Why is the global warming movement unwilling to admit there is no problem?

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/...

nicely first no one is denying worldwide warming as a actuality. no one is claiming people are harmless. the reality that Mars additionally has worldwide warming might recommend there is greater to it and that it must be rather cyclical. there's a distinction interior the way the two candidate handle this in the process the cap and commerce treatment. Did you're taking word? Obama truly certainly for him needs massive government to handle it in a punitive vogue that would verify to strengthen expenditures by way of government inefficiency and forms. McCain might choose to do it with the income or reward gadget. income is a greater helpful motivator than mandatory standards. once you ought to make a income you artwork at it for greater performance. while its mandatory you in basic terms artwork in the direction of pleasing standards

CO2 is less than .05% of atmospheric gases. Water vapor is the largest and methane after CO2. Al Gore has only voiced concern. He has nothing to do with the science or data. The greenhouse effect has been know for 100 years and this subject has been around for a long time.

http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/2008-12_1959-carbon...

The computer models are based on physics. Anyone who has worked in politics knows computer models are far more trustworthy. This is not a scheme to "win a war" with industry. If anything, industry is at war with science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24...

Most SCIENTISTS agree the problem should be taken seriously.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.g...

I'm thinking that you need to look at some of the summaries of the science. If you read this you might understand why a minor component of our atmosphere like CO2 is so important. No need to call party leaders. There is no rule against thinking for yourself!

http://climate.noaa.gov/education/pdfs/ClimateLite...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBa...

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/ecological-impac...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change...

You must also consider the possibility that a large increase in man-made co2 levels could throw off the natural co2 cycle and therefore produce a magnified effect.

I believe the earth releases around 180 billion Gtons of CO2 per year while man-made levels are at 3 billion Gtons, so the natural cycle could be thrown off.

The only problem is that you don't understand fundamental physics or climate science.

Explain me this - global temperatures have increased about 0.5°C over the past 30 years. During that period, solar activity has been flat.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600p...

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/...

So if the Sun is the only cause of climate change and solar activity is flat, how do you explain the recent warming?

The scientific explanation is available in the link below.

So it's a record high temperature today where I live. It's the first record high this year. There were two record highs last year and no record lows. In fact, it's been five years since there was a record low.

i like other astrologers believe that the earth and the rest of this galexy will be wiped out by a solar flare in as early as 2050

I think the core and only problem with AGW is none of the promoters and supporters of it have done any actual lab or field work on the subject and the evidence claimed for it.

when i evaluated the experiment that they use world wide to claim co2 is a green house gas it was simple through the use of scientific method and close observation that their method of producing the co2 for the experiment was contaminating the sample with high levels of humidity. when the humidity of the two samples was equalized the co2 warmed slower and cooled faster than the ambient air sample.

Same with the claim that co2 causes water to become more acidic. Simple research in a basic chemistry lesson showed that the co2 concentration or water is temperature based and automatic. When water cools it will absorb co2 to its maximum capacity like a sponge. when warmed it will release that co2 back into the air.

So very basic simple forms of science quickly illustrate the lack of scientific knowledge the AGW proponents posses.

Your premise is incorrect - solar activity has nothing to do with *current* warming (in the last half century) -

https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechan...

Solar activity is one of the biggest *natural* influences on global temperature, with the ENSO being another. So, what should we expect to see if we control for those factors by looking at only the years in the last half century that have seen both a solar minimum and La Niña conditions? If human activity is having no significant influence then we should see temperatures being about the same during all these years. What we actually see is this:

https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechan...

... which correlates at an extremely high level (98.4%) with anthropogenic CO2 emissions:

https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechan...

Also, the natural interannual variability of global average temperatures is about 0.2°C. The current warming trend is about 0.2°C per decade. Therefore it's no good looking at a couple of years' temperatures to determine whether the current warming trend has changed - we have to look at the trend for at least 15 years to see the trend clearly distinguished from normal interannual variability. If we do this, we see that there has been essentially no change at all in the current warming trend -

https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechan...

So, global warming is happening, it hasn't slowed down, stopped or reversed, and it is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, not to any natural factors.

Greed is the simple answer, or perhaps both greed and power.