Global climate change is caused by the cyclic warming/cooling phases of the sun. Enjoy the longer growing seasons. Mars polar ice caps are shrinking. Who can the martians blame?
Correlation isn't causation.
Who ya gonna call?
Oh- by the way- the discussion ain't over......

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Go and read the rest of the article and learn the truth about global warming.

The debate is indeed over. No serious scientific (as opposed to political) worldwide forum argues any longer about if it's happening or who is causing it; the discussion now is how fast, how bad, and what to do about it.
You can still find the "is it happening" debate in the popular press, along with Anna Nicole et al; but that's not where I go for substanitive information on this issue.
Tracy

Rebelsnake,
I checked your article. I have also checked reports from the American Geological Society, the National Academy of Sciences (not only of the US but those of Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and France) The Scripps Institute, NASA's Goddard, and literally dozens of other distinguished institutions. The data is overwhelmingly in support of the global warming construct being greatly accelerated by our activity, and this data base is growing rapidly and consistently. I don't have a political agenda, and I hope I am able to view conflicting data fairly (my previous post aside). But the conflicting data is just not strong enough to be convincing. Tracy

RebelSnake,
I also checked your article and a several other articles from the website you recommended (Canada Free Press.) They hardly appear to be an objective news reporting organization.

Sure, there are a few scientists that don't agree that global warming/climate change is happening. But the number of scientist that do agree is truly overwhelming. Do a web search on "global warming" or "climate change." Or, try these websites:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.eea.europa.eu/

Rebel Snake,

I agree. There is no solid proof that global warming is caused by pollution. That debate is still very much alive.

I don't think damage to the environment is a good thing, by any means. However, I'm not convinced that the changes listed in this lte are principally caused by emissions.

That doesn't change my views regarding pollution and dangerous emissions. I think these things hurt us in many very serious ways besides global warming. Besides that, our natural resources are not infinite. We are burning through them like there is no tomorrow.

I know it's possible that an asteroid might hit us tomorrow and things like that are uncontrollable. However, there are things we can control and we, as a world, as a nation and as individuals, are not doing a good job of it.

As stated many times, I do not know what PERCENTAGE of the changing climate is "man" and what PERCENTAGE is "momma nature".

... but without a doubt something going on - and to deny is to stand in the way of progress.

So lead, follow or get the heck outta here.

"Sure, there are a few scientists that don't agree that global warming/climate change is happening. But the number of scientist that do agree is truly overwhelming."

There is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on this issue. It is most assuredly NOT settled, despite what some would want everyone to believe.

Several points in response, Mr. Hedrick.

Read them here:

http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/2007/03/nine-facts-about-global-warming.html

Bubba,
It appears that the link in your response is based on something called The Lavoisier Group. I checked them out and found out that they are:

-global warming skeptics (I'm okay with skepticism; it's good for the scientific process.)

-closely associated with (possibly funded by) the Australian coal mining industry (not really an objective viewpoint.)

My sources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group
http://timlambert.org/2004/11/lavoisier/
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html

In summary, I'm interested opposing points of view, but as of now, I still believe that climate change is very real and caused primarily by humans.

Bubba,
Your response refers to "Nine facts about global warming" from a group called The Lavoisier Group. As best as I can tell, Lavoisier is:

-a global warming skeptic group (this is a good thing; skepticism is welcome)

-possibly a mouthpiece of the Australian Coal Mining Industry (and maybe funded by them too.)

My sources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html
http://timlambert.org/2004/11/lavoisier/

Lavoisier may not be all bad, but I don't trust them.

Sorry about the double posting. I thought I'd lost the first one. So here's a third one.

Well, seeing as how the debate is over, might as well give algore all our bank and credit card pin numbers and pray we are not too late for him to save us.

Unbelievable the number of gullible people who swallow this hogwash. The same sun that warms us is also warming mars up some. How could that little land rover do so much damage in so short a time?

I don't mind listening to the chicken little crowd squawk about the falling sky, in fact I find it highly entertaining to watch and laugh at them. But when these nutzoids have co-conspirators in congress and the algore groupies have found some political power, it's time to become a little more concerned with them.

Oh, Bubba, no point in linking to evidence contrary to these groupies' belief. If they disagree with the 'global warming' crowd, they are either part of 'big oil' or are directly related to Dick Cheney.

From no less than MIT.. a bastion of liberal education-
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

neocon & Bubba,

I don't want the debate to be over. And I DO WANT you to put links in your posts that will prove to me your version of the climate change debate.

When you leave out the links, it is simply your opinion. But when your opinion is laced with snide remarks and subtle insults ("gullible people who swallow this hogwash," "nutzoids,") you lose credibility.

Show me evidence to the contrary regarding climate change. And yes, if the organization you link to is funded by Exxon, I will not consider it to be valid evidence.

Sorry Tracy, but the discussion's not over- as I stated before, there is no question that climate change is an ongoing "event". The discussion in regards to the pitiful human effect will remain in effect as long as there are those of us who recognise that the lock-step anti-private-property agenda driven lies of the left continues to fund this drivel. Human caused global warming is the new religion of the left- a belief system that is not to be challenged.
Boo.

I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I don't know- is National Geographic funded by Exxon?

I just realised that I violated my own belief system- it appears that correlation is causation!!!!!

