The only people politicalizing global warming are the deniers.

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.

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.

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.

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".

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.



Source

The problem is (and the reason why I use Al Gore as a "punching bag") is that he is responsible through his money and his organization, for advancing a weakly supported hypothesis into the realm of scientific fact. His efforts have caused all the hype over this, and have influenced millions to back him, despite the fact that he has no qualifications, and, the fact of the matter is that the majority of people supporting him have none either.

Well said my friend, responsibility is a key factor that gets overlooked in all this. I don't remember the exact % and I don’t have time to look it up right now but, it said something on the order of 45% of 10-13 year olds worry about GW when they go to sleep at night.

Exaggerating claims to serve ones purpose is hardly responsible, nor ethical. There are plenty of things to be scared about in the world. Why do you think popular culture and media chose to champion GW? Why not deforestation, Aids, Car wrecks, adverse drug reactions, or being struck by lightning?

I'll tell ya why, political figures and media reps want to maximize their audience. Most people who live in down town NY really don’t worry about deforestation; most people in the West don’t worry about Aids. So if you make stories about these there is the chance you won’t catch everyone’s ear. You need a story that can scare the sh** out of everyone. GW scares people, just like toxic waste and electromagnetic fields from power lines. Global warming campaigns generate billions of dollars, fund many a political platform, give jobs and causes to peoples lives. It’s only another form of social control, the over exaggeration of fears.

It’s a sad of our society that we need social controls like this; people as individuals are incredibly, people in groups are intelligently handicapped.

Sorry, I’ll stop ranting about that now, but the original point is a very valid one. Respibility of the press and media and of politicians needs to be looked at more often. In their fields they live by the line “if you tell a lie enough people will believe it”
And of course we do, which should say something on its own.

Lets have a simple analogy.
If I’m a doctor and your my patient, and you come in for a visit and I think you have cancer. I tell you we must operate right now to save you. You ask about seeing your wife and children and family first, I tell you it has to be now and you will die if we don’t operate. You agree to this. I kill you on the operating table, furthermore, it is later found out after the biopsy results return that you didn’t have cancer. I made a rash decision w/o a real basis for knowledge. Sure I thought it was in your best interest, I was genuinely concerned about saving you form inevitable death. The problem is that I acted in an irresponsible way. Why?

1. I told you, you had cancer, when I wasn't sure yet. I reported to you something I had introduced my personal bias into and even worse you believed me.
2. I acted quickly without considering any consequences of my actions.
3. I was let’s say a physician and tried to assume the role of a surgeon, something I was not qualified to do.
4. If any kind of sentential consciousness is retained after death Im sure you will think Im not a very good doctor, that I really dont uphold the values expected of people that practice medical science.
5. I preformed an expensive operation in terms of life and money, both of which were wasted because of my rash action.

Extreme story you may say and you’re right. That doesn’t happen in medicine why should it in climatology?

Since you guys are focused on personal attacks instead of a true debate with real evidence, I'll try and get things going in the right direction once again. I honestly expected better from self-proclaimed professionals but then again, kids can pretend to be anyone online.

You're correct. He did not create any of the "evidence". But he did create the public furor over the situation, by taking a simple restatement of a weakly supported hypothesis and advancing it into a position of virtual scientific fact.
Uh...I've wasted alot of time showing evidence that illustrates the most logical cause of the long-term situation we're in, and will continue in for some time. I have no desire to repeat myself in this silly matter any longer. Besides, theodore and camlax are handling the situation nicely...

You fall into the trap that many people do who buy into unsubstantiated baloney (Moon hoax, and other associated CT stuff). You ask for proof of the contentions that are counter to your dearly held beliefs, when you are the one holding onto a belief that is countered by a large majority of rational scientists worldwide.

It's you job to prove that man is causing what is happening. The evidence for long term global warming is abundant. There's no argument about that. The evidence also strongly suggests what is behind it (as it does for all of the cycles of global warming that have occurred for millions of years).
The problem is (and the reason why I use Al Gore as a "punching bag") is that he is responsible through his money and his organization, for advancing a weakly supported hypothesis into the realm of scientific fact. His efforts have caused all the hype over this, and have influenced millions to back him, despite the fact that he has no qualifications, and, the fact of the matter is that the majority of people supporting him have none either.

