^ how is he a racist? He has no clue what color skin you have. Only that you have horrible grammar.

And it wasnt disproved because Ive seen the science books from that time period blatantly saying it. Id have to get intouch with my cousin, but her husband grew up during the time and actually kept a science book with that crap spewed in it about an ice age. Ill check back later if I can produce some pics of the text in the book.

because he corrects a foreigner on grammar you nazi.

This article is merely a summary of some of the most recent work on this issue. My understanding is that while there is some discrepancy involved here it does not constitute a denial of AGW theory and it has become more and more resolved over time.

2008 October 12 - Tropical tropospheric trends again (again)

2008 May 24 - Tropical tropospheric trends again

2007 December 12 - Tropical tropospheric trends

2005  August 11 - The tropical lapse rate quandary

2005, August, 11 - Et Tu LT?

2005, January - Is Climate Modeling Science?

Again my understanding of this is somewhat limited but it appears to me that at this point the discrepancy is limited only to the lower levels of the troposphere and the mid to upper tropospheric levels behave as predicted and not only that it's only lower tropospheric levels in the tropics that are at issue since lower tropospheric levels outside the tropics also behave as predicted.

All this represents is that climate study is not static and continues to be refined. This also doesn't mean that we currently know nothing. There is plenty that is known that agrees with standard theory and while there are a few pieces that don't quite fit these are gradually being resolved over time. It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me and by no means disproves current theory.

As to this point then OK, Grow gills.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

I wish I had found this site earlier. This site lists 31 of the most common global warming denial myths and debunks every single one of them. Every point that has been brought up in this thread and many more that haven't yet are here and completely debunked.

You do realize that oil is used to create other products than just gasoline to run our cars with. Look I'm for having hundreds of nuclear plants around the country generating power and I'm for alternative fuel and worthwhile electric cars. But I am against people like Al Gore and his lacking trying to make money by scaring the public into believing in this man-made global warming non-sense. By trying to force green credit/tax legislation down our throats. Look the earth has been a lot warmer in the past than it is today and it has been a lot cooler are we to blame for that too?

I'm all for getting a handle on pollution and yes we do affect our environment (many times in a negative way) but we can't control the suns forces on earth nor can we control Volcanoes erupting and these have a much greater impact on the world than man has ever had. So perhaps Al Gore and friends should figure out a way to blame the Suns solar emissions and volcanic erupts on mankind as well and perhaps attempt to tax us even more.

im basically retyping the points made in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp  
as it seems sceptics have completely missed this simple and elegant point. 

look, if you do nothing about global warming then there are 2 options:

1a. global warming was not caused by manmade gases and we did nothing, so all is good, we spent no money on useless clean tech and we keep polluting happily until other problems arise due to this continued shortsightedness.

2a. global warming was indeed facilitated by manmade gases and we did nothing to avoid the results. In this case the future will be some ways between the high-end and low-end predictions for the next 50-100 years. At the critical end of the scale there will be half a billion people forced to seek new place to live due to rising water levels/changed rainfall patterns/ increased tornados and tsunamis. This in turn will create much more economic/social/political pressure due to aid/food/water/living space > more wars. This option possibly includes the economic depression of the 1st option, but has so much more bad results.

Now, if we DO SOMETHING to stop global warming then again, there are 2 options:

1b.  again, if global warming was not caused by manmade gases and hence the money we spent trying to stop it was not effective, another economic depressions is possible, but i would say unlikely, as the investments in clean technology and new energy would create much sustainable growth.

2b. if global warming was caused by man, and we did DO SOMETHING to stop it and it worked, then its money well spent. Sure it would be a huge cost to bear and huge changes in the world economy, but in the end, we avoided the global catastrophe in option 2a.

stopping climate change:

---------------------

action taken YES NO

AGW TRUE          :)            :(

AGW FALSE          :|            :)

ok consider this little table.

we can influence the future. we cant know for certain, wether global warming is manmade or not, but we can decide the column that our future will fall into. Its either the YES or NO column for taking action against global climate change. Now if we choose the NO option, then by that, we allow the future where there is a possibility of a global catastrophe. By choosing YES column, at worst we choose the option where we will spend a lot of money on going greener and cleaner but it wasnt that necessary to begin with. Now i would rather be safe than sorry and like i mentioned before in this wall of text, i think it might have a positive effect for the economy and the planet in the longrun to invest in clean tech.

Because the Media says Man-made Global warming is true there for it must bwe true. And we all know the media always speaks the truth...

I like this. Hopefully measures will be taken before the effects start to cause damage ... which will most likely be 100 years from now.

Unfortunately, by saying "100 years from now" people no longer find it important because they will no longer be alive at that point.

Both parties have many corrupt politicians but I see a bit more corruption coming from the Democratic side than Republicans but they are both bad. I just see the Republicans being the lesser of two evils.  We need a Moderate party that can go toe to toe with the other two parties (the Socialist…opps I mean Democrats and the Republicans)

I'll make an educated guess and say that you also firmly do not belive in evolutionary theories simply because of your political and quite possibly religious stance. Honestly, you'd have to be blind (and stupid) to not see the huge impact humans have on earth.

Humans have existed on this planet for a long time. Nature is still more powerful than us. We can't control the Earth's weather yet, like it or not.

