Global Warming Has Ended

Originally posted by Majic
What makes this different is that in this case neutrality is lumped in with denial and subjected to the sort of demonizing reserved in the past for witches and heretics.

I have held the neutrality position for as long as anyone. I have not experienced this special persecution. I think you're being somewhat overly dramatic here.

If anything, the fence sitters are not derided for their neutrality, but rather mistakenly placed in one camp or the other by the opposing view.

I see no special distinction between this issue and other issues found on this board.

Originally posted by Majic
My hypothesis is that the data and debate surrounding Global Warming may be subject to manipulation and deceit to serve special financial interests.

Ok, then, let’s stick to the data.

How was Regenmacher’s chart showing the mean temperatures likely subject to manipulation?

Originally posted by Majic
As far as I know, Global Warming is the first scientific theory ever presented that requires skeptics to prove it wrong in order for it to not be considered fact by default.

Unless I’m reading you wrong, I think you’ve rewritten some history of your own.

Maybe you should explain this point further.


[edit on 5-2-2007 by loam]

can i ask a question, since this thread has become another bickering arguement between a couple of intellectually enept people... why not work together to agree to dissagree... many who left comments where correct in many ways...

1. global warming has slowed down a bit... *my theory, earth adjustment* look at the facts, some places got hotter by more than 2 degrees, some places experienced wheather changes.

2. the last 100 years has experienced a huge rise in heat globally... so many are right

3. is there a way to reverse this situation thats realistic?

the point being that we where at point A degree's F... now where at point B degree's F...

so my question is... do we go back to point A or do we learn to dealand learn from point B to avoid point C

Originally posted by Regenmacher
But the experiment is inadequate and too simplistic since it failed to introduce other variables that effect the outcome. I don't buy into the Venusian cookoff kookiness either and neither does the WMO, NOAA, NWS or NASA.

an experiment is not supposed to be complicated and is usually designed to prove a prediction. complexity is an inevitable trait of many simulations, while an experiment should be clear and most importantly, unambiguous.

if 90% are absorbed by, say 15.000ft instead of 20.000, are we supposed to believe it's going to make a world of a difference? so much that we're doomed if we can't stop it? climate is variable, always has been, supposed that we are actually causing GW, where is the big difference compared to natural changes in the past?

I looked into it more and the Max Planck Institute wrote up a clarification. It's seems they have been misrepresented:

Global warming - the blame is not with the plants Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

that's not a dementi, it just says that plants are not the culprit and i agree, still the methane is being produced and was not factored into the models until this discovery. which means they were (their estimate) 20% off for methane, which means they had to produce wrong results OR other factors are dominating.

Not really, since there's a mutitude of factors that can influence regional temperatures besides greenhouse gases.

As for CO2 being the wicked witch of the West, we are stuck with her until we develop a better theory.

a multitude of factors, that's nice to hear. so how about we cut down on tangible pullutants such as NOx and particles like we've been doing for ages? healthy plant life is the best insurance against pretty much anything, so why not cut back on water contamination, destructive fishing practices and shore devastation? not to mention deforestation, which is still going on, now enhanced by biofuel initiatives, based on sugar cane like in Brazil for example - which is of course encouraged to combat global warming!


these efforts are supposedly saving the environment, aren't they? one fashion trend and people start burning food crops, grown on former rainforest... can you see why i am slightly upset about GW fear mongering? the 'cure' is worse than the disease sometimes.

Loam (or anyone interested in responding to it for that matter),

Im seriously interested in hearing your opinion on this from page 9 of this thread.

While there is data out there to backup what I have claimed there, I found it counter-productive to add to the length of the thread simply to call it a measured response here.

However, if need be i'm sure I could do so.


AB1

It's a shame that no one understands that CO2 is not a green house gas, it is a combustion byproduct. The arguement of man made global warming caused by CO2 emissions has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with detering the American economy toward its historic trend of maximum growth in both industry and society.

This is a vast left wing conspiracy plot that was bought and sold by the Russians and Chinese.

Who cares if a few hippies live in the forest eating tree bark and desalting their urine and do not have to use "fossil fuels" man. Those sobs aint gonna keep the reds or euros out of america. Lincoln knew it best, the magic "keep the union intact" fairy was not going to keep the union intact.

