[Coach_Owens87]

LP...exactly which post are you referring to, because in my post I said that CO2 levels have increased over the past 18,000 years.

As for the "old" comment, would you care to elaborate?

As for the isn't real comment, if your referring to climate change, then show me where I've said it wasn't. Apparently we both believe in climate change but have different opinions on how we got there, if I understand you correctly, you think the Earth's warming is due to man-made emissions. I would guess that you tend to listen to researchers who often rely on computer models for their predictions, you and I both know these models are only as good as their data and programming, and these models are notorious for being imperfect. Heck we can't even predict what the weather is going to be next week let alone what the temperatures are going to be 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. I on the other hand base my opinion on past history. Where as the Earth has gone through hundreds or thousands of warming and cooling cycles, and I believe this is just another cycle, and these warming and cooling cycles began before man ever set foot on this planet.

I've ask this question to several people over the past 8 years, maybe you can answer it. From 1979 to 1998 the Earth went through a slight warming period and from 1999 to present the Earth has stayed about the same temerature and since you blame this on man-made emissions, explain to me what caused the warming and cooling cycles prior to the industrial era.

As for the peer reviews are concerned, if this were a perfect world, then maybe just maybe I would agree with you on peer reviews, but as we all know it's not a perfect world. I have read a few reports that allege bias by reviewers and also states some reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views and are lenient toward those that agree with them. There have been instances of outright scientific fraud and scientific misconduct that have gone through review and were only detected after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results. Are these isolated instances or are they common practice? Personally I don't know but it does cause me to cautious of their conclusions.

There is evidence that points toward greenhouses gases as the culprit as past global climate change events. Scientist aren't for sure what caused the change in greenhouses gases.

the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum which occurred 55.8 million years ago was the most rapid warming event of the Cenozoic era. Temperatures rose over 6 degrees Celsius over a period of 20,000 years (compare that to the warming trend we are having now). During this time the CO2 in the atmosphere ROSE (it's happening now, at a much quicker pace). The are numerous possibilities as to how this happened, most of which have been discredited like a comet impact or the burning of peat. Underseas volcanoes releasing methane is a strong candidate as to what could have been a culprit of the increase in greenhouses gases. This warming period helped mammalian life develop on earth.

That warming period was over 20,000 years and completely changed life on earth, imagine what will happen if we don't stop what we are doing?

I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding global warming, it's not difficult to understand. We know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise, we are putting CO2 in the air at a much faster rate than any time in history, and we are taking out the forest which cleanse the air of C02. More CO2, warmer temperatures, it's that simple.