Hi alex_J. Welcome to the discussion. I like your first link very much. When trying to combat the other side of the story, they make some serious flaws though. For example, trying to disprove "Most of the warming has occurred before 1940", they say, "With a record 2005 temperature anomaly, this is no longer correct." It must be noted that a single year does not a trend make. Your second link on this topic goes further to cherry pick 1992 to say that the temperature had increased steadily through the 1990's. That is normal after the large volcanic eruption. It would be much more interesting to compare the 1980's to the last couple of years.

Bye the way, climate is weather.

It says, "Re: Mars - Even if there were a global warming trend on Mars resulting from a rise in solar output, there are no oceans and the atmosphere is much thinner there, so temperatures are more responsive to even small changes in solar energy." Large subterrainian glaciers affect mars. They are huge heat sinks just like our oceans and glaciers.

If there is no "significant rise in solar energy," then why do inuit in northern Canada now have to wear sunscreen? They can now feel the heat of the sun in December where they never used to be able to.

Human activity causes .028% of the "Greenhouse Effect"

I liked the link they had in their glaciers section to the NASA page that compares 1996 to 2006 data for Greenland melt. This is another example of cherry picking though. They would have to compare 1991 instead to get meaningful data. This has already been addressed in this thread.

Your link says, "Although consensus isn't required by any science..." Yes it is. If it is not required then it is not science.

Your second link goes further and gives silly answers. For example, then tackling the "It was even warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum without any human influence." question, they give this: "Actually, it turns out that though there may have indeed been some temperatures in the same range as today, this was regional to the northern hemisphere and confined to the summer months." This is wrong. The data is taken from the vostok ice core that was extracted from Antarctica. AS well, the several I checked are even refuted in the comments section.

Your links also saddened me since they were not able to address my questions like why have we had a fairly stable temperature for the past 10,000 years.

I understand that you may not want to read the entire thread, but how about page 5 and 6 at a minimum to see where the discussion is going.

And thank you for letting me know about the 650,000 years for the Vostok ice core data. The http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10004065.shtml page has a graph of the new data.

John M Reynolds