees Celsius, so .35/.11=3.18*100=318%. Im not quite sure how anyone considers this good science, when someone is 300% off on something it leaves me with the distinct feeling they have no clue what they are talking about.

Furthermore Hansen came back and said "The forces that govern climate change are so poorly understood that long-term climate prediction is impossible."¹

1. J.E. Hansen, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (October 1998): 12753-58.

Er, who says Greenland will melt in 20 years?

In any case, making predictions that if temp rises continue at a given rate for a given period of time then arctic ice will melt is a bit like predicting that if you drive your car for a given distance it'll run out of fuel ..... It has nothing whatsoever to do with predicting weather.

It's a bit like saying because you can't predict exactly how many passengers will board trains at your local railway station tomorrow, you can't predict that - assuming rail travel continues to grow at current rates - more people will board the trains during summer in 10 years time than do at present.

It really does no-one any good to pretend ignorance or stupidity by making out they think that weather and climate are the same thing

Weather: it will rain tomorrow morning, but this will clear away northwards in the afternoon. temperatures will be close to average for mid July

Climate: if current trends continue, there is a likelihood that on average, summer by 2050 will be warmer and drier than we currently experience

I'm not ignoring anything. My data doesn't come from *papers* - it comes from the *source* - the indigenous people who live in the polar region. They are the ones who are concerned because water is showing up where none was - for *eons* before. When it comes to hunting they use skidoos, and have for years. Now they can't hunt in certain areas because the skidoos *sink*... Never before was that a problem. Now it's their main problem to consider when/where they hunt.



Why do you mock something you can't begin to understand?



Who's taling about "soot" (coal was the common fuel then)? We're doing much more damage to the atmosphere now than we were back then... You pick one compound and that's the end all, be all? Please....
You need to put your science mags down and take a trip to the polar regions...I guarantee it'll change the way you think.

Please - can show me a post where someone says global warming is solely the fault of humanity? You won't be able to. No one has said such a thing...yet, here you are saying it's so...
Fallacious is what you are...plain and simple.

Of course you are right GREYLADY...everyone on this thread accepts that Solar irradiance has an effect. The only debate is whether career Astrometeorlogists have a greater understanding... which is why this particular thread should be elsewhere... I have had enough of Mods saying that this is where it should be, and i will not be posting on this thread again. Mods... get your act together.... this has become an embarassment to scientifically minded people. Post it in the Metaphysical, total crap section.

I will say farewell now.... THEODORE, MID, can carry on their crap argument... it never worked on www.geophys.com but it will probably work here because the mods are sheep

keithisco-

One argument has been over the comparison of climate modeling to weather reporting. All over the world, there are radiosondes released that do most of the work for getting those reports. I think some four thousand around the world provide ~1 km resolution, per balloon.

However, as you might know, getting data over the vast oceans was not possible, previously. But, there are some satellites working on that now (and hopefully adequate funding will continue). Certainly in the next year or two, we will have a much better understanding toward resolving some of these issues we have been discussing.

Thanks

Humanity has no impact on global warming Graylady, and we never did. All the historical records haven't proven this. However, people who have been blaming humanity for global warming, with calls to "reverse" it ~ including those submitting their "human-caused global warming" reports to the IPCC, have been making this exact case. This is what the whole debate is about. The sliding back on saying that there is no one blaming humanity is just that ~ "sliding" ~ when the scientific facts of solar-caused global warming have long been obvious.

Again, making the jump from pollution to planetary climate change, hence, global warming is not valid, and never has been. Only the Sun has the capacity to change the Earth's climate, and it's been doing so for many centuries.

Do you have any proof?

Im not attempting to say this at all, climate and weather are different. Climate is much, much more complex then weather, in fact weather over time is a function of climate. The point raised though is this, If we can not predict with any accuracy 1 complex and chaotic system, how then can we pretend to predict another.

Ever hear of a geoid? what about tectonics, eustatic effects on shoreline dynamics, aminostratigraphy, global energy balance, radiative forcings, cooling-heating cloud dynamics, volcanic particulates, stratosphere particulate loading, solar flux, rmilankovitch cycles, axial tilt, solar adiabatic invariants? Ever hear of those? It turns out that is just a small, small number of things that effect climate. As I said, its a very complex and chaotic system, prediciton of a chaotic system is impossible.



It would be nice if the world were that simple, as per my earlier post.




Your right, your information does not come papers, nor does it come from credible sources. Last time I checked most people have a hard enough time remembering what they ate for breakfast yesterday let alone correct oral history from "eons" ago.



