The problem currently is that every claim made about "Global Warming" can generally be disagreed with by a published and peer reviewed paper; this is why I initially said "I don't know whether there is any significant long term warming occuring on the earth and even if there is to what extent it is effected by man's actions."

Much like the videogame sales that this site tracks our global temperature data is an approximation based on a small set of data; this data is then put through a wide assortment of statistical manipulation in order to come with an estimate of the average temperature of the surface of the earth. The problem we have is that the confidence interval around the average temperature supports the claims that the "world is warming" and the "world is cooling" because of how small the change in temperature really is.

Anyways ... My initial point was not to bring various arguments about the science of global warming and I was mainly focusing on the motivations behind the "Global Warming Crysis". No one can deny that the entire debate is heavily political and the motivation for people to choose either side is primarily based on issues unrelated to global warming.

Oh, I see. You're just saying you're loyal to Bush. I don't like politization of scientific issues, be it the democrats or the republicans. In Europe there's no political devide in scientific issues.

 Well that's funny because most of the skeptisism is coming from Europe.

Here is an article about one of France's most celebrated scientists:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Plus check out a british film on it called: The Great Global Warming Swindel.

To be honest I never really believed in man made warming. It was basically a political tool to push in the era of Nuclear power, and now it's a tool against capatilism. Secondly people we have to remember where there is currently 80 degree weather there was once glaciers. And where there is now glaciers there used to be palm trees. My point is this planet had the ability to change tempetures drastically all on its own. Why are we all the sudden assuming that doesn't happen and its man that's changing everything. Haven't we learned man can't really do anything? Secondly Mars is warming too, we had a 30 year cooling period that doesnt' seem to jive with co2 data, satatlite tempeturre records to mesh with man warming theories either. Plus we keep finding out carbon emissions are coming from different sources. 

more importantly you can't stop the man made emissions, even if you stop driving and shut down every plant. People like the man-made answer, they like to knock giant corporations. But the number one way to stop global warming as point out by environmentatlists is to stop having kids. That's right, you just living is creating emissions. So let's tommorrow, shut down all airports, all factories, shut down gas stations stop driving, and tell everyone not to have kids. and I still think it wouldn't impact man mad emissions enough to change things(if it were man-made emission causing the problem). So what's the point of arguing?

You do realize that I'm not an American, right?

Generally speaking, when the media as a whole takes a side on an issue I research the opposing view point. In both the coverage of "Global Warming" as well as the case to go to war in Iraq the media (as a whole) has focused more on ensuring that the general public is terrified than on ensuring the public is well informed. Regardless of the issue it seems that the media hides conflicting information and presents the issue in the most extreme way to make you afraid to not watch the news.

Fact 1: Greenhouse gasses do increase the ammount of heat from the sun the earth retains. We don't know precisely how much an increase in their levels will increase temperatures, but we do know it will have some effect.

Fact 2: Human activity has increased the ammount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Energy production, and modern farming techniques have been pumping ever increasing ammounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere.

Fact 3: We don't know precisely what affect these emmissions are having, but almost all scientist believe they will lead to increasing global temeratures, and these temperature rises have been observed.

Fact 4: Until the last few years, heavily polluting industries have tried to cover up any evidence of global warming.

Fact 5: Extremist environmentalists hope to use global warming as a way a dramatically altering the shape of society, in ways that go far beyond the need to contain global warming.

Fact 6: Until recently, conservative Evangelicals in America insisted global warming need not be addressed, as God wouldn't allow somthing so serious to happen. It was also common for American conservatives to try to insist all scientists calling for action on global warming were European Communists trying to hold America back.

Fact 7: Tony Blair, described global warming as 'the most serious threat humanity now faces'. He's not a radical communist trying to hold America back.

Fact 8: I'm bored of typing these out.

Fact 9: America pollutes more per capita than any other nation on earth. It's going to have a hard time convincing developing nations whose per capita pollution rates are half their's that they need to cut back too.

 Fact 1: water vapor is the biggest contributer to global warming. And is the earth's most significant green house gas.

fact 2: man has little to no effect on water vapor. In fact it's been estimated that mans contribution to greenhouse gas is .26% so we've been ignoring the other 99.74%

fact 3:  almost all scientists don't agree on anything. When the UN came out with their list of scientists, many many many of them have protested their name being on the list, and many others we later found to be not actual scientists.( this is backed on in the film I've mentioned eariler and in many other news reports)

fact 4: decades ago the coal industry was striking the oil industry had embargos, and nuclear power while feared was considered the only viable option. Global warming became a politically endorsed agenda to back the nuclear power industry.

fact 5: extermist enviromentalists have called humans a plague, and think we should stop having children.

fact 6: Environmentlists and supportors of global warming have accused any scientists that have been skeptical of global warming of getting money from the oil industry. many of the reputable scientists have been outraged by this false accusation. So name calling occurs on both sides of this debate. However it's only been the supporters of global warming who have gone so far as to publicly demand people lose there job for being skeptical. the head of the weather channel said weathermen who don't believe in man made global warming should be fired.

fact 7: Tony Blair is a politician, telling people what they want to hear.

