Where exactly does it state humans are a contributing factor in this article? The part you quoted doesn't. The rest of the article doesn't. Am I
I am not denying global warming is happening. I am just a bit skeptical that it is the fault of Homo sapiens. Right now, Al Gore's movie "An
Inconvenient Truth" is becoming the "official truth" about global warming. Is it? Remember, there is more then one side to each story.
Must-See Global Warming TV
I am not too fond of Fox, but I thought this article had a good summary of the other side of the argument. It is stated that higher carbon dioxide
levels directly results in higher global temperatures. However, geological records, as well as data from ice core samples, indicate that the warming
trends precede higher carbon dioxide levels by 800 years.
Is the problem was purely greenhouse gases, then the lower atmosphere temperatures should be rising faster then Earth surface temperatures. The
problem is the opposite is happening.
Now, when you look at historical warming and cooling periods, the sun's activity happens to have a direct correlation. Is it coincidence that the
other planets in our solar system are rising in temperature at the same time as Earth?
Science Fro Sale: The Global Warming Scam
Here is another article I felt touched upon the other issue regarding global warming. First, it started with The Times misprinting a warming increase
in Alaska. This was refused by Prof. Wendler, who worked at the Alaska Climate Research Center, and The Times refused to publish a retraction. Those
numbers were the basis for a lot of future work... and they were wrong. Panic in congress, new legislation, you get my drift.
Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT) believe there is no link between carbon dioxide and temperature increases. He testified
before a Senate committee that there was no direct link. He was the one that indicated that the troposphere portion of our atmosphere should be
increasing at a faster rate then the ground. That is what CO2 does, right? That is what all the claims are about.
The satellite data has proven it all wrong. Computer models used to simulate the effect of CO2 on the Earth can't even reproduce historical data, and
Lindzen was questioning why they were even being used.
The bottom line is there is more then one side to this controversy. There is money to be made by scientists who agree with the global warming theory.
Those who don't can loose their jobs, their livelihood, etc. (Remember Happer?)