His idea is unsubstantiated gibberish with a transparent and all too common motive.
Taking some personal responsibility and researching the scientific evidence that's actually available out there is far and away preferable to asking for proof. Find what your looking for by your own efforts. It's all available, and it's rather surprizing.
Untrue. Science isn't politicizing anything. Science is researching the matters at hand. People who are making conclusions about man-made global warmning are clearly politicizing the issue.
As camlax said:
I think that's enough said....

I've been really trying to stay away from this topic, but I keep seeing this pop up over and over again. I don't know where any of you guys were prior to 2006, but global warming was a popular issue way before Al Gore came along. I was in school in the 90s and both sides of this topic were taught and discussed exhaustingly. We even debated it outside of science classes. I didn't start attending college until 2006, but I know from cousins and siblings who took classes on the subject that both sides were being discussed prior to an Inconvenient Truth, as well. There were plenty of news stories and magazine articles.

I'll stop it at my main point so there's less minor statements to be attacked, which seems to happen often in this discussion.

What is your opinion on the report above I posted?

However,
solar variations on time scales greater than a decade will not be smoothed to such
an extent and if, via any of the proposed mechanisms discussed above, they give a
sufficiently large amplitude modulation of the Earth’s radiation budget, then they
would leave a signature in the Earth’s surface temperature record.
Hence, we need to smooth out the solar cycle variations in figure 1 to reveal any
longer-term trends.

Our 14-year, continuous automatic weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 8C per decade (P = 0.21) from 1986 to 1999 (Fig. 1a). The temperature decrease is most pronounced in the summer (December±February = 1.2 8C per decade, P = 0.02) and autumn (March±May = 2.0 8C per decade, P = 0.11).

The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends. Summer cooling is particularly important to Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems that are poised at the interface of ice and water. Here we present data from the dry valleys representing evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased primary productivity of lakes (6±9%per year) and declining numbers of soil invertebrates (more than 10% per year).

I just want to add that most of those disputing global warming are the same "scientist"that a few years back claimed the ozone hole did not exist.

I am afraid that you don't get it, sorry to say.

This debate is not about evidence it is about Al Gore.

No matter what you bring, even if you brought the Potsdam protocols, the ones that claim that global warming does not exist will keep on saying that, sometimes as this, and other, thread(s) has (have) shown against their better judgment. Because it does not fit into the political view of their world.

And with all this denying they have missed the fact that the denier in chief has conceded that there is something "... but we want to study it before doing something".

Sorry, but I don't see anything productive coming out of this one.

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...

I love this.

Theo: Humans didn't cause global warming, the sun did.

Us: We know. But humans have a hand in it's severity.

Theo: But.. humans didn't cause global warming! It's the sun!

Us: Yes... we know. It's also worse because of human pollution.

Theo: Humans didn't cause it though!!

Us: ...
THEO!

WE KNOW! HUMANS DIDN'T CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING! THE SUN CYCLE IS PART, THE EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLE IS PART, AND IT'S WORSE NOW THEN PRIOR TIMES BECAUSE OF HUMAN POLLUTION!

Can I make this any more clear?

I propose we eliminate cow toots...we're all gonna die because moo-moos are passing too much gas

I asked THEODORE this question, I will ak you now:

There is a serious geophysical process that is in no way connected to Solar Radiance, the amount of energy that this process can release is phenomenal.

The best answer that THEODORE could come up with was "Ether".... I understand that like myself, you are engineer in Aerospace Systems, my one claim to know anything about Geophysical processes is that was what my First Degree was in (Southampton University). My Masters Degree was in Electronic and Aeronautical Engineering. Some years later I would add.

Another question that I asked of him is why Venus, which receives the same (virtually) Solar Irradiance is so different. Again the answer came back was because Earth is a water planet. Well, so was Venus at one time, and quite possibly Mars. Their climates are vastly different to Earth's, so I have to conclude that Solar Radiance is not the sole cause of their climates.

