Dehammer, your last post is insulting. I have given plenty of links to scientific sites and even sites that are pro the global warming stance. Perhaps the problem is I did not link to that bastion of higher knowledge, the BBC, like DA does. Instead, I asked 3 questions.
The first is simple common knowledge. What used to be called global warming is now called climate change. I wanted to know why.
The second was about satellite records not showing a significant increase in temperature since 1984. I did not provide many links to that one, I admit. Here,
http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm , is an old one from 1997. It claims that the water cycle had affected the amount of water vapour that is "a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide." That means clouds were not a part of their computer models back in 1997. That page has not been updated, but it links to another page,
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html , for its data. That second page has been updated to even include some data from this year. It basically shows the average temperature rising since 1997. That leads to another question. If clouds kept the earth cool until 1997, why suddenly is the water cycle not a factor? Dehammer, do you still have the link to the temperature data from, I think, the US weather service that indicates lower than predicted temperatures from the year 2000?
My last question about the past 10,000 years being consistantly warm has many links in this thread which I provided. Its links are to a variety of sources including the pro global warming side. No one seems to be able to explain it.
All I get in reply is Eduardo's loaded question that assigns belief in global warming to 95% of climate scientists and claims the 95% all believe that climate change is human induced. That is pretty profound. I could not find a source, so I asked for his. At least his question is on topic.
This must mean no one has the answers, so I have to look elsewhere.
John M Reynolds
