also, “climate change” is the real problem here. and it can imply different effects in different parts of the earth. there are some glaciers in new zealand that are actually growing right now because of their weird locatin/ something like that.

the reason why it’s called “global warming” is because the effects of putting a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes a rise in average global temperatures over time

Darwin himself said that if his ‘theory’ was correct, he would expect it to show in the fossil record. Despite the fact that there has been NOT ONE actual transitional ‘evolution’ in the fossil record the ‘theory’ is still held fast to by most scientists.

Scientists are usually brilliant. Science has denied unpopular truth and supported popular error consistently. They are also notoriously opinionated. And they can be very, very wrong.

Until men actually went into space, Science was sure that if you passed through the Van Allen belt, it would damage you (at best) or kill you (at worst) – as witness the origins of the Fantastic 4.

Just as many reputable scientists debunk global warming as defend it. Evolution is taught a near fact in our schools – yet reputable scientists have now scientifically shown it is probably false.

The sun is actually getting warmer. Volcanoes push more CO2 into China pollutes the earth more than any other country. But you don’t see Al Gore (or anyone else for that matter) going after China, do you? And just who made Al Gore an expert, anyway??

Remember the depletion of the ozone layer?? AT the same time that OZONE warnings (too MUCH) are issued every hot muggy summer day?

Except that the theories of relativity and gravity have produced testable predictions that were confirmed by experiment. The ‘theory’ of global warming has not produced any succesful predictions.

And anyway, Global Warming is still a misnomer, because it addresses drastic global change in both directions. A more suitable name would be Global Climate Change; but that doesn’t sound as catchy, I suppose.

As to a earlier question you asked about sources on global cooling I cite the UN

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm

To the climatologists you cite, I ask you to explain this

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Plus let us examint the PPM you seem to love to repeat over and over. That big number you cite comes to four-tenths of ONE percent of the atmosphere.

I would add this to your post. Carbon Dioxide and that is what we are talking baout when we say CO2, is a byproduct of life and has been present in our atmosphere for the better part of 4billion years.

Plus you say 387 parts per million. That comes to less that four-tenths of one percent of the atmoshpere. I would say that was the very definition of a trace element.

If carbon dioxide was the cause of ‘global warming’ then the planet would have been inhospitable millions of years ago.

Maybe you should be asked to cite your sources of paranoia and un- alarmism

It is a process of life and has been for nearly the whole 4 billion years that the earth has existed. The fact of the matter is that the planetary temperatures are returning to the levels before the ice ages. Man doesn’t impact it and can’t stop it.

That is a plain fact that any elementary school student can understand without a lab, a undergrad or a laboratory.

I guess it actually makes some sense. If the left feels that only the government can fix things then it only stands to reason (their reason) that all problems must be caused be the government. Or at the very least, it is the governments fault for not stopping things before they get to the point of being problems.

Because major floods never happened before “global warming”, apparently.

Just like wars never happened before Bush. Right?

Geesh!

lol.

But that, essentially, is how increased CO2 has always followed (non-anthropogenic) global warming trends and not vice versa. And that’s why the consensus.

By “Toaster”, I mean the rare Mitsubishi minivan, of which I drive a 1987 model. It’s an awesome car that is no longer manufactured in the US. They still make them in Australia, though (under the name “L300″), and maaayybe in Japan; I’m not sure.

Well that’s just the point, isn’t it? Climate change or not, the earth will be fine. Humans, on the other hand…

When we burn oil or coal, we are releasing CO2 that was fixed millions of years ago.

So, the “breathing argument” is silly.

Has anybody here tried reading a peer reviewed journal article from some type of geographic periodical? I have, and I understood nothing in it. Reading some book (or website) critiqueing the other side does not make one an expert.

I give up (on myself, that is). *sigh*

I hold no theories (or care, even) about this movie.

So does breathing…

And you think almost 7 Billion people exhaling has less of an affect than around 4.25 Billion people exhaling (as of th1e 1970s)?

*holds head* oww ow ow ow ow…….

Burning hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal etc) releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

These are empirically demonstrable facts; i.e. they can be demonstrated by experiments that any reasonably competent undergraduate science student can repeat anywhere in the world, given an appropriately equipped laboratory.

Besides, who really cared about Global Warming 10 years ago?

This site explains the fallacies in arguments used by corporations and politicians who wish to dismiss global warming and humanity’s part in it because if they fail to do so, they must take responsibility. The bias is not in the debunking, but in the reasons these groups create the myths to begin with. What failures we have had in modeling data have all too often been us _under_estimating, not overestimating, the extent to which global warming is progressing. The fact that oil companies can hire someone with a science degree and pay them six figures annually if they come up with arguments that can distort the truth does _not_ mean that there is any credible doubt about the facts. Global warming _is_ happening: statistical variance is expected in any natural progression, and does not invalidate an obvious trend. And carefully researched models to define the reasons for global warming without human activity _fail_ to explain the increase since the 1970′s, whereas those which take human involvement into account _match_ the real world data. so, we _are_ causing it. And we may not kill off all life on Earth, but unless we take drastic measures to reverse the process, what will be left won’t be any more like us than we are like the dinosaurs.