[Coach_Owens87]

1. Coach in that data a see warming starting almost immediately. Sure there are years where it dips back down. However, you are aware we were in a mini Ice Age that we recently came out of. At those points in time there is no way that man could have had a global effect on the weather. Yet we were slowly warming, because we were coming out of a mini Ice Age. Also hasn't it already been shown that the data is not accurate anyways?

Like I said before in other threads coach. You liberal types always choose the worst way to go about your arguments to get at your agenda. I agree we should cut back on our pollutants, and CO2 usage. Not for fear of global warming, but for health reasons. That is why we should do it. Most people are not going to buy into some hogwash theory about man-made global warming. There has been a great attempt to fool people into believing in man made GW. However when there are just as many if not more scientists who say its untrue. You are not going to get very far with that argument.

I dont have a PHD in anything, and I wager with a few months time using just data off the internet I could make a convincing case for either side. Its all on where the money comes from. man-made GW people have decades worth of funding and pay to receive if they get people to buy into man made global warming. Whereas those who debunk it, basically its a one time deal. They have nothing to gain from saying its man made or not. They get paid and funded before the research and final data is presented. So who funds them is not important to me.

1. The mini ice age you speak of ended in 1850, (the date is started isn't very clear) and it's not really clear what caused it, or just how dramatic the temperature changes where. This wasn't a major climate change, and the theory that the earth is still recovering from this, and global warming is natural, is not a very good argument. The rises in temperature began with the industrial revolution( The rises are faster than can be naturally explained), which began in the 18th century, we may not have been driving around hummers, but we where still releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so nice try, but you're outlook on climate change is not quite correct.

There is documented evidence that that a rise in CO2, and other greenhouse gases (released from things besides vehicles) correlates with temperature increases, some of this may be a natural cycle, but we are aiding in this. The data as a whole isnt inaccurate, Old school used an example of a very small difference between two years of data, and you think all of their info is bad? Other sources say the same thing, just research it.

2. Telling people things are bad for their health doesn't work either, a lot of people know that coal mining is damaging streams, and water quality here, but no one cares, so trying to get people to listen for their health doesn't work either. If this where the case, no one would smoke. Also this isnt a hogwash theory just because you're conservative heroes believe it is (They have a lot invested in coal, oil, etc.), nothing is really ever proven 100% in science, we go by what best suits the situation, and at the moment, AGW best suits this trend. The majority of scientist agree that global warming is partly due to man, so no matter how many times fox tells you that the scientific field doesn't agree, they do.