Actually lady, I'm fairly certain I have a fairly good understanding of how the world works, what I dont understand is, how you can claim to understand something that is not "understandable". Climate is immensely complex, there are literally and infinite number of variables that go into the system. A system such as this can not be predicted. The best climate scientists in the world (at least the ethical ones) don't claim to understand climate. Saying you understand and predict climate is like saying you know where Google's stock will be in 10,15,25, or 100 years from now. Its only a matter of understanding that accurate prediction is impossible.



Sorry to use you as an example, but I am going too. This is a prime example of people who know nothing of science or the scale of climate yet pretend they do because they read the science section of the LA times or listen to MSNBC.

"Soot" as it turns out, is the residual left overs from combustion of organic molecules. Organic molecules refers to anything containing Carbon and Hydrogen, be it coal, gas, wood, synthetic organics etc. It turns out that the more carbon a compound contains the more soot it will produce, so wood>coal>oil>gas etc. (which by the way brings up another point that we have been de-carbonizing for years now)

Colors so it turns out play an important role in the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun (ultimately heat). An object that is white is white because it reflects all colors equally (electromagnetic radiation). A black object, absorbs all colors. So ice in the thermosphere and stratosphere reflect colors (EM radiation or heat) back into space. Black soot particles increase the amount of energy that earth absorbs, heating it. So soot pollution plays a key role in warming.

As to the second part of your post your correct I named one compound as an example, if you dont know more that should be your cue to research it rather than remain ignorant.
Sulfur oxides,Nitrogen oxides, Carbon monoxide, Carbon dioxide, Particulate matter, Metal oxides (Lead, Cadmium etc), Chlorofluorocarbons, Ammonia and Methane are some, but not all forms of air pollution that was not regulated in the early half of the 20th century. The air was, without a doubt, more dirty then.

Yes, see my previous posts on the data of solar-forcing of the Earth's climate on this thread.

We all know solar irradiance influences our weather but where does it say that only the Sun is capable of changing our climate? Please show us how you reached this conclusion.

The Sun is capable of changing our climate. It does it all the time. Without the Sun the Earth would not exist, nor be able to support life as we now know it. All the energy the Earth receives comes from the Sun, and this energy is what drives Earth's entire climate. So, you cannot be serious in mentioning only solar irradiance. Is that all that you think there is to the activities of the Sun? If you look at sunspot activity over the past 30 years you'll see a direct correlation with global temperatures. They fit like a glove.

As for how that conclusion has been reached, well, refer to anyone who knows anything about the Sun if the data, references, and links I provided on this thread are not enough for you, it is more than possible to do more reading, and study of the Sun, since records of observations go back centuries. We know that the many changes in the motions of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun along with the tilts of the Earth’s axis among many of the other Earth-Sun interactions cause climate changes on the Earth.

For More, see ~ http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/clima...ures/radiation/

Let's backtrack a little here.
Walk into most everybody's house and what do you breathe? Clean, cool, filtered air.
Most people driving down the road have their windows up and are consuming cool air; that's why driving is so popular and that is the reason why people like air conditioning so much.
Without this air conditioning, there probably would be so much confusion.
The earth is old and the sun is older. The most magnificent man, the strongest man, the wealthiest man, the most beautiful woman all would be absolutely the ugliest without air conditioning. Perfume and deoderant would stink.

That is a tricky statement.
And really, that is an almost wrong statement, because of one biblical statement which I would think that all of y'all might not believe because it has taken umpteen thousands of years to come true and that is the warning of building house-to-house.
When the sun's rays strike a surface, the energy is transformed or absorbed.
Look at Jerusalem or Tel-aviv, Israel or any city in the US. Budapest or anywhere with these big dome shrines made of reflective metal or whatever. The energy is absorbed in the stuff that shingles on houses are made of. All of the cars, the umpteen billions of them in lots to be sold and driving down the road are reflecting energy that contacts them. The roads that are on this earth absorb the energy that comes from the sun in the area that they are. The parking lots, the airports, the roads, the buildings, the houses, the cars, etc. do not have any irradiating properties because they are not built to radiate energy.
So the actual control of our weather and climate has more to do with the absorption of all of the energy from the sun and is transformed into shorter wavelengths. And that gets into the formation of storms and all of that junk to release the energy that has been slowed down.
You know, we could learn alot from eskimos with their igloos.

So lets turn off the sun to make it cooler !!

Ya! we can do it !!