Itd be a shame if some of you began to think.

www.youtube.com... - The Amazon is drying up

www.youtube.com... - Tibet is turning into a desert


In the past 100 years the average temperatures have risen with 1 degree. The consequences we can already see. Here is what can happen if we add more degrees to those average temperatures

+2.4°: Coral reefs almost extinct

In North America, a new dust-bowl brings deserts to life in the high plains states, centred on Nebraska, but also wipes out agriculture and

cattle ranching as sand dunes appear across five US states, from Texas in the south to Montana in the north.

Rising sea levels accelerate as the Greenland ice sheet tips into irreversible melt, submerging atoll nations and low-lying deltas. In Peru, disappearing Andean glaciers mean 10 million people face water shortages. Warming seas wipe out the Great Barrier Reef and make coral reefs virtually extinct throughout the tropics. Worldwide, a third of all species on the planet face extinction

+3.4°: Rainforest turns to desert

The Amazonian rainforest burns in a firestorm of catastrophic ferocity, covering South America with ash and smoke. Once the smoke clears, the interior of Brazil has become desert, and huge amounts of extra carbon have entered the atmosphere, further boosting global warming. The entire Arctic ice-cap disappears in the summer months, leaving the North Pole ice-free for the first time in 3 million years. Polar bears, walruses and ringed seals all go extinct. Water supplies run short in California as the Sierra Nevada snowpack melts away. Tens of millions are displaced as the Kalahari desert expands across southern Africa

+4.4°: Melting ice caps displace millions

Rapidly-rising temperatures in the Arctic put Siberian permafrost in the melt zone, releasing vast quantities of methane and CO2. Global temperatures keep on rising rapidly in consequence. Melting ice-caps and sea level rises displace more than 100 million people, particularly in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta and Shanghai. Heatwaves and drought make much of the sub-tropics uninhabitable: large-scale migration even takes place within Europe, where deserts are growing in southern Spain, Italy and Greece. More than half of wild species are wiped out, in the worst mass extinction since the end of the dinosaurs. Agriculture collapses in Australia

+5.4°: Sea levels rise by five metres

The West Antarctic ice sheet breaks up, eventually adding another five metres to global sea levels. If these temperatures are sustained, the entire planet will become ice-free, and sea levels will be 70 metres higher than today. South Asian society collapses due to the disappearance of glaciers in the Himalayas, drying up the Indus river, while in east India and Bangladesh, monsoon floods threaten millions. Super-El Niños spark global weather chaos. Most of humanity begins to seek refuge away from higher temperatures closer to the poles. Tens of millions of refugees force their way into Scandanavia and the British Isles. World food supplies run out

+6.4°: Most of life is exterminated

Warming seas lead to the possible release of methane hydrates trapped in sub-oceanic sediments: methane fireballs tear across the sky, causing further warming. The oceans lose their oxygen and turn stagnant, releasing poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas and destroying the ozone layer. Deserts extend almost to the Arctic. "Hypercanes" (hurricanes of unimaginable ferocity) circumnavigate the globe, causing flash floods which strip the land of soil. Humanity reduced to a few survivors eking out a living in polar refuges. Most of life on Earth has been snuffed out, as temperatures rise higher than for hundreds of millions of years.

news.independent.co.uk...
www.thewe.cc...

[edit on 4-2-2007 by pai mei]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by pai mei]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by pai mei]

the point is that the greenhouse effect is not going to do it, as i have outlined in my recent posts already, the effect levels off with higher concentrations (saturation)

your doomsday scenario is just that, a scenario, some computer models says it could happen, big deal, you have nothing except your belief in computer models, period. we have precedents of ice ages and periods of warmth, where even polar regions were ice free, which variant was more conducive to life, mmh?


PS: just for the record, increasing the stakes in case of disbelief is a well known tactic in gambling and it's an intrinsic ingredient of any religion, it might not be true, but if it is you will spend eternity in hell, so people tend to obey and burn the dissenters at the stake - which is it? gambling or religious fervor?