Neptune and Pluto (I really miss the little fellow) seem to be warming up also.. can we get algore to fly there in his private jet? Maybe they can buy carbon credits from his company.

There's no money or votes to be garnered on Mars or Pluto. No carbon credits to be shopped around. No Cap'n Mars or Cap'n Pluto to chastise the ignorant masses about their lack of education on this subject. Alas, they are ignored.

W J Ellis,

That's more like it!

I'm wondering, did you read the whole article, or just the headline? There are two pages. Page two presents the opposing view.

So, to further the debate, I present the same article as you have. This one links directly to page two.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

"Lavoisier may not be all bad, but I don't trust them."

I trust them FAR more than those to whom you linked....especially to Lambert, who has no credibility at all (Check the comments on my linked blog thread).

"Show me evidence to the contrary regarding climate change."

No.

If you believe that anthropogenic contributions are the cause of the problem, it is up to YOU (and others who believe) to establish your case.

This is particulary appropriate when the "science' is (at best) doubtful, and the economic effects of the "fix" advocated will cause FAR more misery than any effect of "global warming".

So far, NO compelling evidenced verified by scientific and mathematic method has established the veracity of ANY of the claims of the Alarmists.

And lay off the "oil company shill" nonsense, would you please? That's purely a diversionary tactic.

Criticize the essence of the message. Specify exactly where the premises are wrong, with conclusive evidence that supports your contention.

I'm with Nitpicker on this one. Even if the case for global warming is "not conclusive," air pollution is a serious problem. It also causes acid rain, as noted on the EPA web site http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html and is linked to the increased incidence of asthma and COPD. The problems are real; they are serious; and you can't wish them away. I await your refutations of these other problems, skeptics.

Here ya go, Bubba - from your own link:

"Habibullo Abdussamatov .. says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "

"Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years .. and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth."

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" contradicting "the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

SO - let's just wait 15 to 20 years. OK Bubba?

Wait .. we waited 4 years while you told us things were going well in Iraq. So fool me once, shame on me .. but fool me twice .. how's it go Bubbahead?

Why yes, Alan, I read the entire article. The empirical evidence is far more compelling than guesstimates to the contrary.
Observation and measurement vs. theory...
Observation and measurement vs. theory... Which will do more to keep the grants coming in?
Have you walked the talk? Have you neutralized your carbon footprint with carbon credits? Who are the beneficiaries of this ad hoc taxing of Americans?

Ellis: What's the "ad hoc taxing of Americans"?

Are you talking the billions of federal dollars being requested by Political Hacks looking to get the g-men to pay for everything ...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-26-09.asp

OR

Are you talking the pittance in federal dollars given to genuine scientists to study the phenom?

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf

Let's face it. The ones denying global warming would be the same ones who claimed the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the solar system.
Bubba, good try. Maybe those scientists you cite, could get together with the "Christians" who say there is no evidence that the world is over 10,000 years old. They belong together.

"I trust them FAR more than those to whom you linked"

Because they support your agenda. Imagine that.

"If you believe that anthropogenic contributions are the cause of the problem, it is up to YOU (and others who believe) to establish your case."

Cool. Here's my case. Look here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Check it out.

"And lay off the "oil company shill" nonsense, would you please? That's purely a diversionary tactic."

Actually, Bubba, "oil company shills" ARE a diversionary tactic, intended to interject doubt as to the facts pertaining to the whole debate.

W J Ellis,

In response to your question "Have [I] walked the talk?" Hell yes, I'm the greenest SOB for miles! But not with carbon credits. So maybe we can agree on that. I haven't researched carbon credits very much, but my first reaction is that they are simply a way to buy and sell the right to pollute. However, I do participate in the NC GreenPower program through Duke Energy. I don't think that's a carbon trading scam, but then again, I could be wrong.

Let's face it. The ones denying global warming would be the same ones who claimed the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the solar system.
Bubba, good try. Maybe those scientists you cite, could get together with the "Christians" who say there is no evidence that the world is over 10,000 years old. They belong together.

So perfect, I HAD to post it again!

"Wait .. we waited 4 years while you told us things were going well in Iraq. So fool me once, shame on me .. but fool me twice .. how's it go Bubbahead?"

How DO you get those huge clown feet of yours so far down your throat, cRockerfolly?

That's amazing how you keep doing this sort of thing OVER and OVER and OVER......

But we're used to that sort of thing from you and your Usual Suspect pals on this blog now.

Your amusement value is fading.

So Bubba, you ready to discuss the shortcomings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report?

Are you kidding, Denz? Bubba's got to pull the Exxon-Mobil hose from his rear AND neocon's before he can discuss climate change. Those two are still amazed at how "GOD" made the moon reddish orange last week during what the rest of us refer to as "the lunar eclipse". Global warming is above their "pay grade".

"Wait .. we waited 4 years while you told us things were going well in Iraq. So fool me once, shame on me .. but fool me twice .. how's it go Bubbahead?"

Well Dancer Bee .. first off - do you not agree the situation in the Middle East is THE most important issue of our time?

Would you agree that it's one f'd up mess .. and only on recent weeks - with the apparent change in strategy - does it appear to be taking a turn?

Would you agree that for four years you've been solidly behind the previous strategy? Oh well, two of three ain't bad.