Originally Posted by
chignutsak
How about
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ? Yes, I know it's only wikipedia, but read the article, which is sourced with over 130 supporting links and references. Can you honestly read all that and say, "Nope. No global warming here; not enough evidence." Can you honestly say that
all of those references are biased and/or based on bad science? The earth
is warming; again, the only debate is whether man-made activities are accelerating the process.
I will check the link and read the article and let you know what I think. In the meantime, you say the earth
is warming. Since when? Since 65MYA it is colder. Since 15KYA it is warmer. Since 1998 (the super el nino) it is colder.
I can tell you that the 4 or 5 major institutes where a global temperature is calculated show that 2008 was colder than 2007, which was colder than 2006 (it was when temps stopped increasing that the term "global warming" began being eschewed for the harder to disprove "climate change").
Anthropogenic global warming backers put forward the theory (and claimed that the science was settled) that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead inexorably to increasing temperatures. They made a lot of this when the temperatures were rising. This relationship was, according to the warmists, causal and linear. When the temps stopped rising but the CO2 kept climbing this theory was decisively refuted. Does CO2 trap atmospheric heat? Certainly, but the climate relationships are non-linear and more CO2 does not, by itself cause higher temperatures.
WW