It looks like it's going up to me:


Global mean surface temperature anomaly 1850 to 2007 relative to 1961–1990

No one has disputed that. The only things in dispute are the cause(s) and what, if anything, man should or could do about it.

Temperatures go up and down.  It's the BS theory that SUV's are the cause.

 

If you read the wikipedia entry on global warming, you will find a lot of people take issue with the validity of the graph because of the source of the global readings. I.e. which stations are actually counted as part of the global average.

As the article I linked to in the original article, the temperature has been going up since 1975. However, since 1998, it's been largely flat.

Here is a larger view of that graph so that a little perspective can be gained:

That may be true, since you have the urban heat island effect. But since the vast majority of scientists claim that man made pollution is a causing global climate change, the sensible thing is to err on the side of caution, as the saying goes.

By promoting the development of new energy sources, new industries will arise. That's beginning to happen here in Colorado. Conoco is building a new facility that will be it's center for alternative fuel R&D. Some smaller companies are working on Fuel Cell development. Wind power is being used to add to the electric power grid.

New technologies will eventually lessen our dependency on foreign oil, which will also get rid of our rationale for sticking our nose into Middle Eastern affairs, which will lessen hatred towards the U.S., which will reduce the threat of terrorism.

What would be worse? Attempting to fix a system that was not broken? Or not fixing a system that is, but is still functioning?

That is where we are at. And the arguement of the "vast majority" is a red herring. As the "vast majority" of scientists in the 15th century KNEW the world was flat.

If we fix something that is not broken, we run the very real risk of making it worse and really breaking it. The false premise is that Man is doing it. If we are not, and we actually do something that will affect the climate, we run the risk of making it worse.

It is the junk science that we are yelling about. The Junk science that wanted to cover mountains with aluminum foil to reflect the heat of the sun. Junk science that told us we were headed for an ice age in 1975. Junk science that says a flea can make a dog do its bidding.

Thank god that there are those who are not lemmings headed for the cliff, and stop and ask real questions (that are quickly drowned out with cries of Heretic and Denier - kind of like the salem WItch trial of 350 years ago).

I have no problem, and indeed encourage clearning up the planet. I have a big problem with erradicating the last 100+ years of progress because some clowns are crying wolf.

That is simply not true.


Define "caution."


What will promote development of new energy sources (and new energy industries) is the cost of old energy sources. When new energy sources are more economical than old energy sources, they'll be adopted. Subsidizing them isn't the way to go - they'll need to compete on their own for them to be sustainable. Our most efficient and inexpensive source of energy is nuclear power, but just try building a new nuclear power plant somewhere. I'm afraid wind power generation, while having an inexhaustible source of "fuel," is a literal piss in the ocean and will never make a significant contribution to the power grid.

And what if "caution" requires us to fundamentally change the way we live to being a lot poorer than we are today? Is that sensible?

I'm just saying be careful exactly what you invest all your belief in. Being skeptical is one thing, declaring an entire theory to be wrong from just one year is well...not a great way of doing science.

~Zoo

Skepticism is the hallmark of science, zoo. The theory (man is the cause of global warming & it's correlary, man can remediate global warming) itself is a crappy way of doing science. It's not even a theory, only a hypothesis - there is no way to test it. Advocates of man-made global warming use fear as one of their principal arguments in its favor, implicitly or otherwise. What does fear have to do with science?

Very true, but one must also have some capacity for an open mind. Consideration is key. Believing something without questioning is just as bad as casting off something without consideration.




Nothing...though it makes for a good movie.

~Zoo

That's about as accurate as the Global Warming myth itself. 

Got any evidence to prove your point?

It only gets traction because the scientists who do not believe in the hypothesis are ridiculed, threatened, and muzzled. Very Big Botherish. WHat they cannot legislate, they try to take through political correctness.

I was reading this article on the same subject coicidently this morning.

http://jonesview.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/the-religion-of-global-warming/