First of all, let’s get one thing straight: the Milky Way is a solar system, not a planet. So obviously you aren’t functioning on all cylinders.

Now, you obviously didn’t read either the article or any of the previous responses. Because if you had, you would have seen statistical evidence from several prominent places.

Even if you don’t think that global warming is a problem, what is the harm in a little conservation? Take care of what you’ve been given to use.

Oh, and Al Gore isn’t a nut because he believes in global warming. He’s a nut because he said he invented the internet and proceeds to fly his private jet all over the world to tell people to stop global warming.

But you would know that if you read anything.

Ultimately, we have to acknowledge the problem first, before anything can be done. Thankfully, the new administration is not going to blindly sit back and watch events unfurl before it is too late.

This entire global warming debate is much like the cigarette companies verse medical facts. Some cigarette companies STILL refuse to admit that smoking causes lung cancer, even though their own hush hush research has been pointing that way since the 50′s. How many people actually believe the info that the tobacco companies are shoveling? Probably only a few, but they will staunchly defend any tobacco company finding that states that cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.

It’s the same as oil companies hiring scientists to say that fossil fuels don’t have anything to do with global warming. That’s very much akin to attempting appeasement of the population, hoping that any information, no matter how skewed, will be accepted as factual and make the problem go away.

I believe one British Prime Minister named Neville Chamberlin worked on this same principle. No matter what the signs were, no matter how many people had different opinions, he listened to no one, made a non-aggression pact with Hitler, called it peace in our time, and a year and a half later, the planet was plunged into WW 2. The signs were all there, but he chose to be passive in the face of danger, when he could have put his foot down, gotten pro-active, and limited the size and scope of the Great War.

We have that chance now, to be pro-active with global warming. We, as a human race, have identified the causes and acting accordingly, can limit the damage. We don’t need to appease naysayers, and no matter what evidence is presented they will believe what they so choose to believe, even if it means using outdated or contrived information.

What we need is action, and the new Obama administration, guided by some of the finest scientific minds in the world, will actively join the battle on global warming. Thank goodness for that.

I decided to help you out, since you are unable to do this yourself. I Googled ‘global warming’ and clicked on the very first 2 items that popped up, regardless of what the title was. I have included links to both, one of which has ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC NUMBERS! (Gasp)

And….both sources [on bottom] are more current than yours. Apparently you have a fear of using an article or resource from less than 5 days ago. Such a pity.

Now, before I let this go, here is my analysis of the evidence you have given me.

First of all, the article you looked at draws no conclusion about global warming. In fact, if you actually read the article entirely, you will see that more is said about how Dr. Jim Bunkee’s theory is unfounded and can be dismissed by scientific study. I quote: “However, scientific studies have found that in the past two decades solar activity has been declining and could not therefore be used to explain the rapid rise of global temperatures.”

The article continues by stating “[the IPCC] believes the probability that the warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 per cent.”

There are other points that can be quoted to prove my point, but I’ll let you read those for yourself.

So, while Dr. Buckee may have an interesting theory, he actually provides no scientific data to support his theory. And you provide no outside data into why I should be swayed by one man’s idea.

Second of all, let’s look at Dr. Buckee’s qualifications. While he is a very smart man (PHD in astrophysics from Oxford….VERY smart), his speciality is NOT in climate variation. Another thing is that he was a CEO for an OIL COMPANY! HELLO!!!!!! I myself didn’t use to care about oil company’s until they started to rip me off and gain record-setting profit numbers.

You have every right to your opinion. But, unless you are actually going to use a logical argument for your point of view, you don’t deserve to express your opinion.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c81.....07658.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl.....rming.html

http://news.scotsman.com/lates.....4966808.jp

I think five days ago should be current enough for you. Yet, I’m guessing you’ll completely ignore all the evidence I present, so it is pointless. I guess we will just always disagree.

You say that you are looking for references and that after 5 hours of hard labor you are unable to acquire any. So, you argue a point with a writer to gain his informational sources, then critize him when he doesn’t give them to you.

First of all, where are you looking for scientific facts? I mean, my gosh, if you google ‘global warming’ you will get over 1 million hit in less than half a second! Heck, try this one: READ A NEWSPAPER! I know, it will require you to actually read FACTUAL evidence about a current evironmental issue (shudder). The horror of actually using a CURRENT source to understand a mainstream issue!

Second of all, your list of references that the writer of the article should look at is ridiculous. The most current one is from 2003. Maybe, just maybe, it’s possible that more information is available now than 6 years ago? We’re not the brightest crayon in the box, now are we?

So, before hammering some poor writer about giving you all his information like you are deserving of his extra time, try and actually think and use your brain.

This is, of course, assuming you have one.

If what you claim is really fact, why have I yet to see any scientific data to support it? I’ve looked for hours, but haven’t found it. Apparently you have some, but are unwilling to share it.

And you aren’t helping your claim at all by completely avoiding my questions. You, sir, would be a good politician. All I was asking for was references, that you obviously have saved on your computer somewhere. Instead of spending 5 minutes replying to me, you couldn’t copied and pasted one or two links to save your precious billable hours. Instead, you want me to pay you for your “expert advice.”

Ridiculous.

No argument about the environment is a dead end. We know so little about the environment that some of the studies about our world are simply theories and speculation. Humans have been keeping track of climate data for less than 500 years. Five-hundred years is a lot in comparison to a human’s average life span, but considering that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, it is a very small set of data to make rash judgements as you have. Can you imagine looking at a 10-megapixel image? You can clearly see what is going on. Now imagine looking at a single pixel of that image. You wouldn’t be able to tell anything about the picture. The best you could do is use your best judgement and guess. That is exactly what scientists, inside and outside of the Obama administration, are trying to do.

I may not be a Nobel-prize winning scientist, but at least I know better than to blindly follow politicians.

By the way, you might find these articles interesting:
Beckerman, Wilfred. A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economics Growth. Oakland, California.:Independent Institution, 2003.

Chase, Alston. In a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Myths of Nature. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Huber, Peter. Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists, a Conservative Manifesto. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Lomborg, Bjorn. The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

And especially this one…
Wildavsky, Aaron. But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Using facts and figures, and I always submit references to my editor so that my points are proven. My editor would not publish something I wrote if it wasn’t backed up with facts, and I would never be immature enough to submit an article if I could not back it up in that way.

That said, are you a Nobel prize winner like Steven Chu? I thought not, but Mr Chu actually researched and submitted a scientific analysis of the FACTS of global warming.

Are you an esteemed scientist like John Holdren? I didn’t think so, but he also has done scientific calculations that identify global warming as being man made.

Are you then a distinguished scientist such as the likes of Jane Lubchenko? Because if you were, you would have appreciated all the research she has done in support of man made global warming.

Since you are none of the above, and since I have gotten all of my facts from these 3 eminent scientists, exactly as the Obama administration did, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a little common sense and knowledge wouldn’t agree to what they believe in.

So, you may believe what ever you would like to believe, disregard the facts as they are, that’s your your prerogative, but as far as I am concerned, your argument is a dead end, case closed, done deal, stick a fork in it, game over!