Can we FINALLY get the deniers to accept the facts on climate change?

Come on. There is no way putting tonnes of Carbon Dioxide and Methane into the atmosphere would change anything. Just like 5 cups of sugar in the cookie recipe. Get real and grow up.

Read the excellent "Why we resist the truth about climate change".

It is all about dogma which make "anglo-saxons" so different from any other ethnical group in the world (except perhaps specific religious groups such as born again christians and conservative moslems). Long story short - new concepts and the facts which suppport it are simply rejected on the basis that they contradict the mental scheme. In this regard, one of the worst things that ever happened in the US was AlGore campaigning for climate action as this put once and for all the truth about global warming as the "concept from the enemy" which therefore had to be rejected by any means. I just wonder what would hypothetically have happened had the opposite happened (US left rejecting the truth and a majority of US right wing accepting it).

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/why_we_r...

No one is denying that the climate is changing - the question is why.

Industrial Activity, automobiles and other man made sources account for 3% of the Carbon Dioxide pushed into the atmosphere each year. The other 97% comes from natural sources like volcanic eruptions and plant decay.

Is that 3% enough to tip the balance? Who knows - the jury really is still out.

See http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cryosphere/da...

In the above explain why temperature seems to track with methane but not CO2. Explain how greedy capitalist oil companies 300,000 years ago caused warming an cooling cycles much like today's. Explain why you are focusing only on the 3% of gases produced by fossil fuel burning and not at all on the other 97%.

Is all the CO2 produced by 20 Africans compared to all the CO2 produced by one American, including what they expel from their lungs, what their pets and livestock expel, and what is produced from wood, coal, and dung fires; or is only petrochemical produced CO2 compared?

How was CO2 determined to be a contributor? Was it fudged from the survival containment not made for such evaluations? How was the ocean's CO2 sink simulated there and in other experiments?

See my "sources" for what what I believe inspires the eco-bigoted insanity you seem to respect.

Be very wary of any 'scientific proof' which is backed by a political objective. Including Climate Change.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is responsible for much of the global warming alarmism. It has been highly criticized by genuine scientific organizations like the International Union for Quanternary Research (INQUA). INQUA is a 75-year old scientific think tank that researches global environmental and climate changes throughout history. INQUA asserts that the IPCC ignored the scientists who produced most of the data and observations on sea level science, substituting computer models which produce “the falsification of scientific observational facts.”

The IPCC and its simulated computer models cannot explain why the earth became colder between 1940-1975. The frequently cited landmark 1996 global warming report issued by the IPCC simply omitted the portions contributed by scientists which expressed skepticism about global warming, instead relying principally upon the writings of global alarmist extremists like scientist Ben Santer of the U.S. government’s Lawrence Livermore National Library. Sentences like this were deleted from the report by Santer, “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

There is plenty of evidence indicating that the earth has not been warming in recent years. The Indian Ocean’s level was higher between 1900-1970 than it is today. The Maldives, 1,200 islands which sit in the Indian Ocean, are 20-30 cm lower today than they were in 1970. Lester R. Brown, an agricultural economist who has made wrong predictions about world famines since the 1960s, claims that First World countries are flooding the Pacific Islands due to greenhouse gases from power plants. In reality, since 1993, the island of Tuvalu has seen ocean levels decrease by four inches.

The environmental extremists’ simulated computer models can be manipulated to generate any outcome wished. They are even further askew considering they are based on thermometers located in urban areas where there is a concrete jungle effect, increasing temperatures and overstating surface temperature increases by as much as 40 percent. Using the models’ conclusions, there should have been a rise of several degrees Celsius at the poles since 1940. In reality, the temperature at both poles has been decreasing. Temperatures at and near the North and South poles are lower than they were in 1930. This is evidence the Greenhouse Theory is not correct, because manmade emissions began dramatically increasing around 1940. In fact, 97% of the Antarctic has been cooling since the mid-1960’s. Alarmists point to the 3% that is warming because that is where most of the scientists and thermometers are, and it reinforces their Greenhouse Theory.

Global warming extremists like to point to the “Scientists Statement on Global Climatic Disruption” petition from the group Ozone Action as evidence that a majority of scientists believe manmade global warming is occurring. It was signed by 2,611 scientists worldwide in 1996 and sent to President Clinton. But according to Citizens for a Sound Economy, only about 10 percent of the signers had degrees in fields related to climate science – about 260 signers total. The signers included landscape architects, psychologists, a traditionally trained Chinese doctor, and a gynecologist.

On the other hand, these extremists ignore the Oregon Petition, which was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and expressed doubt about man-made global warming. More than 2,600 of its signers have climate science credentials. Global warming extremists tried to discredit it by saying a few of the signers were fake names, but there were only a few and were probably planted there by extremists in order to later discredit the petition. In 2001, the IPCC issued a report that included a “hockey stick” graph showing global warming trends since the year 1000. The graph eliminated the Little Ice Age which occurred during the 17th and 19th centuries, and exaggerated the increase in global warming in the 20th century, making it appear as if this was the highest hike in global warming in the past 1000 years. This graph was discredited when it was pointed out that the earth’s warming in the early 15th century greatly exceeded any warming in the 20th century.

And yet I see nothing there that says my Tahoe is to blame or that we need taxes on carbon or the other bullcrap and insanity governments want just to increase their power over the people. If the earth is warming, and I think it is, it is caused by the same forces that is warming mars, venus and jupiter et al.

You are probably referring to those who don't believe in MAN MADE global warming...and that article in no way supports that notion.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsLwi...

So just keep posting this nonsense with your multiple accounts. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself