Sounds not unlike 9/11, or the "War on Terror". Each equally scary, apparently inconclusive, yet polarized as if the notions behind them are rock solid hardcore facts that you can hold in your hand. I just started a thread for pro-GW's to present their irrefutable proof, spin-free, once and for all, assuming such self-evidence exists.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

I didnt read your link. But this is the quote your hinging on, so ill say it.

If this was a natural phenomenon, like you seem to believe, why wasnt there a declaciation 400-600 years ago?

Because this quote is saying that the Carbon Dioxide is coming from a Deglaciation 400-600 years ago.

Ive studied hundreds of texts from the 1500's to 1800's and noone seemed to mention an ice age.

if this is true, then where is the CO2 coming from? The deglaciation that didnt seem to happen? or did and noone noticed, or mentioned.

Or is it coming from us?

The context I was using was that Al Gore claimed that the CO2 was driving the temperature over the past 650,000 years, which it wasn't.

I'll now add that he did it leading into that hockey stick graph of CO2 prediction and the scissor-lift stunt which I've never seen the data for.

Good thought about "the little ice age".

There are numerous problems with global warming and it's total blame on the modern industrial age of mankind.

The Earth has been covered in ice and ice receded, then covered, then receded..you get the point. Problem is, no humans influenced the process before on the up swing of temperature or the down swing in temperature. Why are we doing it now? Before every tree hugger goes apesh*t and calls me a liar, please read on, there was no financial gain to be made in "going green".

All, and I mean every dam* bit of this global warming propaganda is driven by money. Money will drive the price of oil through the roof as oil production starts to reduce. Any one who holds out for the thought of another energy source to replace this source of energy also thinks of Harry Potter as a serious work of science and the movies as documentaries.

There are some very limited forms of energy that can replace only a small part of the oil driven economy. This is a sad fact, but it is a fact that can not be changed, altered, or reduced.

The young kids today want to do the right thing. Changing your light bulbs to more expensive florescent bulbs will not cut the pollution or energy one bit in China or India. "But it helps out our energy demands in our country!!!", wrong, it takes more to produce these bulbs and they have toxic mercury inside them. Are these bulbs even made in your country or are they shipped to you. What you save doesn't offset the production and disposal problems.

This was just one example of "energy savings" you can do.

There was a very popular theory in the 1970's about the coming ice age. We were to be in the midst of it by now. Many books were written about this and several universities did millions of dollars of work with federal grants in studying this. Scientists, government officials, and industry leaders of all areas of studies, government, and economy gave national lectures, talks on radio and TV, (sounds real close to something else doesn't it) about this coming crisis. Guess what... It didn't happen.

Hmmm, ive heard of the 'little ice age'

But if it is a little ice age we are getting the emissions from, why does a smaller ice age result in a higher emission?

Also, ive been checking a couple of my books and translations from the time. I dont have any mentions of anything of the sort.

Ill keep looking though, if im still in the mood i might be able to get my hands on some books from uni (actually from the time period too, so i may not get the permission)