We are Nature. We reflect nature in every way possible. Our existence is an intrinsic part of Nature, everything we do and everything in our environment is closely interlinked to levels that would astound you. We however have the upper hand in the species race and our impact can be profound, but in developing such large brains the weakness is the ability to control technologies and their impact on our environment. So to respond to your statement that "Nature is more powerful than us".

We are nature, we are powerful and we will continue to change this Earth until it is as perfect an environment for Human survival and prosperity as possible. This may be a balancing act, we may destroy ourselves in the process but at this time we can fundamentally change this planet by delivering a few thousand high yield thermo-nuclear warheads not only changing the weather for a considerable amount of time but this would certainly wipe out a huge number of larger mammals including ourselves.

Of course this serves no purpose in my example other than to demonstrate that at this time Humans have resources vastly more powerful than any single organism on this planet. As we develop our skills and knowledge further there are no bounds for 'Nature' as we are its primary ambassador.

Wow. Gamecat_uk you said the thing I always tried to say but couldn't.  

You'd be surprised.  Yep, more outlandish claims from me.  We've been seeding clouds for a number of decades now and making it rain.  That, by definition, is weather control.   Here's a couple links on it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/06-harnessing-the-weather

http://www.chemtrails911.com/

Incidentally, there's a few articles in Discover magazine on global warming dating back to the 1980's.  If you go back and find them, the global warming trends actually exceed the forecasts.

Besides chemtrails and silver iodide seeding, look up HAARP.  Here's their own, official website:

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

And this is just the spoon-fed, publically-available information from their PR department.  It fits the definition of a weather altering device, pure and simple.  May not be complete control.  May not be able to set some global thermostat to whatever you want, or just tell a storm, "go from here to there".  But if it otherwise would have been raining somewhere and now because of something you did it isn't, that by definition is weather control.  There are about a dozen of these around the globe, each of varying effectiveness.

The reason the public doesn't hear more about this is because they're owned by the nations' militaries.  It's a new cold war of sorts, conducted by manipulating climate patterns over prolonged periods of time.  It's a perfect form of cold warfare, really, just because it's so deniable.  "What?  You mean you're trying to blame the U.S. for heating the ionosphere above China and causing the typhoons that hit last summer?   LOL!"  Sorry, but we CAN and DO manipulate the weather.  Tinkering with mother nature?  Yes.  Do we know what the hell we're doing?  No.  But that doesn'tstop some people.

tetleytea. please gtfo of this thread and better yet out of this forum or just say you were wrong in the whole "i work at a particle detector, e=mc2 is untrue, 95% of the scientists dont believe in einstiens theory etc". 

P.S. Haarp is bullshit lol, but the rest yes is possible and being done.

Define "SOMETHING" please

In another thread someone made the argument that volcanoes put so much more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity does that "the Earth doesn't even know we're here." Well I don't know where he got his facts but with a little searching I found that it's totally the other way around. Human activity actually generates about *150* times the amount of CO2 than that released by volcanic eruptions.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

Certainly the earth is a large place and nature is indeed powerful but there are a *lot* of people on this planet with not insignificant technologies. We are capable of modifying our planet on a truely grand scale. Our mining activities can turn mountians into sludge pits, we can easily wipe out entire species of animals, we can cut down entire tropical rainforests. Our capacity to destroy and ruin that which we are incapable of recreating is well documented.

The argument that we humans are far too puny to affect something on the scale of our planet is not a legitimate argument.

>>Define "SOMETHING" please<<

I'm sorry did you miss out on the last 12 years since the Kyoto Protocol was ratified? 

im just gonna copypaste some tidbits from wikipedia to you here:

The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization and reconstruction of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

I bolded 'greenhouse gas' since it didnt say only co2 but greenhouse gases which includes methane and other more potent gases.

In a nutshell SOMETHING is a unilateral move towards cleaner energy production and cleaner industry. This will require huge investments and govermental policies/subsidies. These policies/subsidies will only be put into effect once the majority of the population supports/demands this. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sceptics on the other hand are actively trying to prevent this on the basis of fearing their SUV/airconditioned villa lifestyle being taxed to bits or some vague paranoia about govermental control of their life which i havent quite grasped.

Best thing about being 'old'....we can screw up the planet and be long gone before we need to worry about it.

Leaves the kiddies to angst over whether it's all a myth or not.

I read somewhere that 40% of the US does not believe in Natural selection [Evolution] ....so if that's endemic then your future is peachy....glad I won't be there to see it....;p

The man-made Global Warming™ fraud is all about money.  Whether it's Al Gore scheming to get richer off carbon credits, or scientists fudging data to get more grant money, this is the biggest fraud in recorded history.

Just look at the hypocrites attending this climate conference:

"Most delegates to the climate change conference haven't exactly been hoofing their way to Denmark's capital, swarming the city's airport with 140 private jets, 1,200 hired limousines and a carbon footprint the size of a small country."

All these treaties and other nonsense are all essentially welfare bills for other countries, just take a read through some of them.  It even talks about climate "reparations" to poor countries. 

The Earth warms and cools, the rest is man-made, a fraud that is.

Force sterilization could actually work as a global birth-control. Though it'd have to be monitered in order to prevent the human population to drop too much. Remember, sterilize a person and murder a hippy; it's protecting the environment!

By that reasoning; let's band up and destroy those monstrosities known as culture and resources lol now histroy proves thoses are killers