No, you are dead wrong. There is a hypothesis on the table of climatologists that makes this claim. But the data is nto supporting the hypothesis. You just made a statement of fact. It is not. And therein lies the problem. Those who cannot see beyond the creed of the new religion state it as fact. Yet it is apparent from the data, and from the dissenting scientific views, that the hypothesis is not even a theory or close to it.

The data when looked at objectively, does not show a causality between greenhouse and global warming. It only shows a fluctuation (note not even trend at this point since it has been almost completely reversed with revision of the data since the hypothesis was first proposed) of the temperatures that they cannot explain and they then hypothesized that it was man made. But the correlation is not there.

There is a strong correlation between the suns activities and global warming, but a very weak one between man's actions and global warming. And in the end, the efforts to stiffle the dissent on the issue only serves to reinforce the appearance that it is not science at all, but a new religion.

See? That is where we can debate. Because I have looked at the graphs (you can search JU and find them and links to the articles). The graphs show no such thing. They show a trend, since reversed in the last 10 years, of a minor increase in global temperature. No one can say if it has accellerated because accurate temperature readings have only been available for the past 100+ years. And trying to establish a trend when you can only look at data from that represents basically less than .0000001% of the whole data is idiocy as any statistician will tell you.

All that we know - all that any scientist or layman - is that the earth warmed from the mid 70s to the late 90s. A nice 20 year run up. It cooled from the mid 40s to the mid 70s, and has cooled (insignificantly) since the late 90s. That is what it is all about. Now why did it do it? The answer is simplicity itself. NO ONE KNOWS. Lots of hypotheses and conjecture, but as yet no observable cause and effect has been established, and therefore no theory has even been put forth (scientists may be prima donnas but they are not stupid - scratch that - most are not).

Now, using those exact same graphs, explain how the world temperature dropped in the 40s, during the greatest man made holocaust of all time! When the level of CO2 put out by man dwarfs that even of today! (Burning buildings provide a lot of heat - and polution, etc.) The facts do not fit the prevailing hypotheses. It may be they need to gather more data. It may be that they are false. We can and should debate it. We should never accept it as fact based upon what amounts to faith.



YES! I am with you all the way here! Clean up the damn planet! Yes, reduce polution! But lets do so for the right reason, and in a sane and rational way. Lets do it because of the reasons you list above (although again you omit the biggest factor leading to the increase in these diseases - improved medicine). But lets not harken back to the days of fearing the coming of winter and that we have displeased the sun god and that is why he is going away! For that is what I hear from the true faithful of GW. not reasoned debate, but superstitious hysteria.

You need to go to my articles on global warming, because you have swallowed the party line hook line, sinker the boat and half the water the boat displaced. I have been studying the topic of global climate change since it was the coming ice age in the 1960's. First, the term “fossil fuels” are a misnomer, petroleum products are produced by the excretion of microscopic organisms. Just like our atmosphere has such a high oxygen content because of microscopic organisms that filtered the air using the sulfur and carbon as building blocks for their homes also known as coral. There is less coral today because there is less carbon dioxide being filtered into the oceans and used by those creatures. Unlike the environmentalists claim that the warm oceans are killing the coral, the low amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide absorbed by the oceans reduced their food, and tools. That is two things you got wrong that are basic science. You did go to school and graduate right? The organisms that produce crude oil, discovered in the 1970’s, are still producing oil. They have found petroleum products on a moon going around the planet Jupiter. It rains methane there, if they can find the organism there then they will have proof of life outside our little world. You said you watch the science channel right? I have as well, did you miss that show?

Yes, the refineries were owned by US companies and most are still owned by them but they only charge to refine the oil, they don’t get the oil for free nor do they get it into the US without taxes and tariffs. What I am trying to tell you is your information is out of date.



Sorry but as a former member of the Defense Intelligences Agency I bet to differ. No, I was not a spy. I do not subscribe to your conspiracy theories. As intriguing as they may sound they don’t hold water based on what is out in the public to see.



Closer to the third or fourth behind the Russia, and the United States.



What about them? This is your fantasy lead the way.



What graphs are you talking about? Have you every studied the Sahara valley? The green meadows and pastures there, or the deep lakes, rivers streams, and tributaries? No? When the Earth was covered in ice it was the entire planet. Over the years after the ice melted there were all the things I mentioned and as the sun continued to beat down on the planet it dried up into what we call now the Sahara Desert. Read the bible? Moses walked across it in a little more than a week, bet you can’t do that now. Global warming! It has been happening for the past few million years. Man did not become the dominant species on this planet until seven to ten thousand years ago. The Earth has been getting warmer and warmer with brief periods of deep cold, called mini ice ages. Every time the carbon dioxide level goes up we have another mini ice age. The last one was in the 1800’s, Google “the year without summer”. Or watch something about it the next time the show is on the Discovery channel. They show it about twice a year for the past five years. The professor in Geology Pampling, I believe his name is, not sure of the spelling, is one of my favorites mostly because I got to pick his brain some years back before he became a TV star. Anyway, the stuff you have been led to believe is propaganda, media hype, and some are just plain lies. Carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of global cooling.



