So, a majority of the world's scientists are 90% sure that humankind is causing global warming. You're saying that because there is a small chance they're wrong, we shouldn't do anything to fix it? Are you serious?

If there was an asteroid heading toward earth, and the scientists thought there was a 90% chance it would hit and destroy the earth, you'd be OK just hoping that the 10% scenario happens?

Anyway, I don't think environmentalists, the media, Al Gore and his friends, or anyone else, feels that they know everything there is to know about global warming. What they do know, however, is that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING, and we NEED to do something about it.

Even if it is an entirely natur...

So, a majority of the world's scientists are 90% sure that humankind is causing global warming. You're saying that because there is a small chance they're wrong, we shouldn't do anything to fix it? Are you serious?

If there was an asteroid heading toward earth, and the scientists thought there was a 90% chance it would hit and destroy the earth, you'd be OK just hoping that the 10% scenario happens?

Anyway, I don't think environmentalists, the media, Al Gore and his friends, or anyone else, feels that they know everything there is to know about global warming. What they do know, however, is that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING, and we NEED to do something about it.

Even if it is an entirely natural occurrence, we humans need to be the ones that fix it. And burning fossil fuels is certainly not helping, even if you don't agree it is a leading cause. So, what next?

1.
Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global
history are EXACT.

2. No
correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps.
In fact, many times the opposite was true.

3. All
the planets in the inner solar system are also warming.

4. The
earth has warmed and cooled for mellenia.

5. The
troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not
happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house
effect).

6. It is
an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading are
taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. The satellite
readings, which are mu...

1.
Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global
history are EXACT.

2. No
correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps.
In fact, many times the opposite was true.

3. All
the planets in the inner solar system are also warming.

4. The
earth has warmed and cooled for mellenia.

5. The
troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not
happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house
effect).

6. It is
an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading are
taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. The satellite
readings, which are much more accurate, are kept out of the formula.

7. Over
95% of all green house gas is ocean evaporation. This has increased with the
current warming trend, which is due to solar irradience.

8. The
ppm measure of green gases increases as a result of warming, not the opposite.

9. When
you see Al Gore showing footage of peices of glaciers crashing into the ocean,
this is actually called sheathing. It is a geologic process that occurs when
glacier recede AND advance. But in this case, it is just an emotional appeal to
ignorance.

10. If
the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an
accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math
model would be, if that perfect world existed? According to my
calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the
scientist knew all the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback
loops to an accuracy of 99 percent. In actuality it would probably be < 5%.

Your 90% number on scientists that belive in global warming is BS. Why do you believe in global warming? Or, is it that you're just a flat-earther that falls for anything without thinking and investigating for yourself?

What if we had taken the coming ice age theory of just few short decades ago more seriously? What if we had taken it so seriously that we actually took action to warm the planet? And what if we had succeeded? What would this warming trend look like now? And what if we take the warming trend seriously and find a way to cool the planet and it turns out the warming trend was just a natural cycle and a cooling trend follows? How bad could that be?

As a matter of fact, we are a lot more likely to survive increased warming than we are to survive a new ice age. With more warming we would have longer growing seasons and would be able to grow crops in many places we can't now. The Earth was pretty ...

What if we had taken the coming ice age theory of just few short decades ago more seriously? What if we had taken it so seriously that we actually took action to warm the planet? And what if we had succeeded? What would this warming trend look like now? And what if we take the warming trend seriously and find a way to cool the planet and it turns out the warming trend was just a natural cycle and a cooling trend follows? How bad could that be?

As a matter of fact, we are a lot more likely to survive increased warming than we are to survive a new ice age. With more warming we would have longer growing seasons and would be able to grow crops in many places we can't now. The Earth was pretty lush for the most part when the dinosaurs roamed and it was much warmer then. But a coming ice age would wipe out most of our current farmland and not create nearly as much as it takes out. The growing season would be shortened and many people will die. And I don't think we should be in a hurry to push toward that ice age based on a global warming theory that isn't nearly as unanimous as you make it out to be.

But I really am curious, what is the point in debunking it? Are you
advocating that we take no steps to counter the effects of it, even if
you assume it is a natural process?

Tripc, I believe we are contributing 0 to global warming. Even if we were, it is a lie that we can do anything about it. If the US ceased to exist tomorrow, China would fill the gap in our emissions within about 10 to 15 years.

However, I do beleive we should take steps for cleaner energy. I am more "green" than anyone I know that is a left-wing dirt-person advocating Kyoto.
Kyoto, does not solve anything. It redistributes wealth and creates a rationing system for emissions. If implemented, it would dest...

But I really am curious, what is the point in debunking it? Are you
advocating that we take no steps to counter the effects of it, even if
you assume it is a natural process?

Tripc, I believe we are contributing 0 to global warming. Even if we were, it is a lie that we can do anything about it. If the US ceased to exist tomorrow, China would fill the gap in our emissions within about 10 to 15 years.

However, I do beleive we should take steps for cleaner energy. I am more "green" than anyone I know that is a left-wing dirt-person advocating Kyoto.
Kyoto, does not solve anything. It redistributes wealth and creates a rationing system for emissions. If implemented, it would destroy western economies, while China and Russia are exempt. Moreover, it is only projected to cut CO2 by 2% in 50 years. That is everyone met their goals, which no country is doing now that has volutarily abided by Kyoto.

It would be better, if we did nothing.

In 1976 scientists wanted us to cover the polar ice caps with black soot to prevent global cooling. I don't think that would have been a very good idea.