This is the same reason that I cannot accept that only Solar Radiance can affect Earth's climate, yes, It does play a very major role in it, but ibelieve that other factors also help to amplify, or to attenuate it.

I have no truck with Al Gore by the way, he has hi-jacked a serious platform and seems to be using it for self-promotion.

You need to quit hijacking yourself Keithco. You seem to like to do that with the answers to your own "questions" then come back with the same silliness in your comments. Try not to hype everything others say to the point of sounding as you do, and please, do learn more about the Sun, the Earth, its climate, and your own solar system.

Solar link to current global warming ruled out:

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD AND CLAUS FROHLICH

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Source
PDF Report

About the author of the report:

Mike Lockwood FRS is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Southampton University and Chief Scientist at the Space Science and Technology Department of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. He has carried our research in a number of areas including long-term solar change and its
influence on Earth's climate, solar wind-magnetosphere interactions, galactic cosmic ray propagation through the heliosphere, geomagnetic variations, ionospheric plasma processes and the aurora. He has received
awards from COSPAR (The ICSU Committee for Space Research), The International Union of Radio Science (URSI), The Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute of Physics and was elected as a Fellow of the
Royal Society last year. He has served on PPARC's Astronomy Committee and Science Committee and is currently a member of the Council of NERC.

Source

I have read these reports, and they cover a time frame that was "overlooked" in the documentary "The Global Warming Swindle" because they did not fit in with the "message" that they were delivering. They are also inconvenient to those propounding the theory that industrialised humans have no influence in the warming cycle.

If your own "theory" that humans have influence on global warming, then, by definition, they must also have equal influence on the cooling cycle, yes?

And, if this is so, and it certainly is not, then how would you suggest that we "reverse" that as well?

You see, the Earth's climate has both cooling and warming cycles, that are solar-forced.

Yet, those among you who state that "indutralised humans" have influence on the warming cycle must know that in order to prove this (and you have not even come close in doing so) then you would also have to account for humans having the same influence on the Earth's cooling as well.

Theo, your defense is long dead and you have been proved wrong. Move on to your next forum and please stop spamming ours with your non-sense and lies.

P.S. - I noticed you recently added the word 'scientific' in your sig. You forgot to add 'pseudo' infront of it. You need to stop trying to be something you're not because it's not fooling anyone here.

The only reason ol Al was brought up was because reincarnated says "the only people politicizing global warming is deniers" which clearly is not the case.

If your own "theory" that humans have influence on global warming, then, by definition, they must also have equal influence on the cooling cycle, yes?

And, if this is so, and it certainly is not, then how would you suggest that we "reverse" that as well?

You see, the Earth's climate has both cooling and warming cycles, that are solar-forced.

Yet, those among you who state that "indutralised humans" have influence on the warming cycle must know that in order to prove this (and you have not even come close in doing so) then you would also have to account for humans having the same influence on the Earth's cooling as well.

Solar link to current global warming ruled out:

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD AND CLAUS FROHLICH

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Source
PDF Report

About the author of the report:

Mike Lockwood FRS is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Southampton University and Chief Scientist at the Space Science and Technology Department of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. He has carried our research in a number of areas including long-term solar change and its
influence on Earth's climate, solar wind-magnetosphere interactions, galactic cosmic ray propagation through the heliosphere, geomagnetic variations, ionospheric plasma processes and the aurora. He has received
awards from COSPAR (The ICSU Committee for Space Research), The International Union of Radio Science (URSI), The Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute of Physics and was elected as a Fellow of the
Royal Society last year. He has served on PPARC's Astronomy Committee and Science Committee and is currently a member of the Council of NERC.

Source

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.

The air was, without a doubt, more dirty then.

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.

Untrue. Science isn't politicizing anything. Science is researching the matters at hand. People who are making conclusions about man-made global warmning are clearly politicizing the issue.

Let me ask you something, whats your level of education? What field do you do research in? You are an expert on the Earth and its climate how? In what way do access actual scientific journals, not press releases?

Sorry I posted some refute to this earlier, but forgot to put my cited part in at the bottom.