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Long Lance]

Lies, Damn Lies, And...

Originally posted by loam
Ok, then, let’s stick to the data.

How was Regenmacher’s chart showing the mean temperatures likely subject to manipulation?

It is subject to manipulation if those who compiled it manipulated it.

Is that the case? I don't know.

However, there are many, many accusations flying back and forth between pro-Global-Warming and anti-Global-Warming camps alleging cherry-picking, data cooking and forced outcomes which give me reason to be skeptical of any data used to support or deny Global Warming.

I'm not convinced that either side of the debate can be trusted, thus it would be illogical for me to take any data on faith without a greater degree of confidence in its veracity.

Does that mean I think no one else should? No.

It only means I'm not comfortable doing so -- though I do encourage everyone to be skeptical, since I consider that the best way in general to avoid being manipulated or taken in by deceit.

And God knows, manipulation and deceit are by no means in short supply these days.

A Brief History Of Warming

Originally posted by loam
Unless I’m reading you wrong, I think you’ve rewritten some history of your own.

Maybe you should explain this point further.

Of course.

From its inception, Global Warming theory has posited that the production and accumulation of "greenhouse gases" could cause the average surface temperature of the earth to increase.

Since the theory first emerged, data has been collected which could correlate with the theory or might not.

Ironically, the theory was effectively discarded when global mean temperatures decreased in the beginning of the 20th century and the "scientific consensus" suggested even the possibility of an impending ice age.

Later, in the 1980s when temperatures increased rapidly after the cooling trend ended, Global Warming theory rapidly picked up steam and -- despite the absence of data actually proving greenhouse gases were responsible for the temperature increase -- the press and "environmental movements" picked it up and ran with it.

I remember when it happened. It was quite amazing how quickly the bandwagon filled up. Incredible, in fact.

Dire predictions of an impending ice age were suddenly replaced by dire predictions of rising oceans and worldwide droughts caused by Global Warming. It amazed me how quickly the same prophets were able to change their prophecies so quickly and ring the same alarm bell for a diametrically opposed "threat".

I remember thinking at the time how similar the propaganda change was to the examples given in 1984, where Oceania had "always been at war with Eastasia", for example -- even though they had been allies just days before.

Since that time, the issue has become increasingly political, less scientific (arguments based more on peer pressure than peer review, inconclusive data and logical fallacies) and many governmental and non-governmental organizations have apparently made it their business to "prove" Global Warming.

That, in combination with all the fantastic claims surrounding the birth of the Global Warming agenda in the '80s, has led me to be skeptical, as is my wont.

Living History

The "rewritten history" I referred to can be found in numerous press articles claiming Global Warming as a done deal and accepted by a "scientific consensus" while simultaneously demonizing anyone not agreeing with the "consensus" (having a "consensus" in the presence of widespread skepticism is a neat trick in itself) -- long before anyone could honestly make such claims.

Again, my skepticism was aroused.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find newspaper articles from the '80s online, and I don't have a stack of old newspapers in my attic to clip and scan -- though if someone does or knows where I could find such articles online, I would be extremely grateful.

The way the Global Warming agenda has proceeded since then -- particularly the way the press and certain interested parties have been pushing it -- has only served to reinforce my skepticism.

Does that mean the Global Warming agenda is wrong or false? No, not at all.

I just find it suspicious as hell and therefore consider all claims surrounding Global Warming suspect.

Last I checked, that was legal (though that may change), even if it isn't popular.

But I'd rather be unpopular than lie to myself or anyone else by claiming to believe something I don't.

Well in the Mid-West, Global Warming begins on Feb. 20th when the jet stream oscillates back to a warmer pattern!

All this climate change is overwhelming, back in my day we called it change of seasons!

[edit on 2/4/07 by mel1962]

Originally posted by Majic
Lies, Damn Lies, And...

Originally posted by loam
Ok, then, let’s stick to the data.

How was Regenmacher’s chart showing the mean temperatures likely subject to manipulation?

It is subject to manipulation if those who compiled it manipulated it.

Is that the case? I don't know.

Rather arrogant and closed minded to claim that the results of scientific research are manipulated to the point where it is all "Lies, Damn Lies" don't you think?

