Replies

"Whether it's true or not..."

I think that global-warming is pretty much indisputable, especially when you look at how much melting is occurring in places like the Arctic Circle and the various, large ice shelves in Antarctica.

Personally, I blame an increase in volcanic activity and increased solar activity moreso than anything humans can do and was glad when Bush refused to sign Kyoto.

There's plenty of evidence of warming, but little that can accurately pinpoint it on 'Man', especially when you consider the extremely large volumes of greenhouse gases released by a volcanic eruption.

Also, when 'human reasons' are given, they usually try to blame 1st world activity, namely the USA, rather than the more-probably slash&burn deforestation techniques used to decimate the South American rain forests and African jungles. After all, trees do remove CO2. Shouldn't the large-scale reduction of trees be a primary cause, rather than me driving my Honda to work?

Shouldn't the large-scale reduction of trees be a primary cause, rather than me driving my Honda to work?

They're clear-cutting the ~~jungle~~ rainforest to raise beef cattle for your high-cholesterol Big Macs!

So it's still YOUR fault.

"There's plenty of evidence of warming..."

This article intimates at one of the critical weakness of the 'global warming' debate, but doesn't adduce it fully. This problem is embedded in your response, though I agree with most of what you wrote.

The problem is in the definition. Are you talking about temperature of the earth's surface? Of the atmosphere? Of a combination? Is this a localized increase in some areas offset by other areas that are cooler? That is, is it an aggregate mapping of trends, or is selective measurement of the warmer areas? Also, most importantly, over how long a period of time are we talking? The term "warming" denotes an on-going process. From when to when?

While most agree that there may have been some aggregate warming globally over the past 100-150 years, no one can say so definitely, because man has not been keeping accurate enough records to be sure. But those who claim there is, though they disagree on amount of warming, most put the change in the 'negligible' category.

And, if it is true, then we still need not worry because it may well be that this 'warming trend' is just a part of a cycle that will peak and then begin to fall back into another mini-ice age as we are presently emerging from.

But I agree with you. If there is some aggregate warming, I don't think man's influence comes anywhere near having the same degree of effect on global climate than volcanic and solar activity have. I believe part of the agenda behind the 'climate change' lobby is to push Marxism under a flag of a different color. It was a red flag. Now it's green.

Please check out this site:

Still Waiting for the Greenhouse

But be prepared to think about what you see. Climate has been changing ever since the earth has had an atmosphere. John Daly has a great site aimed at revealing the truth about the alarm raised by GW "climatologists". Enjoy!