Wasnt going to bother anymore, but you keep touting the same UNSCIENTIFIC CLAPTRAP. YOU ARE A CAREER ASTROMETEOROLOGIST (sounds scientific but isnt)... you are hoping for a big payday from Exxon, possibly the 10,000 dollar reward for debunking Human INFLUENCED global warming. But at the end of the day you still haven't explained why Venus, initially a WATER PLANET, (to use your rather pathetic determination) is so different. Hmmmm.... is that because there are more than 100,000 active volcano's on Venus... but according to your stupid ideology, ONLY THE SUN AFFECTS GLOBAL CLIMATE. Grow up, treat GREYLADY as a lady, listen to her points of view, dont be so dismissive of the Eskimo population because their history goes back so much further than Tyco Brahes.
Wherever you got CAMLAX from I suggest you BOTH need to read something other than "Idiots R Us". Still waiting for a scientific debate Mods!! I expect you to respond with "jeez", because that is the level that you think on - failed high-school student (actually no here you say you finished High-school reasonably well, on GEOPHYS.com you claimed to have a Degree Hmmm... need to think about that and perhaps research some school records). To quote:" You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot.... "lets see if you can finish the quote. Stop HYPING yourself

Olé que cabreo te cogiste amigo....

Actually GREGGK, that is exactly right. We no longer return the energy to space, but absorb so much more of it by particulate contamination, and aerosols.... I agree... the Eskimos (inuit etc) have such a close relationship to nature, for 50 - 60,000 years , maybe more, hopefully GREYLADY can shed some light on the timespan, that to ignore their forebodings is probably very wrong

lol you are so uneducated

Grow up child. GRAYLADY2 has a lot of information and knowledge that you clearly lack.
The greatest achievements in science have been made by those with the ability to use synthesis, you dont even know what i am talking about, do you? OK... taking the thesis and antithesis to draw conclusions that meld the two together. Go back to kindergarten, unless you can prove that you ACTUALLY know something. Learn something in your sad life, a womans intuitive ability to grasp reality, and to come to a profoundly more accurate description of reality, is far greater than a man's. I have worked in scientific study for two and a half decades and in that time I have learned to totally respect what the women engineers have told me above those of the men engineers.
So... what Matephysical University did you get your "degree" from???? tell me, I can check the records in a heartbeat.
Never disrespect a Lady, it is so Ungentlemanly, and in your case, childish

I see you only joined this forun on 3rd July... I am guessing that you are one of THEODORE's cronies.....so fake!!

Theo refuses to answer my questions of what degrees he holds, I already tried.


Nothing but frauds purposely spreading false and ignorant logic.

¡Gracias amigo! (¿amiga?)

I agree REINCARNATED.... Astrometeorological evangelists!!

And I am a child how? A little bit childish that you attack me right off the bat and do not even know me. No I dont know Theodore. Nor do I believe in Astrometeorology. As to whether I think the sun is sole thing that affects the temperature on this planet I think that should be self evident had you read all of my posts, which clearly you did not or your elite ability to grasp scientific concepts has eluded you.



I also am not a biggot who thinks women know nothing. This was clearly an attempt at slander. I admit to anyone I talk too my wife is smarter than me (she happens to have a Ph.D in Cognitive psychology). I am aware women are smart too. Native peoples accounts of their history are normally oral, If you are so scientific you should know oral accounts are not accurate.

As far as I need to go back to kindergarten, I think I'll pass. I graduated Summa Cum Laude with a BSE in Engineering Physics from Case Western Reserve. I stayed at Case for my MS in physics.
I received a MS in astronautical engineering from Ohio State University, Then a Ph.D. I did my first post doc at University Massachusetts Lowell, I am now on my second post doc back at Ohio State.

I am not sure why I am giving you my resume, you say you have worked in scientific study for 2 and half decades how about some of your details?

Its not fraudulent to urge unbiased scientific study, nor is ignorant logic to profess disbelief in rash actions, fear mongering, deceit, lies, politicized science or carefully orchestrated media campaigns.

The only people politicalizing global warming are the deniers.

lol ok.

Edit: Who's leading the Global warming movement?

People who care about life and our enivornment.

Yes, but who's the real leader of it? Who's drawn the most publicity to it? Who has flown around the world in their jet putting on shows, who has sponsored a rock concert, who has made a film about it?

Thanks for proving my point that only the deniers are politicalizing global warming.

I agree. It is not a matter if one "believes" in astrometerology or not in order to see the truths of solar-forced climate change. The practice of astrometerology has proven itself over many centuries, and "belief" is not required for it to be a valid science of long-range climate and weather forecasting.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that their personal "beliefs" somehow make a science like astrometeorology invalid. Nothing could be further from the truth and only goes to further reveal the ignorance of those who profess to submit a water-downed pop-culture mentality over historical and scientific facts.

