Gazing at the graphic in

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060626084521data_trunc_sys.shtml

I can't help but wonder how the primates got that big in the first place.

Did these early primates drive gas guzzlers and burn fossil fuels? Must have, if there was global warming at that time, because as all us true believers know, those are the only possible causes for global warming.

It amazes me that you assume climatologists and other atmospheric scientists ignore natural changes in climate when hypothesizing and modeling our current warming trend.

it depends on where they get their money as to whether or not they ignore it. if they see their money coming from people scared that the big business are destroying the world, then they will hype it up. If they see the money coming from oil companies, they will see that cars and factories have nothing to do with global warming. the reality is somewhere in between. unfortunately, that view does not pay well.

Why are you amazed ... "Hillbilly" ... another case of self-proclaimed willfull and wanton ignorance.

I'm old enough to remember the 70's, back then we were being told that the great danger was global cooling. You couldn't pick up a serious or popular science magazine without an article proclaiming the coming ice age, often with a scary picture showing a glacier covering New York. And it was all a certain scientific fact and anyone who questioned it, was an idiot and probably a child molester, as well. Now the same magazines are beating the drums for global warming.
Now it's global warming, wait another thirty years and it will be back to global cooling. It's like in 1984, "The Ooceanians are our enemies, they have always been our enemies! The Eurasians are are our friends, they have always been our friends!".

And the more things change the more they remain the same. Which is it, global warming or global cooling? If the added carbon dioxide doesn't kill off the plankton in the ocean the world will probably right itself with merely a hiccup in either direction. If not, you have your choice of bikinis or furs.

The solar constant is slightly increased for there being "the most intense sunspot activity in 1000 years,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/solarminimum/ssn_yearly_strip.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06mar_solarminimum.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0203_050205_sunspots.html

Probes at Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn also detect borderline local temp increases - and there aren't any cars out there. Warming is from solar activity that eased off around 2004. We are now in a very deep absence of sunspots. About 3 years down the line there will be hysterical screams of "Global Cooling." If everybody paints their left armpit orange to stop Global Warming, the temps will go down. Lavender also works.

thanks for the links al. that explain a few things i was a bit in the dark about. i knew of the link between them, but did not understand why we are getting hotter during a minimum part of the cycle.

Please, dehammer. Show me the researchers who ignore historic warming and cooling trends.

just look at any one that claims that the only cause is polution and big buisness. ask da. he gave several links to studies that showed that all the global warming was done by polution. i remember one that talk about how iceland's ice sheet was disappearing very quickly because of all the ice melting on the outer sides, and the center getting thicker and the glacers moving faster. it stated in its opening statement that this was caused by polution and the study was done to prove it. I did not save the link since it was da's. if you look though da's post in global warming threads, youll find links to sites that claim its all been done by polution.

I didn't see it, and I don't have the time to look at every post DA made on the topic.

I'm talking about assorted atmospheric scientists who make such claims. I don't care who stands on a street corner on a soap box making claims.

I am not aware of any scientist who works in an applicable field who ignores natural climate variations when studying current warming trends.

sorry, i dont have the links. maybe da can provide them again. Every time i came up with a study that suggested that polution was not fully the cause he came down real hard on that. he provided many links then. maybe he can do it again.

dehammer wrote:
"just look at any one that claims that the only cause is polution and big buisness."

Provide a reference. This is a complete fabrication.

"ask da. he gave several links to studies that showed that all the global warming was done by polution."

Provide a reference. This is a complete fabrication.

Don't they teach people in Texas that lying is a sin?

Obviously what was left out of your train was exactly what lies are. All anyone has to do is look up any of the threads about global warming that you started to find out that you were claiming it was all being done by cars and such. Do you really believe you have any credablity left?

What you wrote is a complete fabrication. If you disagree provide a reference. Otherwise YOYO!

read your own post. yoyo.

Please, dehammer. Show me the researchers who ignore historic warming and cooling trends. [/QUOTE]


here you go. took a while to find this.

Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, in an email interview:

i see nothing in there about natural warming trends or cooling trends, only about polution causing global warming and diseases.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html

heres another guy from the same place.

Kurt M. Cuffey, professor of geography at the University of California in Berkeley, in an editorial for The San Francisco Chronicle in 2005.

again they claim only man has cause the global warming.

how about this one.
this is one. albet this one you did claim only that we were the primary. now you claim you did not.


there there was this one:
this one was purely claiming it was polution that was the problem.

Dehammer you never fail to amaze me. I asked you to:
"Show me the researchers who ignore historic warming and cooling trends."

And you posted:
"The most coherent explanation is that climate is changing because of burning of fossil fuels and felling forests."

Following which you wrote:
"again they claim only man has cause the global warming."

Nothing you posted supports your contention. Nothing!

im afraid that if there was some logic to that post i cant in the least bit fathom it.

i was asked to show that there are people that dont believe in the warming and cooling cycles in nature and i did. then you somehow found a reason for jumping on me for proving that there are people that say so.

warming and cooling trends are not just since man has started "burning of fossil fuels and felling forests". they are trends that are connected to things like solar flares, shifting of the earth, etc. therefore there was absolutely nothing wrong with my posting those and making that comment. there was a major loss of thought in yours.

You didn't show that these people don't believe there are natural warming and cooling trends. You were asked to show the research that ignores natural warming a cooling trends.

You're taking exerpts of interviews. You are not looking at research papers or even press releases announcing the findings of a research project.

read the quotes again. they say its man doing it, not nature. If you want the actual research, look them up.

Reading the quotes again won't change the fact that natural changes in climate ARE considered when studying present climate change.

The interviewees are convinced that human activity is responsible for much of the climate change we are seeing today. That's the only thing you can derive from their statements.