There is valid scientific evidence that can be both considered and have the validity questioned, however to arbitrarily dismiss such scientific research, statistics and theories as all being lies while claiming that you "don't know" if that is the case seems a bit abrasive to me Majic.. with all due respect of course.

If anyone with an open mind will look at the vast amount of data regarding climate change and global warming available both in print and on the Internet, along with international compiled reports... AND then make your own conclusions that is fine, however I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss everything as Majic tends to do. Some scientists involved in creating these related reports, graphs and future projections really do have unbiased intentions, and go where the data takes them.

Just my thoughts.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]

The Hazards Of Literary Allusion

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Rather arrogant and closed minded to claim that the results of scientific research are manipulated to the point where it is all "Lies, Damn Lies" don't you think?

I think you misinterpreted the data: Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics.

I'm sorry my allusion was misconstrued -- despite the fact that the text of my post clearly did not claim the data to be lies.

I would hope that by now you would be aware that the subheadings I use are not necessarily literal inventories of what my posts contain and are instead somewhat whimsical ways of adding irony to my posts.

To be clear: I am NOT claiming and have NEVER claimed that the data surrounding Global Warming are lies or damn lies.*

I AM skeptical of the veracity of the data, however -- and will readily concede that for all I know, it could all be 100% accurate.

As I've repeatedly said, and you even quote below, I don't know!

Respectful Disrespect

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
There is valid scientific evidence that can be both considered and have the validity questioned, however to arbitrarily dismiss such scientific research, statistics and theories as all being lies while claiming that you "don't know" if that is the case seems a bit abrasive to me Majic.. with all due respect of course.

Again, you're proceeding on a false premise.

I've never asserted "such scientific research, statistics and theories as all being lies", and challenge you to prove otherwise.

All the posts I've made to ATS are at your disposal, so if I've ever done that, you should have no difficulty proving it.

Unless your argument is specious, of course.

The Dangers Of An Open Mind

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
If anyone with an open mind will look at the vast amount of data regarding climate change and global warming available both in print and on the Internet, along with international compiled reports... AND then make your own conclusions that is fine, however I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss everything as Majic tends to do. Some scientists involved in creating these related reports, graphs and future projections really do have unbiased intentions, and go where the data takes them.

Again, you're misrepresenting my position.

I've given my reasons for being skeptical of the claims surrounding Global Warming, pro or con. The fact that my position continues to be misrepresented casts reasonable doubt on the credibility of those who do so.

Sadly, this seems to include yourself, despite the fact that I have gone to extraordinary lengths to make it as clear as I possibly can -- almost to (and perhaps past) the point of tedium.

I can't see how I could make my position clearer -- or how you could illustrate it more clearly.

Your mischaracterization of my position makes my point about the nature of the discussion.

I think you should review my position more carefully instead of making false assertions about it.





*Edit to add: Though I DO claim them to be statistics.

Also, lest my tone also be misconstrued, I disagree strenuously with your claims about my position, but I don't take them personally.

I know you're wrong about me, though, because I know what my position is, even if you don't.

[edit on 2/4/2007 by Majic]

Originally posted by Soitenly
It's a shame that no one understands that CO2 is not a green house gas, it is a combustion byproduct. The arguement of man made global warming caused by CO2 emissions has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with detering the American economy toward its historic trend of maximum growth in both industry and society.

This is a vast left wing conspiracy plot that was bought and sold by the Russians and Chinese.

Who cares if a few hippies live in the forest eating tree bark and desalting their urine and do not have to use "fossil fuels" man. Those sobs aint gonna keep the reds or euros out of america. Lincoln knew it best, the magic "keep the union intact" fairy was not going to keep the union intact.

Itd be a shame if some of you began to think.

This is entirely a scientific lie. Greenhouse effect etc were not thought of by unscientific ill-educated hippies, but by mainstream scientists in the 1960's---the serious NASA crew cut and pocket-protector type. It involves facts and experiments, verified over decades.

The JASON panel, even back in 1979 (these are the high level experts for US government with top security clearences, as plugged in and mainstream into US power as you can get; I am familiar with a few) essentially predicted the current observations and theory about global warming, even knowing what was known back then. Why? Because it's based on known laws of physics which have been eternal over geological history.