SOLANKI, SAMI K. , and NATALIE A. KRIVOVA. "SOLAR IRRADIANCE VARIATIONS: FROM CURRENT." Solar Physics 224(2004): 197-208.

What you should do is read the actual article yourself.

The only thing I remember you attempting to refute was that more snow in Antarctica was to be expected because its getting warmer right? Its weird though how you come to the conclusion that Antarctica is warming, data shows it cooling, in fact there has been damage to the ecosystem from the cold.
To sum this up, the ecosystem in Antarctica has suffered serious damage as a result of cooling temperatures.

Doran, , Peter T., Priscu, , John C., Lyons, , W. Berry, & Walsh, , John E. (1/31/2002). Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature, Vol. 415 Issue 6871, p517-52.

Antarctica Is Getting Ready to Really Heat Up
Thu, 07 Oct 2004 - With all this talk of global warming, it may come as a surprise that Antarctica has actually been mostly getting colder over the last 30 years. But new research from NASA indicates that this trend is about to reverse, and the continent will warm over the next 50 years. Researchers found, ironically, that low ozone levels actually made the continent colder, but with restrictions on ozone-destroying chemicals around the planet, this cooling effect is going to go away as the ozone layer returns. If temperatures rise too high, the continent's ice sheets will melt and slide into the ocean, raising water levels around the world.
While Antarctica has mostly cooled over the last 30 years, the trend is likely to rapidly reverse, according to a computer model study by NASA researchers. The study indicates the South Polar Region is expected to warm during the next 50 years.

Findings from the study, conducted by researchers Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), New York, appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. Shindell and Schmidt found depleted ozone levels and greenhouse gases are contributing to cooler South Pole temperatures.

Low ozone levels in the stratosphere and increasing greenhouse gases promote a positive phase of a shifting atmospheric climate pattern in the Southern Hemisphere, called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). A positive SAM isolates colder air in the Antarctic interior.

In the coming decades, ozone levels are expected to recover due to international treaties that banned ozone-depleting chemicals. Higher ozone in the stratosphere protects Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The study found higher ozone levels might have a reverse impact on the SAM, promoting a warming, negative phase. In this way, the effects of ozone and greenhouse gases on the SAM may cancel each other out in the future. This could nullify the SAM's affects and cause Antarctica to warm.

"Antarctica has been cooling, and one could argue some regions could escape warming, but this study finds this is not very likely," Shindell said. "Global warming is expected to dominate in future trends."

The SAM, similar to the Arctic Oscillation or Northern Annular Mode in the Northern Hemisphere, is a seesaw in atmospheric pressure between the pole and the lower latitudes over the Southern Ocean and the tip of South America.

These pressure shifts between positive and negative phases speed-up and slow down the westerly winds that encircle Antarctica. Since the late 1960s, the SAM has more and more favored its positive phase, leading to stronger westerly winds. These stronger westerly winds act as a kind of wall that isolates cold Antarctic air from warmer air in the lower latitudes, which leads to cooler temperatures.

Greenhouse gases and ozone depletion both lower temperatures in the high latitude stratosphere. The cooling strengthens the stratospheric whirling of westerly winds, which in turn influences the westerly winds in the lower atmosphere. According to the study, greenhouse gases and ozone have contributed roughly equally in promoting a strong-wind, positive SAM phase in the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere.

Shindell and Schmidt used the NASA GISS Climate Model to run three sets of tests, each three times. For each scenario, the three runs were averaged together. Scenarios included the individual effects of greenhouse gases and ozone on the SAM, and then a third run that examined the effects of the two together.

The model included interactions between the oceans and atmosphere. Each model run began in 1945 and extended through 2055. For the most part, the simulations matched well compared with past observations.

Model inputs of increasing greenhouse gases were based upon observations through 1999, and upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mid-range estimates of future emissions. Stratospheric ozone changes were based on earlier NASA GISS model runs that were found to be in good agreement with past observations and similar to those found in other chemistry-climate models for the future.