There are those who somehow "think" that populations over the centuries never required climate and weather forecasts. This is clear from their own comments on climate and weather, which many whom profess to know what causes global warming, are unable to forecast their own local weather a month in advance, something that is easily accomplished via astronomic forecasting.

The fact of the matter is that global warming, global cooling, and everything in between the occurs within the atmophere of the Earth is caused by astronomic conditions. This is a astrophysical principle that leads to the geophysical effects on our planet. One cannot change this fact with the folly of their "beliefs" that has no effect on the Earth's climate and resulting weather whatsoever. The height of egotism is to even merely suggest that one's personal sensibilities would make anything, much less astrometeorology, any less valid because one does not "believe" in it. Rarely do those who say such things know anything of the subject about which they comment.

Those who spew out personal attacks, rants, incite fear-mongering fueld by their own personal and group biases, and politicize science that are indeed, "orchestrated" through media campaigns on this issue of planetary climate change, are those who clearly are fraudulent. The over-emotionalism and ignorance that accompanies such zeal also reveals the lack of clarity and objectivity that is required to not only be reasonable, but to see the obvious truths of how the climate and weather is caused on Earth.

I saw the documentary on TV the other night about the great swindle thing and i just dont know who to believe anymore all i want to know is the moment when i kiss my A$$ goodbye

That does not prove your point at all. Theres tons of people politicizing GW on both sides and its wrong. Science is not politics and when the two mix, disaster ensues. I dont deny global warming, I dont think anyone does. I dont deny that man effects the environment and the climate. What I have a problem with is people saying things like this...

All glaciers are melting.
Antarctica is melting.
Greenland is melting.
The greenhouse effect is what effects climate.
CO₂ is the most dangerous greenhouse gas.
Extreme weather is increasing.
Intensity of weather is increasing.
Extinction rates are increasing.
Crops are failing because of global warming
Rate of emergent disease is increasing.
Polar bears are endanger of drowning.
Eskimos can't hunt because there is too much melted ice.
etc....
(these are all false statements by the way)

I have a problem with politicians like Al Gore that tell me to reduce my Carbon imprint when they have 30,000 dollar utility bills. I have a problem with people that claim they can know the climate in the year 2100, I have a problem with people who like to inspire terror in others when there is no reason. I have problem with people that get their information from the NY times, Chicago Tribune and ABC world news and pretend to be experts on global warming. I have problem with people that are told global warming is all man made then have the gall to call me close minded. I have a problem with celebrities that ride around in their private jets, live in 12,000 sq foot houses and think they should tell other people how to live their life style. I have a problem with the "We got ours but you cant get yours" attitude of Western Environmentalists.

I see you are 22, one day when you are 30 or 40 you recall this chicken little movement in a futile attempt to educate some 20 year old, on some dumb internet forum, as to why chicken little movements are stupid and bad for society. You maybe too young to remember this, but do you recall the huge wave of fear across America about High tension power lines? Well these power lines produced electromagnetic fields (apparently an evil sounding word). It was released in the media that EMFs caused cancer, everyone was attempting to get them removed from their neighborhoods, property values were plummeting etc. Politicians, who are great at playing off their flocks fears, latched onto it like a starving lion latches onto a piece of fresh meat.

It turns out there is no correlation between Electromagnetic fields and cancer. In America, we spent 20 billion dollars on removing and burring the lines, and god knows how much money on counseling from fear, anti-anxiety and anti-depression meds from all the people who thought they would get cancer because they had been living near these lines their whole life. Nowadays people import magnetic rocks that produce the same electromagnetic fields for healing. I am sure you will find many a believer on this very forum that will tell you all day about the healthy effects of EMFs. We squander our money on imagined and exaggerated fears, while most of the worlds population lives on less then a dollar a day, then we wonder why so many people around the world hate us.

If you are the open minded one then make up your own mind, do the research instead of being told what to fear by the media. 22 puts you at prime age for an undergrad, if your in college your library's website probably has a link to E-Journals. Log in and do some reading in journals like Science, Nature, Climate, Geophysical etc.

If you are the open minded one, here is some very good reads from very credible sources (scientists and whatnot)

The consumer's guide to effective environmental choices; Practical advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists-Michael Brower and Leon Warren
Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the close of the twentieth century-Mark Dowie
Principles of systems-Jay Forrester (about complex systems, arguably one of the most important notions of the last half century)
Sound science Junk policy-Michele Morrone (written by a former teacher of mine, she headed a division at the EPA)
Hard Green: Saving the environment from the environmentalists-Peter Huber (Geophysical engineering degree from MIT and JD from Harvard law, If you read nothing else read this)
The Skeptical Environmentalist-Bjorn Lomborg (a former eco-terrorist and Greenpeace activist, who set out to prove how dire the situation was with the environment by hard research and data, he changed his mind along the way)


Speaking of uneducated environmentalists I love this video, it should put into perspective how easy it is to decive people with words and concepts they dont understand.
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

You should have a personal problem with someone who tells you how to live your life as well, especially when they have never lived in your shoes.

