Really? What about this:

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

There's so much more debunking "Global climate change" and the way you (and Al Gore) are attempting to scare everyone at the below site (among others):
Junk Science

Or this one:
Cooler Heads

Here's a good one. Remember Michael Crichton?
State of Fear

To say (or even imply) that there is universal agreement on global climate change among scientists is a complete lie. There are more politics to it than there is in the Iraq war, or the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Thanks for your input, but there's just as much "agreement" that you're wrong.

Exactly. It's like humans trying to understand human behaviour. The Dr. Spock error revisited. :rofl: We think we know whats happening but that's the problem. "WE THINK" :confused: :rolleyes:

They can tell CO2 levels by studying the glaciers. When ice is formed, it traps CO2 particles in the same percentage as was in the air at the time the ice was formed. When those same samples are taken to a lab and melted, the CO2 is then released and can be measured. They can count years on the glaciers as ice is formed every winter, and then some melts the following summer. You can see the "stripes" for the various years with the naked eye, and thus you can count back and take samples from various time periods. This is a exact science and has been used for decades.

From 1993 to 2003, there were 928 papers published in scientific journals on the subject of "global climate change". Not a single one was in disagreement.

However, if you look at articles that appear in newspapers, then they are about 50/50 on their opinion of what is causing climate change.

This is what is giving people the opinion that their is not a consensus on the subject. There indeed is. The media is publishing propoganda as they usually do. The only disagreement among scientists is how much of an effect man is having, and how quickly the changes will occur in the future. As you can see from the maps above I posted of Lake Chad, they can happen rather quickly.

Al Gore explains everythis you just quoted in his movie. Like I said, watch the movie. I'll do my best to give a brief summary of why the above is true and yet CO2 is still the main reason for global warming. See if you can follow me.....


Water does indeed account for most of the greenhouse effect. That is because most of the world's surface is water. Water absorbs most of the heat from the sun's rays, so most of the "warming" (or heat) of the earth is from this heat absorbtion. On the other hand, ice reflects 90% of the sun's rays back into space, which is why there is very little absorbtion at the North and South polls, and this contributes to even lower temperatures there.

CO2 is a very small percentage of the greenhouse effect. That very small percentage is gradually causing a very very small change in temperature. This very very small change in temperature is happening mostly at the polls, and not so much at the equator. Here is why:

Remember that 90% of the sun's rays are reflected from the icy surface at the polls back into space. Well, not all of that 90% actually makes it back into space. CO2 particles in the atmostphere absorb the heat from some of that sun light. As the levels of CO2 in the atmostphere increase, more of that light is absorbed, thus increasing temperatures at the polls.

Every year at the polls, more ice forms on the glaciers in the winter, and some of that ice melts in the summer. The resulting very very small increase in temperature is causing more ice to melt in the summer, and less ice to form in the winter. The net effect is that the glaciers are gradually starting to melt. This on its own is not enough to cause any huge changes, at least not very quickly.

However, remember that "water" is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect. And as these glaciers melt, what does the ice become? Water. So now we have an increase in water at the polls.

So in areas where a glacier has gotten smaller, instead of 90% of the sun's light being reflected back up into space, in certain areas 90% of that light is now being absorbed, thus causing temperatures in these areas to increase.......and the cycle repeats itself...

As more and more of the glaciers melt, there is more water at the polls, and less ice, so the rate of absorbtion of the sun's rays greatly increases, and so the rate of change continues to increase until there are no more glaciers.

At that point in time, there will have been drastic changes in the earth's climate patterns. Many scientists think this all could happen within the next 30-50 years, and many think if the current trend continues (i.e. we do not change our living habbits fast), we will reach a point of no return sometime within the next 10-15 years.

Ok it's time for a real down to earth solution to this problem: If there wasn't so much farting goin on earthwide the problem would be solved. http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm :rofl:

Damn cows and their methane!

Words, clicks, beeps...

Sorry, you lost me when you tried to use Al Gore as a reputable source...
:nanana:

Again, I can refute every one of your claims, using the other 50% of scientists - the ones that don't agree with your 50%. You can claim all the articles you want. Doesn't mean that there's no reputable scientists that don't agree.

This is one of those arguments that no one will "win." That is, unless you live for more than 1,000 years, and can see all the changes for yourself. Even then, how do you know what's normal on a grand scale, and what's not?

:slap:

Leave my cows alone!! :rofl:

My sister's a vet - does that help?

No, but this does:

:rofl: