Are you ALL crazy?! Check the records! Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia!

"In general, I'm against big government,
but I would support a massive emergency
federal program to teach logic to liberals." ...Ann Coulter - writer / satirist

'Most people' wanting something does not mean they are right. Nice try though. What we have is a lot of people like Al Gore who never( as far as I know) studied climatology or have degrees in any type of science claiming something that they can't prove. Even a lot of scientists are saying they can't be sure we are having an impact on the climate that's any greater than the cyclical warming and cooling the Earth has had since before we started walking around. Most people thought Adam Lambert should have been American Idol...you should be able to follow that analogy...he didn't win, did he?

I appreciate Club-a-Liberal putting some of the “real science” data out there for the Boortz readership. I think the best interests of the counter forces trying to debunk so called man-made “global warming”, is to always put forth the most optimistic “real data” that favors the "warmers" position that man-made CO2 is the real culprit involved. Why?

Given any issue can only have one set of facts to argue over, doing that effectively immunizes our argument as skeptics from the usual liberal position of resorting to “reductio ad absurdum” tactics to avoid further discussion. Using that notion we can use detailed data, such as from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html as probably cited below, which asserts that all man-made CO2 constitutes a whopping 0.1% of the total great house gas effect!

As a person with an engineering background, if someone asserted to me and a group of other engineers that a single input to any control process which affected ~ 0.1% of the total output was not only incredibly significant but was likely even to be catastrophic, would trigger "howls of derisive laughter".

Yet we have “Chicken Little” myrmidons all over the world running around following in the path of the “Goreacle”, using junk science as the basis of a virtual religion called “Global Warming”. All without even basic questions being asked by the lamestream Liberal media as to the basis of their so called scientific theory and the so called evidence involved.

A few other cosmic effects aside, it really is still all about that “Big Yellow thing in the Sky”. And for you "warmers" out there, “Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt”.

To say that .105% of anything cannot have an impact is completely absurd. That statement is every bit as radical as radical environmentalist statments that claim immediate world doom with the .105% CO2.
The fact of the matter is that most of the citizenry, wants environmental protections and standards.
I think everyone understands that the sun warms the planet and the sun goes through cyclical changes. However, when man puts CO2 in the air it does change the dynamic of a very fragile ecosystem that is already being changed by the dynamics of the sun.

Go read my first comment near the bottom to understand why Mars' temperature is rising. The real question here is why isn't NASA telling us the truth at why the temperatures are rising. They know why. They know exactly why.

This “green” crap is really getting on my nerves. I have read more info on this nonsense than many people. Everything I read from the warmers basically comes down to their belief CO2 is the driver of this warming. It’s all about the CO2. Let’s not even get to the folly of someone declaring a vital element that provides life to plants and animals as a pollutant. Nor let’s not even bring up the fact that the “hockey stick” (which I would love to use over Gore’s head) has been discredited and that CO2 actually increases many years AFTER temperatures have already increased (so much for CO2 driving temps.)

It all comes down to this. NOTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO KNOW - A SIMPLE MATH QUIZ for you:

Of the greenhouse gas emissions (GGE):
- 95% of the GGE comes water vapor of which nearly ALL is NATURAL, i.e. we have no impact on.
- 1.5% comes from methane and other gases
- the remaining 3.5% comes from that evil CO2. That alone gives you perspective on CO2 impact. But, let’s look a little deeper, of this CO2, 97% of the CO2 is NATURAL!!! I repeat, 97% of the CO2 is natural and we have no control over. That leaves a whopping 3% of CO2 that man has an impact on. In other words, manmade CO2 represents 3% of 3.5%, or for the govt educated out there – a whopping 0.105% of greenhouse gas emissions.

QUIZ: How does 0.105% of anything have an impact, you mindless warming twits? Hell, if everyone’s goal was to increase their carbon footprint tenfold, it would still be a trace component. To top it off, this all assumes that CO2 is even a pollutant!

Wonderful....so the next time the temps will be UP will be during the next Presidential election campaigns, which means the Democrats will be screeching abouot the need for more of their economy-killing bovine excrement.

Maybe this time, we'll be able to get it through their thick skulls that if the temps on MARS are also rising, and there's no SUVs or coal-fired power plants up there, then it just might be that big, hot, bright thingy in the sky that's causing the heat.

The sun was completely free of any sunspots whatsoever for 266 out of 385 days last year, and that meant no sunspots for ~70% of the time in 2008. That makes 2008 a century-class year in terms of low sunspot numbers and not coincidentally the coldest year on record for the last decade.

To find a single year with more blank suns you have to go way back to 1913, which had 311 days of no sunspots whatever. That's pretty incredible when you look at the history of observable sunspots for which we have various records going back over a thousand years.

During the Medieval Warming Period, ~1000-1250 C.E., the world was much warmer than it is today. It also happens to coincide with increased observable sunspot activity over the period. It warmed so much back then that the Vikings established extensive settlements in Greenland during this time where they were able to raise crops and various livestock. But by ~1300 C.E. the world and notably Europe had cooled considerably. Ice flows started to block passage to their western settlements from Iceland / Europe, crops started to fail, animals began to die off because of the continued cold winters. They subsequently abandoned their many sites which are now mostly covered over by ice today.

That cooling period is known today as “The Little Ice Age”…a period “which brought bitterly cold winters to many parts of the world, but is most thoroughly documented in Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice..." The first documented time the River Thames froze over was in 1607; the last was in 1814. We know today that period also coincided with much decreased sunspot activity compared to more recent decades of "normal" activity.

Pure coincidence?

Folks, when it comes to global warming or global cooling for that matter, it really is all about that big yellow thing in the sky..

“Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics”...Richard Lindzen - MIT climate scientist

As someone else said, 0.1 degree celcius can't account for the variation we've seen. That's less than a fifth of a degree farenheit(approximately .18).

Maybe there's a whole slew of other cyclical or non-cyclical sun related or geological things not mentioned in this posting that would make up the difference? If not, mankind effecting change is the reasonable conclusion.

I am going to blame Obama because he loves to fly Air Force One and his attending fleet of aircraft all over the place. His last jaunt to New York put out more CO2 than my entire family has done since the dawn of time.

That is one of the worst written articles I've ever read. The trend they find is:

1) an influence of 0.1 degree Celsius, a tiny fraction of the warming that has occurred in the last century alone.

2) The trend they find is *cyclical*, varying smoothly over the 11-year solar cycle. It will not create the sustained decades-long warming we have seen. It will warm very slightly, then cool very slightly.

This study says the exact opposite of what you and daily tech are saying -- it's saying the sun is not responsible for global warming. Only the Church of Global Warming Denialism could turn a disproof of their crackpot theory into a proof.