Shindell said the biggest long-term danger of global warming in this region would be ice sheets melting and sliding into the ocean. "If Antarctica really does warm up like this, then we have to think seriously about what level of warming might cause the ice sheets to break free and greatly increase global sea levels," he said.

In the Antarctic Peninsula, ice sheets as big as Rhode Island have already collapsed into the ocean due to warming. The warming in this area is at least partially a result of the strengthened westerly winds that pass at latitudes of about 60 to 65 degrees south. As the peninsula sticks out from the continent, these winds carry warm maritime air that heats the peninsula.

FYI - it's *you're* right... you're welcome.
These people are in tuned to nature - they have to be. It will kill them if they're not. Would I rather listen to, and believe, someone who is so intuned - or put my stock in people who sit in laboratories and run variables on a computer? Seems like a no brainer to me. Hands on experience is far more valuable...to me. What you value is not my concern. My sources, for me, are all the credibility I need...

Maybe the people you know should lay off booze or drugs - whatever it is that they do which makes them forget what they've had for breakfast. If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize breakfast varies little up there. It's hard to forget. Just like the changing weather is hard to forget...considering it's impacting their lifestyle.

Did I say I could predict climate? Gee, I remember what I had for breakfast - but can't remember saying I could predict anything. Hmmm...
Am I missing something? The more scientific one can sound - the more valid their opinions are? The more degrees one accumulates - the more aware they are?

I understand the northern people. I'd bet my last dollar you haven't a clue about them - or their lifestyle. The northern people understand their environment - but you seem to think they're incapable of making determinations about their lifestyle changing due to weather. You'd be wrong. I have the advantage here when it comes to them...
BTW - I'm not an elder...your quantum leap is very unscientific.
<snip another lesson from the computing generation>

Wood smoke is dirty too... However, it's not killing me or my lifestyle- unlike the toxins we spew into the atmosphere. Dirt and poison are 2 very different things. How does soot react when heated by the sun, or mixed with a myriad of other spewage? Got an answer for that? If so - the Reader's Digest Condensed version, rather than the Encyclopedia Britanica's, would be appreciated.

No sense telling people like Theo and Camlax about the northern tribes. They'd be deemed uneducated - therefore not worthy of acknowledgement. More's the pity.

Hmmmm...Where did Reincarnated say *science/scientists* were politicizing global warming? He said "deniers" were politicizing global warming. Can you possibly respond without putting your spin on what's being said? FYI - When you put your words into another's mouth they leave a bad taste...

You know - I've bested more than a few doctors in my time. Being someone who self-diagnosis - because no one knows my body like I do - I've been more right than the doctors have. I tell them what's wrong and they look at me like I'm deluded, simply because I've not been educated like a doctor.
Many times common sense prevails when science fails...

You were asked for your opinion but you gave another's.... Hmmmm. Didn't you mention something about learning to think for yourself?

What they are saying is, they adjust their raw data. Whether they adjust it correctly is irrelevant, as soon as the people who are doing the research start adjusting raw data they open it up to bias. You don’t see that in other fields. They have the most to prove and they are adjusting the data themselves, does that sound ethical to you?

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.

You just don’t do your homework... why has it been cooling? Because of ozone depletion caused by manmade aeroslos. Below is a NASA release advising that Antarctica is about to enter a massive warming trend.. WHY? because hauman aerosol bans are helping to repair the ozone layer. Not Solar Radiance. I expect you to totally carry on with saying that everybody denies the major role the sun plays, but from this side of the debate, we have always acknowledged it.

