Hi there - just stumbled upon this website looking for some answers to questions that I have. And I have to say, I'm absolutely shocked that a so called moderator would act in this fashion.

DA Morgan - RicS raises some good questions, which you summarily dismiss because he didn't cite sources, in his extraordinary post. This isn't a Masters thesis, and you could google any the questions that he raises, and you'd find a multitude of sources.

But just to make it a little easier for you. Here's two sources on how the Vostok ice cores shows conclusively that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by 600-800 years for each of the past 3 deglaciations. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728

This was determined from the exact same information that current climate change theory is based from. Temperature and CO2 concentrations did show an excellent correlation. Times with higher temperatures had higher CO2 concentrations. Too bad people didn?t look into which variable rose first

Because like any good scientific mind knows, correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. And when the rise in variable A lags the rise in variable B, it's pretty obvious that variable A did NOT cause the rise in variable B. I bet I could find a pretty strong correlation between the occurrence of wet sidewalks and days with rainfall ? perhaps wet sidewalks cause it to rain???? Perhaps in the world of global warming ?science?.

I would just like to know how global warming supporters can defend against this seemingly fatal flaw in global warming science.