Prof. James McCanney does feel there is a bias in 'global warming' as reported by the mainstream media. "... this latest push and media blitz has astounded me but remember that the global warming issue is a ploy for controlling many issues not the least of which is control of fresh water."

Others claim that Earth is warming and not due to human occupation.

The Prof. goes on,

... Mars and Neptune are two (other planets) that are warming and the planets
are more dynamic than anyone previously thought ...but the sun is the
controller and the electrical output is huge compared to solar light .

Another viewpo...

Prof. James McCanney does feel there is a bias in 'global warming' as reported by the mainstream media. "... this latest push and media blitz has astounded me but remember that the global warming issue is a ploy for controlling many issues not the least of which is control of fresh water."

Others claim that Earth is warming and not due to human occupation.

The Prof. goes on,

... Mars and Neptune are two (other planets) that are warming and the planets
are more dynamic than anyone previously thought ...but the sun is the
controller and the electrical output is huge compared to solar light .

Another viewpoint . .

Dr William A. Gaspar explains how the Mayan Calendar is based on the two most
prominent ice age cycles, thus its 2012 end date will herald in an ice age.
Nostradamus, Revelations, and Native American and other animal symbologies
will line up in a perfectly constructed theory to show that the ancient sages
knew about these apocalyptic recurrent cycles. A possible polar axis shift is
waiting for us in the next 5-12 years to end global warming.

I think that the Earth is cycling and all is right with the Universe.
The message is on the "Right Train, Wrong Track"

First of all, instead of getting your information from web sites and news programs that may or may not be biased, try reading a chemistry .textbook. I don't need anyone to tell me that the greenhouse effect is warming the planet slowly but surely. It is a fact of chemical reaction. The problem is that most of these gases dissipate very slowly and we keep producing them. They have no place to go because the lower atmosphere is heavier than the upper ones, so they can't escape

The main culprits are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, with a few others thrown in the mix, including ozone, which was slowly being depleted until carboflourocarbons (CFCs) were banned a while back for use a...

First of all, instead of getting your information from web sites and news programs that may or may not be biased, try reading a chemistry .textbook. I don't need anyone to tell me that the greenhouse effect is warming the planet slowly but surely. It is a fact of chemical reaction. The problem is that most of these gases dissipate very slowly and we keep producing them. They have no place to go because the lower atmosphere is heavier than the upper ones, so they can't escape

The main culprits are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, with a few others thrown in the mix, including ozone, which was slowly being depleted until carboflourocarbons (CFCs) were banned a while back for use as a propulsion unit in aerosol spray cans. These CFCs cause free radical reaction in ozone, which is basically a bent row of three oxygen atoms which send electrons back and forth furiously. CFC cause the molecule to break apart by stealing an oxygen electron. Some of you anything-in-the-name-of big busness advocates probably denied this then too, simply because you didn't understand it very well. Speaking from a scientific standpoint, with absolutely nothing to gain one way or the other, I can tell you that it is a chemical fact, as is the greenhouse effect.

Now I am not proposing that mankind is CAUSING global warming, but we're sure as hell both contributing to it and speeding it up!

The Nasa report didn't say there was NO difference, now did they? The atmosphere has definitely warmed up a great deal in the last century. Allow me to direct your attention to the government site of the Environmental Protection Agency, a respected organization.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Now If you don't trust the government, do your own research. I think you'll find that the only dissidents in the scientific community are quacks who are not well respected in the scientific community and hold a degree (if they even have one) from some unheard of 'college, or those working for a compan

I agrre totally that water vapor is BY FAR the most abundant greenhouse gas. The problem is that there's not a whole lot we can do about that gas, since Earth is 2/3 water. That does not negate the fact that there IS something we can do about the others., er...some of them anyway. The problem will continue to be magnified as both the world population continues to increase exponentially and the third world countries become more industrialized. *** As a side note here, the Verhulst equation mathematically predicts that a population will reach a maximum and then start declining, but humans are pretty wily and may discover a way around this by that time.

As to implications that this is just a n...

I agrre totally that water vapor is BY FAR the most abundant greenhouse gas. The problem is that there's not a whole lot we can do about that gas, since Earth is 2/3 water. That does not negate the fact that there IS something we can do about the others., er...some of them anyway. The problem will continue to be magnified as both the world population continues to increase exponentially and the third world countries become more industrialized. *** As a side note here, the Verhulst equation mathematically predicts that a population will reach a maximum and then start declining, but humans are pretty wily and may discover a way around this by that time.