You shouldn't let personal grudges and political affiliation get in the way of your decision making (especially regarding an issue such as this). It's not professional what-so-ever.

mmmm hmmm....agreed.


I'll take your estimate. 3.3 E-2 degrees C sounds perfectly reasonable to me! I'll, give you +/- .03 degrees...and bet you a beer!

It is indeed a personal problem.
And Al Gore most assuredly has that problem....

Al Gore said so (and of course, he carries alot of weight in the scientific community ).

He said so in his movie...and children in elementary school, who have been required to watch this bull dung (!) have come home and been crying to their parents about this moron's contentions

..."Mommy, Daddy, Greenland's gonna melt and our house is gonna be underwater! The funny looking man with the red face that Bush stole the election from in 2000 says so! We got to do something to save the planet!".

Shame on that fool! And of course, with the unmittigated success of his Live Earth, shame may be about all he's got left.

After all...he got what...a little less than 1% of his projected audience from that effort? That's about it. If it was only 50% of what he thought, I guarantee you he's be announcing his candidacy for President this week...but, no joy, unfortunately. The results of Live Earth (frequently called Dead Earth in it's ineffectual aftermath) rather clearly indicates what people actually feel about this issue. It was an abject failure...understandably.


Hopefully, we've now seen the last of Al Gore.


...think of it this way...he rented a concert hall that seats 10,000 people. He had 94 show up. I'd say, that's pretty dumb...


What I really think is that we should forget the Sun...you know, that engine that runs all life and processes on Earth...and everywhere else in the Solar System...it's an innefectual blob of light in the sky. It has nothing to do with the situation. We should actually concentrate our efforts on cow farts.

After all, they are a primary cause of global warming...it's been published...flatulence by our bovine friends in the natural world is really the problem!




I propose we eliminate cow toots...we're all gonna die because moo-moos are passing too much gas (I'd be willing to bet that Al Gore would agree with this...)

Actually, I think it's rather apparent who's passing too much gas...

Just like the internet, Al Gore did not invent global warming nor did he create any of the evidence. Instead of using him as a punching bag why don't you use some real scientific logic, that you claim to have, to back up your opinion? I don't care about hypocritical politicians, they are a dime a dozen. I want to see real evidence showing humans can not alter the climate. Can you do that?


BTW - I've never seen 'An Inconvient Truth' and concerns over this subject were high way before his documentary. Like I have said before, only the deniers are politicalizing global warming.

I never claimed they did, the effects on temperature due to man's contribution is minor at the very least. If you did not take the time to read through all of my posts, then I suggest you do. Otherwise stop asking for evidence then not reading anything.

The majority of that stuff is from the most respected names in the field. Its funny though, you ask most physicists, meteorologists, glaciologists, geophysical engineers , geologists etc about global warming and their skeptical as hell. You start asking environmental management, biologists, ecologists etc about it and they are up in arms. The people who actually study earth science as their chosen profession are the most skeptical, yet we listen to the ones who dont.

Go to the IPCCs website download their latest assessment report, the pre-copy, and look up the degrees of the people who do the work at the IPCC. I think what you find will surprise you.

I have not let personal grudges get in the way of my decision making, I have read first hand thousands pieces of evidence for the effect of man on climate change, Im talking scientific journals not your science report in Time. The evidence that CO₂ is the main climate forcer, the greenhouse effect is the main climate force or man has "direly" impacted climate on earth is wanting.

I've said it a few times now, I'm not sure where the global warming crowd gets off calling people who take the time to study something close minded. I suggest, rather than being told what to think you do the same, study it, read it, dont just follow.

I started looking at all the data on global warming (I had been already just not a lot), When two of my friends were arguing about it. One is a meteorologist and the other is a biologist. The biologist friend was saying how poor of shape the environment was in and what have you, but was clearly loosing the argument to someone in the field. I decided that I would do some research. Now let me say this, I believed full well that man was the cause of global warming prior to researching the subject. After literally looking at thousands of journals and data over the course of last year my opinion has somewhat changed and my respect has somewhat declined for some people I once thought of as prominent scientists.

Either way, if you are simply going to conform with popular media then at least sac up and admit, you are the one conforming and you are the one being closed minded. Calling someone who researchers and makes up their own mind is hardly "close minded". Someone who reverses their long held belief on the basis of new data is hardly 'close minded".