They do not want by any means to destroy American prosperity and power---their livelihoods depend on it. However, as scientists they have the duty to speak the truth regardless of unpleasant consequences---and that was the purpose of the JASONs.

However, it IS a right wing fantasy to innoculate themselves conveniently out of responsibility and truth by asserting that this global warming idea is a vast conspiracy.

And it is now a proven conspiracy that wealthy corporations with an agenda pay people to create illegitimate fear, uncertainty and doubt.

By contrast, actual science today says that cell phones and power lines don't cause any significant amount of cancer and that vaccines don't cause autism.

if scientists were these hippy dippy lefties who wanted to destroy American capitalist civilization, why these results?

Answer: because scientists aren't like the right-wing sterotype.

Anthropogenic global warming is physically real and extremely serious, and is not some hysterical "plot". It is the responsibility of everybody, not just Americans, to fix.

There is not a "middle ground" in this issue any more than whether compounds are made of atoms: one side is right and the other is wrong.

Binary System

Originally posted by Majic
The Global Warming message remains the same: you're either with us or against us.

Originally posted by mbkennel
There is not a "middle ground" in this issue any more than whether compounds are made of atoms: one side is right and the other is wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dire predictions of an impending ice age were suddenly replaced by dire predictions of rising oceans and worldwide droughts caused by Global Warming. It amazed me how quickly the same prophets were able to change their prophecies so quickly and ring the same alarm bell for a diametrically opposed "threat".

That is 100% bullcrap.

The scientific community (as opposed to some hypsters) were not even REMOTELY convinced about an ice age the way they are now. In fact the question was open as to which effects would dominate. That question is no longer open.

www.realclimate.org...

Ironically, the theory was effectively discarded when global mean temperatures decreased in the beginning of the 20th century and the "scientific consensus" suggested even the possibility of an impending ice age.

Scientific consensus did NOT suggest so, except on thousand year time scales.

The temperature 'decrease' (as it was small) was due to increased aerosols, i.e. pollution.
It is a good thing that we decreased that pollution---again thanks in large measure to displacement of coal with oil & gas as well as strong environmental measures imposed despite right-wing opposition.

Later, in the 1980s when temperatures increased rapidly after the cooling trend ended, Global Warming theory rapidly picked up steam and -- despite the absence of data actually proving greenhouse gases were responsible for the temperature increase -- the press and "environmental movements" picked it up and ran with it.

There is extremely solid experimental evidence showing the direct increase of infrared radiation due to increase in greenhouse gases. This physics can't be ignored at all.

Today there is strong evidence showing greenhouse gases ARE the primary contributor to warming, and lack of evidence for any other sufficiently strong mechanism, as well as a lack of scientific evidence for any mechanism to believe why the clear physics of the greenhouse effect would be significantly counteracted.

Consensus Census

Originally posted by mbkennel
Scientific consensus did NOT suggest so, except on thousand year time scales.

You're right.

Now that I think about it, I don't remember there being a "scientific consensus" (or even a "popular consensus", for that matter) about Global Cooling and think I'm overusing the term (I can't imagine why) when applying it to the history of Global Warming.

What I do recall was the buzz about "the coming Ice Age" and its coverage in the popular press (which was nothing compared to the way Global Warming has been covered). In my mind, it was somewhat intertwined with the fears surrounding "nuclear winter", which was a very big deal back then, so I might be confusing the two in my memories from those days.

We talked about it in school (though hardly in terms of panic), and I remember some neighbors of ours (who were pretty much stereotypical "organic" hippies) being freaked out about it -- but then they seemed to be convinced that anything humans did on earth was a disaster anyway, so hey.

I readily concede that my retrospective didn't accurately convey that aspect of Global Warming history (and may well be inaccurate in other ways), and may just be me regurgitating propaganda.

What I definitely recall, however, was being surprised by the suddenness with which "Ice Age" fear-mongering was replaced by Global Warming fear-mongering.

How can I be so sure? Because that's what made me a skeptic to begin with.