As a physicist i have done quite a bit of research on the topic, thinking i could come up with the answer myself. The truth is we don't know why the earth is warming, because there are countless possibilities.
Most believe by now it is directly caused by the release of co2 in to the atmosphere as a result of humans, because that's what al gore has told people to believe.
the only reason this info has become so public is because this theory (unlike almost all of the others) gives us an opportunity to change the climates course, IF it were true.
So therefore IF it were true, at least we might be able to do something about it.
The problem is there is SO much evidence against the idea, just as there is quite a bit of evidence against linking our RECENT 'problem' to the suns activity. (cosmic ray theory)
Fact is, the true theory will be the one with little or no evidence against it and until we come up with it, people will continue to believe it is a man made problem.
It's understandable, and why not. At least pollution will go down as a result of going green, and i personally see nothing wrong with that.
But arguing about it is absolutely pointless because NO ONE knows. Scientists just like to pretend they do all the time.
None of the evidence has ever been conclusive, and there are many unanswered questions all around.
We don't know what's causing global warming, all we know is that it exists, and evidence shows
if Earth is a planet, it will act like a planet.
It will strongly fluctuate in temperature thousands of times in its lifetime.
You all can argue until you're blue in the face.
Because just when you think you're right, someone will always find evidence against it. And as I said, this
obviously shouldnt happen if the theory were true.
example: Gravity. It's quite hard to argue against it...and for all the obvious reasons.
But go on, I know you all enjoy it, especially this reincarnated fellow.

We dont know what may be causing it, but we know one thing that has changed radically over the timeframe of the warming.... human activity.... and not much else... so we would have to be the prime suspect here right ?

personally i think the pre-cautionary approach is best, unless you are of the opinion that eliminating most humans through severe climate change would actually be a good thing.... after all, it would cure the problem, but it may not go down too well with humans

"In tuned with nature" has nothing to do with reality. Look, I am not saying these people don't know their environment, but it sounds like you have been reading a little too much Emerson.
I suppose using an analogy is out of the question anymore these days. The point is not what they had for breakfast, the point is about the human mind itself, if you can't draw the conclusions, more the fool you.
Because someone is "in tune" with nature and natural "spirits" does not make their opinion more valid. My degrees have nothing to do with what I think, The evidence I have found and discussions I have had, have formed my basis for my "belief" against the over exaggeration of GW.
You a "northern person"? You speak for all northern people? Cause that would be very interesting. Don't presume that I look down on native people's because I don't consider oral traditions very credible evidence, you have no clue who I am, my ethnicity nor my views on native peoples.
Look if you can't grasp what soot does to the temperature from what I posted then you are not going to get it. My advice would be to take an intro level physics class on light and waves at your local community college, otherwise continue reveling in your ignorance.



Again, see above. You have no idea, rather foolish and asinine of you to assume such a thing.
He didn't. He said "deniers", which is clearly and incorrect statement. There are thousands of scientists who debate and doubt the anthropologic effects of GHG on climate, making such a blanket statement that they are all politicizing global warming, shows the bias of this argument. Furthermore to believe only one side of the argument politicizes it, just shows an unwillingness to acknowledge what’s happening.
That was not directed at you, a reading comprehension thing I guess. I am happy for you that you have "bested" a few doctors in your time. I am not really sure what that has to do with anything, but great for you anyway.
Sorry if you cannot infer my opinion for that or you do not wish to infer it. Here let me state it more clearly. The matter is hardly resolved, one cannot conclude either way, What I would do is fund more research, particularly to different groups from different countries. It is wrong to state it as fact that the sun is not to blame; there is plenty of counter evidence in the form of published peer-reviewed journals that disagrees with that assessment.
I don't do my homework? My advice would be to stop reading pro-man made warming websites and pull your head out of the clouds. The ozone hypothesis is by one of many, the matter is hardy conclusive. The truth is we don’t know. Decrease in arctic winds is a very good hypothesis with much support from geologist all over the world.

Keithisco, you are an absolutist. You make statements which are still speculative like they are absolute truths. Clearly for you emotion has blinded you to seeing that. Saying "We are sure the sun was not the cause of warming over the last 20 years" is silly, it’s like saying "we are sure what we saw was an alien space craft". The fact is much of it is done through computer modeling, which as I have already stated is not proof, a computer model is a prediction, a prediction can never be proof. The matter is hardly concluded. Climate science nor solar physics is just not there yet, I wish it was as badly as you, but its not. Let’s not confuse theory, speculation, modeling with fact. Two very different things.