Did you miss this year? The reports in the news as well as the UN and environmental groups that have not been corrupted all agree that:
1. The earth has been in a cooling trend for the past ten years.
2. That the glaciers you say have melted due to global warming have been brought back to where they were a few years ago and that they are thickening as of this past winter.
3. That sunspot activity has slowed and the last time that happened we had a mini ice age. But not to worry we need about 40 to 50 years of very low or no sunspot activity and this is only the second year though solar climatologist are concerned and some are worried but not that many yet.
4. The data you have been using is more than ten years old which was at the end of the last warming cycle.
5. Meteorologists will tell you that this is part of the normal cycle of the earth. It has happened before and will happen again. And before you cry that it never happened so fast before in our history may I point out that year without summer, as well as the mini ice age that came in one year. The winter came and did not leave for 50 years then we started warming up again and within two years everything was back to normal. That was 1500 years ago and there are records for it. There are records of heating and cooling that go back thousands of years and fossil records that date back even further.
The person that discovered the Atlantic conveyer that explained the mini ice ages was laughed at for 10 years because his field of study was paleoentomology rather than climatology or even paleoclimatology which would have given him a chance at being listened to. Now his findings are taken as fact and the movie “the day after tomorrow” was based on his work. All other theories have fallen by the wayside because of his work. There was a documentary of him on the science channel maybe you missed it. Not to worry they show it twice a year for the past 7 years no doubt they will show it again. All of his published works contradict the theory of man made global warming and since they were written before there was a global warming movement it is hard to say that he was paid but the evil oil companies or any of the anti-global warming people to produce this work of science rather that the myth or religion of global climate change.

Doc, even when you agree with him he still wants to dispute you. he is a religious zealot rather than a rational person looking for the truth.

If what you say is true then please explain the findings of the Huygens probe. This is from the ESA
13 February 2008
Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.
Where are the fossils that created this vast amount of hydrocarbons? And if fossils did not create the methane there maybe just maybe it is not really fossil fuels.

You obviously were not looking at my graphs, Since i never created nor used graphs to investigate the statistics involved with glacial melting.

Normal life of glaciers? What is normal and what isn't. There is no normalized life of glaciers. Glaciers have come and gone over millions or billions or maybe gazillions of years for various reasons.

Because the melting point of water is 32 degrees farenheit(give or take depending on salinity). As far as what caused specific cycles. Extensive volcanic action is theoried to have been of significance in the past, however we are talking about the current cycle.



"My Graphs" refer to global temperature change not the extent of glacial melting. Go ahead and link your information. I'm quite familiar with a lot of NOAA's information. After all i had to get ice reports to safely navigate my ship into places like Valdez for many years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/view/

Watch this show carefully because it shows how both sides have dropped the ball since the 80's. This is not a partisan thing. Im an independant who hates both sides because they are both screwing the public. Your so blinded by partisan politics it isn't even funny. Its rather sad.

PBS is hardly neutral. They are flaming liberal, which is fine if you are looking for validation of a liberal bent. But hardly worthy of use in a civilized debate (Kind of like using Ken Burns as your sole basis of fact finding on the Civil war).



I would say the same for you. Recognizing your own biases is helpful in framing your arguments of persuasion to sway others to your way of thinking. Denying them makes you more antagonistic to those you are trying to sway, and defeats the purpose.

Partisan is usually used in conjunction with politics, but it can just as easily be used with issues. This one you clearly are partisan on, to the point you are bordering on insults to those who do not cleave to your line. And that is not how you debate or discuss issues if you want to win converts or influence people.

Okay I watched the report. I was not impressed because it still did not show anything with proof, it had a lot of opinions but no proof. What is proposed is we wreck our economy for the next fifty years create massive unemployment with a maximum benefit of reducing greenhouse gasses by 2% over the next hundred years. That is not a cure, that is not even a Band-Aid on the supposed problem. It is junk science since the data is over ten years old and the new data coming in says the exact opposite is happening. You suggest we all follow the path of destruction and hope you are right in the end. The last time I heard this argument was in the 70’s when we were all told that in 20 years we would have ice three miles thick over New York City and we only had ten years to reverse it or we were all doomed. The best cure for this problem was to spread soot over the arctic ice and with the radiated heat melt the ice caps and warm the planet.

Had we done what was suggested then what state would the world be in now? I don’t care which side is right or wrong I just don’t want the wrong side winning. Now with 30 years of data we have seen that the earth goes through cycles as hypnotized 50 years ago. We have data that says that melting the ice caps would trigger a global ice age. Yes, in 1998 we had one of the hottest summers in recorded history but not the hottest earth in history. That goes back to before man was here. Who is to say that we are not entering this cycle again?

To be honest the solar system takes 250 million years to circle the galaxy, man has only witnessed 10 thousand years for that. How do we know for sure what is normal and what is not? You want to bet the farm on a guess that does not stand up to the test of scientific standards and hope for the best. Why is that? What do you know that we are missing? If you can’t come up with relevant data to support your theories then all you have is faith in those theories and that is classified as a religion. I am open to the facts but have seen none.

I was not commenting on that story, only on your posts here.