Actually it will. Do not know if this is credible but its interesting.

Did I say that there was no fluctuation in temperature at all? Uh, no.. I believe I said the average temperature has not changed much over the last 1000 years or so..

I think the temperature probably is rising slowly however alot of the arguments and scare tactics used for global warming are ridiculous. Now im all for reducing gas emmisions where possible mainly because i just think we need to take care of the planet. However its seems to me that most of the evidence is based upon temperature recording for the last hundred or so years and assumes that there was a steady increase at the same rate even before records were being kept. So for all we know this could be caused by a natural occurance like solar flares etc that we do not know about. If it is occuring at all.

I think the big hype about all of this is mainly once again reduced to ratings the news companies have found something that scares the people which makes people want to know what is going on about it which creates a greater demand for news about it.

Something the News will not tell you is.

The sea level does not appear to by rising as a result of polar ice caps melting which they have acctually been doing for many years *coughtitaniccough* before it was seen on film anyway. As well as most of the footage of these polar caps breaking away are not even from places like antarctica but rather places where those sort of things are a regular occurance and not just since we have been recording it but for centuries of not millenia. Its been shown that sea levels are not rising infact they are acctually slowly going down by .5mm(i think thats right might be .05) a year. Because as was pointed out due to the increase in heat more and more water is being evaporated out of the ocean which is then ends up either back in the ocean or rained over land mass the larges of which being antarctica where it then becomes ICE increasing antarctica's Mass.

Nice way of repackaging the same pre-determined conclusions.

He supposedly sets out to divorce some issues, but in his grid the suppositions he glosses over are rather the most important aspects.

He minimizes it to an economic part in "A" (see attached picture) and maximizes the effects of "D". If you reverse consequences of "A" and "D", do you reach the same conclusion? Also, even the "B" presumes that a solution will be effective -- this possibility too is conveniently left out.

And, FWIW, http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40326223463384 (part 1 of 8) -- if you've got the time. (It was once available as a single video, but I've lost that link.)

The average temp over the past 100 years has increased a whopping 1 degree F. Scary!!! So if this uncontrolled rise in temp is not checked, we'll be in danger in about 3564AD.

'Global warming' is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is cyclical.

Considering the fact that much of our current increase in temperature (the same one that everyone is yelling about as 'global warming') appears to be related to the fact that the little ice age is finally ending, I'd say that if the gw temp is important, then so would the gc (global cooling) experienced during the shift into the little ice age. You still haven't found the time to read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, have you?

Why did you link my post? You said nothing of significance relating to my post.. the fact that there has been a small 'ice age' or not is irrelevant to the fact that the average temperature of this planet has remained constant over the past 1000 years.

And no, I haven't read the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Science", and neither do I care to.. I have been busy.. However, if you want you can post from the book as I'm sure no one else would mind.

and in another thousand years the average temperature will also not have changed much despite fluctuations...

That's the whole point, what we're experiencing is just natural fluctuation. Nothing special, happens all the time.
Thinking that somehow humans are able to suddenly change the climate dramatically on a global scale indicates a massive dose of homocentric thinking.
Doing so in light of all the evidence to the contrary is just plain idiotic.

Take for example the current hot period on Mars, where temperatures rise far more rapidly than on earth.
It's been concluded that that's caused by increased solar output (can't blame cars for it as there are none...).
But the smaller changes on earth, which happens to be influenced by that very same sun which has a higher output, are supposed to not be influenced by that sun at all according to those same "scientist"s.
Either they have an agenda or they're not very scientific in their assessments.
Most likely both of course, as "scientist"s who don't follow the Party line and report doom and gloom all day long soon loose their research grants and jobs, and thus adopt unscientific processes to show what they're supposed to show by their political masters.
Peer review goes out the door, so goes honesty. Data is chosen, massaged, and made up to fit the preconceived conclusions rather than those conclusions being drawn from all the data available and then having everything scrutinised by your rivals.

A "religious" "inquisition"?