Oh Dear..."reveling in your ignorance"..."if you can't draw the conclusions, more the fool you."..."pull your head out of the clouds"..."We are sure the sun was not the cause of warming over the last 20 years" (Hmm someone is telling lies about what I said... Hmmm)
OK, enough CAMLAX, your diatribe against GRAYLADY2 is ungentlemanly, defend your mate THEODORES weird pseudoastroscience, before trying to pick a fight with GRAYLADY2... as for your owned "claimed" PhD's" I no longer believe you.
You do not believe ANYTHING from the IPCC, you do not believe ANYTHING from NASA, if you were educated , as you claim, then you would know that "Models" are essential to understanding... in climatology models are calibrated using HISTORICAL data. You just use HYSTERICAL data

The one blinded by emotion is yourself. You have not read the post I made, or if you have and decided it's all lies then you had better give some evidence. Using your own phrase "more the fool YOU".
"

The one blinded by emotion is yourself. You have not read the post I made, or if you have and decided it's all lies then you had better give some evidence. U

But remember not to dump the kid out with the bath-water. A radical stop of pollution could really get the whole thing into a wild circle. What is evident though is that there is a reason why nature stored so much carbon as fossil mineral. And most probably because the earth can't take it in gas form.

Yes I understand what your report says, did you not read where I said I took the time to read it? Obviously you did not get the implication of my post, for every article claiming the sun is not a factor you can find one calming it is. The matter is hardly "ruled out". In science its generally a bad Idea to definitively "rule something" when so many of your peers disagree with you. I think that is called absolutism and that is not what science is about, nor has it ever served anyone very well. Lockwood is a staunch GW advocate, funny that people on both sides their work goes so well with what they preach.

We need a new system for funding climate research, at this point its too full of politics and bias. As a said before, if the government gives a grant to study something, then give it to 3 different teams at 3 different institutions in 3 different countries. Thats hardly far fetched it happens in many fields. I think many a unethical climatologist will loath the day double-blind studies are implemented upon them, loath the day they don't know their peer-reviewer, loath the day they aren't "buds" with their peer-reviewer.

Yes I understand what your report says, did you not read where I said I took the time to read it? Obviously you did not get the implication of my post, for every article claiming the sun is not a factor you can find one calming it is. The matter is hardly "ruled out". In science its generally a bad Idea to definitively "rule something" when so many of your peers disagree with you. I think that is called absolutism and that is not what science is about, nor has it ever served anyone very well. Lockwood is a staunch GW advocate, funny that people on both sides their work goes so well with what they preach.

We need a new system for funding climate research, at this point its too full of politics and bias. As a said before, if the government gives a grant to study something, then give it to 3 different teams at 3 different institutions in 3 different countries. Thats hardly far fetched it happens in many fields. I think many a unethical climatologist will loath the day double-blind studies are implemented upon them, loath the day they don't know their peer-reviewer, loath the day they aren't "buds" with their peer-reviewer.
The reason for me posting this was to prove, contrary to Theo's claims, that the Sun is infact not the cause of our current warming trend.

The reason for me posting this was to prove, contrary to Theo's claims, that the Sun is infact not the cause of our current warming trend.

Lets have a simple analogy.
If I’m a doctor and your my patient, and you come in for a visit and I think you have cancer. I tell you we must operate right now to save you. You ask about seeing your wife and children and family first, I tell you it has to be now and you will die if we don’t operate. You agree to this. I kill you on the operating table, furthermore, it is later found out after the biopsy results return that you didn’t have cancer. I made a rash decision w/o a real basis for knowledge. Sure I thought it was in your best interest, I was genuinely concerned about saving you form inevitable death. The problem is that I acted in an irresponsible way. Why?

1. I told you, you had cancer, when I wasn't sure yet. I reported to you something I had introduced my personal bias into and even worse you believed me.
2. I acted quickly without considering any consequences of my actions.
3. I was let’s say a physician and tried to assume the role of a surgeon, something I was not qualified to do.
4. If any kind of sentential consciousness is retained after death Im sure you will think Im not a very good doctor, that I really dont uphold the values expected of people that practice medical science.
5. I preformed an expensive operation in terms of life and money, both of which were wasted because of my rash action.

Extreme story you may say and you’re right. That doesn’t happen in medicine why should it in climatology?