Fact 8: I'm bored now too. However I think we both demonstrated that you can go on forever in this debate. But I'll make a prediction. 10-20 years from now we won't be talking about global warming(maybe sooner). Most of my own skeptisism comes from how politically charged the issue has been, and secondly I never believe scientists about anything. They are always changing their mind saying how they got it wrong. I am an avid science reader, and almost every article is a correction of past theories. most of what we were taught in school has now been changed, it's almost insane how ignorant we are as a scientific society, that it kills me to see the snobery that infests the scientific world.

1. You need to back up the first statement with a source. The increase of water vapour has lead to a forcing of 0.06 W according to Hansen: http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg Though not increased much, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas.

2. Where did you get those numbers?

3. What are you implying? That scientists don't know anything for sure?

 Yes I'm implying they don't know anything for sure. My biggest beef with science is that it lacks logic. I don't mean I've found it illogical. I mean they purposely avoid the use of logic, because human logic in their reasoning is limited to our own reasoning and therefore flaud. Now this is quite possibly true and quite possibly has been proven true on many levels. I say possibly only because using my own logic I've often ended up believing things that science took years to come around to learning. Not because I"m smart but because I've used the logic that scientists refuse to use.

If you read the real climate article you posted again it's that kind of arrogence that bothers me. they always have to start off with this, " 

The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned."

Now just to be clear on this, I'm not questioning man's increase in co2, just man's comprehension of co2 emissions. this statement would have you believe we know everything about co2 emissions. But then you read

things like this: 

and even regarding measurements of co2 emissions, they make it sound like they have a million perfect ways of sorting the data then your read articles like this:

it's always changing.

here is another thing I've read, people talk about mercury levels in fish increasing and yet you read thing like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205053316.htm

I'm always left scratching my head about what to believe. 

Other examples of science being wrong: Hubbles constant. 

purpose of the glial cell not relating to brain function.

 http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11375.html

Junk DNA not being junk.

How about E=mc2?

I've read alot of articles in astronomy magazines about alot of scientists not believing the currently popular rendition of the big bang theory, although it's a hard statement to make being that there is so many versions. Scientists now are telling us there are inifinite parrallel universes as well which is hard to believe, and I'm sure along with how many dimensions there are? String theory and all that it will change through time. Haeckel's embryo pictures were wrong in Origin of the speices too. There are many other examples but thats all I'll say for now.(I'm putting them down as they pop in my head. I looked up the articles after the fact, I don't want you to think I'm looking for more examples. these are examples that I've read when they came out at the time, in magazines, that always leave me scratching about what we actually know.

About my numbers. I'll look for them, although I'll note that I never see the same figures twice. Wikipedia under water vapor calculates it's percentage of green house gas as a regionaly fluctuating number between 36-90% what kind of figure is that? I don't know where they get their info from but the point shows a great deal about our ability to measure things accuratly. If this range of percentages are floating around how accurate are measurements? They simply cherry pick the figures that support their argument. and they do it on both sides to the point where none of us know the truth. Honestly without getting into a whole thing if you want my opinion watch the movie I mentioned in my first post, and read Michael Crihton's State of Fear, I'm not saying either source of information is perfect, they just tie in to a lot of things I believe. again I'm a logic guy, logic appeals to me more then scientific data. and the thirty years cooling period doesn't logicaly mesh with the man made warming theory. There are other theories that are brought out in that film that seem to explain things better and take more into account. 

Honestly though I really don't care, if it's man made, then it's man made, my even larger point is, so what? There is literaly no way of changing man made emmissions. I honestly believe people like global warming because it's another way of bashing big evil corporations. When the real answer is to shut down all the use of power in the entire world and stop having children.

And btw I am American, and no I'm not a supporter of bush, I hate all politicians equal, I'd rather die then vote for anyone republican or democrat. so I don't want to be accused of supporting some agenda. And btw thanks for the educated answers, I hope I don't come off argumenatative, a little food for thought is not a bad thing and I'd never want anyone to think I get angry or worked up over this, it's nice to have a conversation. thanks!

Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, someone who's been doing climate research for over 30 years (and thus is old enough to remember the "global cooling" alarmists of the 1970s).

Go here: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/main-conclusions/

You do realize that nothing you just posted has anything to do with whether humans are causing global warming or not, don't you?