As to implications that this is just a natural cycle and that other planets are experiencing the conditions: It is true that the other planets do go through warming/cooling cycles naturally. Science has known about this phenomenon for a long time and it's caused by solar flares and variations in the sun's temperature. Earth's , of course, do as well. However, science can measure the precise concentration of greenhouse gases in the air today, what they were 400,000 years ago by taking ice core samples and calculate the rate of change with very good precision. Since the exothermic properties of greenhouse gases are measured and known, we are able to calculate the change over long periods of time.

I am in complete agreement that water vapor is, indeed, by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the world However, there's not much we can do about that one Since the earth is more than 2/3 water, and it's part of the cycle of life. There is something we can do about the tons of others that we are pumping daily into the mix.

I don't know what report you were reading that said there had been no real temperature increase in the last decade, n2sooners, but I found this from Nasa:

Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record se...

I am in complete agreement that water vapor is, indeed, by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the world However, there's not much we can do about that one Since the earth is more than 2/3 water, and it's part of the cycle of life. There is something we can do about the tons of others that we are pumping daily into the mix.

I don't know what report you were reading that said there had been no real temperature increase in the last decade, n2sooners, but I found this from Nasa:

Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[24] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998

As to the other fact given that some other planet's mean temperatures are rising, I found that to be a fact on Mars, at least,. the two phenomenon are unrelated.
The variations in radiation and temperature on Mars cause large wind storms, which stir up dust and trap heat. I don't know what the mechanism is on Neptune, and I really don't have an urge to find out:

There are subtle fluctuations in temperature over the centuries. Those variations still occur today too. But this isn't that. This is heating up of the atmosphere by non-natural and natural causes. And we can't even halt it if we quit emitting all all unnatural greenhouse gases tomorrow, because they take at least 12 years to dissipate.

Another factor to consider is that ocean water on earth is reaching it's saturation point for CO2. So that's all going to be released into the atmosphere too.

I don't know what report you were reading that said there had been no real temperature increase in the last decade, n2sooners, but I found this from Nasa:

Yes, since 1998, which was nearly a decade ago, there has been only one year that was barely hotter than 1998. If you look at a graph you will see that there was a pretty steady temperature increase right up until 1998, since then it has gone up and down with the high years being right up there with 1998. In other words, it hit a plateau and it has been nearly ten years since we have had any significant warming. So all this global warming alarmism is based on the two decades PRIOR to 1998. Before that we were in a cooling ...

I don't know what report you were reading that said there had been no real temperature increase in the last decade, n2sooners, but I found this from Nasa:

Yes, since 1998, which was nearly a decade ago, there has been only one year that was barely hotter than 1998. If you look at a graph you will see that there was a pretty steady temperature increase right up until 1998, since then it has gone up and down with the high years being right up there with 1998. In other words, it hit a plateau and it has been nearly ten years since we have had any significant warming. So all this global warming alarmism is based on the two decades PRIOR to 1998. Before that we were in a cooling cycle, and prior to that we were in a warming cycle, but that was also prior to the industrial revolution.

If you don't know how to correlate graphical evidence with statistical
evidence, there is nothing I can say or do that will convince you.

N2Sooners, Apparently you are just too stupid to get it.

That's just great hudgal. Explain why all the scientists that disagree with the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Are they too stupid too. What do they have to gain politically? The money is on the side of the Global Warming Industry. My guess is you would call them Big Oil hacks. That's the usual dismissal.

If you don't know how to correlate graphical evidence with statistical
evidence, there is nothing I can say or do that will convince you.

You know what wi...

If you don't know how to correlate graphical evidence with statistical
evidence, there is nothing I can say or do that will convince you.

N2Sooners, Apparently you are just too stupid to get it.

That's just great hudgal. Explain why all the scientists that disagree with the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Are they too stupid too. What do they have to gain politically? The money is on the side of the Global Warming Industry. My guess is you would call them Big Oil hacks. That's the usual dismissal.

If you don't know how to correlate graphical evidence with statistical
evidence, there is nothing I can say or do that will convince you.

You know what will convince me? Scientific evidence. Not appeals to consensus, emotional appeals, propagand films, socialist politicians writing reports at the UN, people like you feigning esoteric undersatnding, evidence of cooling in the in the Solar System that bucks the planetary trend. Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Triton - Neptunes Largest Moon, Neptune.

Or how about this graph that clearly shows warming (caused by solar irradiance) causes the increase in CO2 levels, not the other way around.

I also might be conviced a little if they could win a debate.