I apologize if my tone was excessively confrontational to you, Majic.

It is really intended for the more willfully ignorant people out there.


I can venture about reasons the popular press might have flipped from one side
to another.

First, of course, fear sells. "Rainfall predicted to be average this season" doesn't, unless you are an agriculturalist and read this in a trade journal and that governs how you decide to plant your fields.

But thanks to the rapid increase of geophysical knowledge in the 1960's and 1970's, in large measure due to the large increases in funding for science and successes of the space science programs, there were simply many more data and results coming out from the scientific community.

It is just a matter of rapid scientific progress that we got evidence regarding past glaciations that was more substantial than the classical fossil records, and similarly we had increasing evidence from satellites, and theory directed first at explaining gross features of climate on other planets (Mars + Venus).

The amount of new, quantitative knoweldge about the Earth at a fundamental physical level grew tremendously from 1960 to 1980, and maybe until 1990. Unrelated to climate, but plate tectonics, an utterly fundamental part of modern geophysics, were validated during that time, very rapidly, as the observable data came in.

We were entering fresh scientific territory with a new global but especially US emphasis on having an active publically supported science R&D community, major investments on global physical monitoring (supported governmentally by intending to have military spin-offs).

So in sum, before that time we didn't have enough knowledge or ability to make any sorts of predictions. Very quickly, scientists found the main mechanisms and started to understand the dynamics. So it isn't all that surprising to see predictions of both ways start to come out.

Let's keep in mind that the same underlying mechanisms implicated in the "global cooling" (scare only in media) are STILL correct today, just as was the greenhouse effect which was also known in the 1960's after seeing climate on Mars and Venus.

Both long-term glaciations appear driven by complex astrophysical parameters, with added effects from aerosols (e.g. smog), the drivers of cooling trends, added to nonlinear feedbacks from ice-induced albedo. (i.e. more snow cover, the cooler it gets by reflecting more energy). There are feedforwards on the hot side as well, and we're likely to trigger them.

Later climate change modeling and theory about aerosols and their specific effect were quite well validated by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in early 90's which lead to temporary lowering of the warming trend thanks to the short-term aerosol injection. That warming trend has now resumed the underlying course predicted by the fundamental greenhouse effect.

So, in sum, the basic physics of the "global coolers" in 1970 really WAS and IS correct, but we now know sufficiently more to recognize that on the short geophysical time scale (500 year) the greenhouse warming is certain to greatly dominate.

It is good to be "skeptical" at first---as scientists were in 1975 or so re global cooling(!) when large unanswered questions remain. At present, that is no longer really the case, or more correctly the security of our knowledge of the is-going-to-happen factor (greenhouse warming) is sufficiently comprehensive and strong that policy action is justified and urgently required.

Any future conceivable fluctuations (e.g. solar radiation or cosmic rays) which are unpredictable and unmodelable have no a priori reason to come out on the "nice" side as opposed to the "even worse" side, and in no way eliminate the very secure physical mechanisms of greenhouse induced warming which is going to inexorably make the trend go up, and start accelerating faster and faster.

Given that the real harm is on the "upper end tail" of outcomes (like how a category 5 hurricane can be orders of magnitude more destructive for humans than a typical cat 3 hurricane), then the presence of unmodeled future mechanisms actually now make it even more urgent to deal with the dominant mechanism that we know will be there.

Sorry, got posted in the wrong thread.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by psyopswatcher]

Originally posted by Majic
I've never asserted "such scientific research, statistics and theories as all being lies", and challenge you to prove otherwise.

All the posts I've made to ATS are at your disposal, so if I've ever done that, you should have no difficulty proving it.

If I misunderstood your post then I stand corrected and apologize.

It seemed to me as if you were convinced that such data was subject to manipulation and therefore could not be trusted, and that the theory of global warming is unproven therefore any assertions to the contrary are lies. From another post of yours in this thread...

Originally posted by Majic
As far as I know, Global Warming is the first scientific theory ever presented that requires skeptics to prove it wrong in order for it to not be considered fact by default.

That alone is cause for skepticism, and a skeptic I remain.

The theory is unproven. Assertions to the contrary are lies.

Any theory should be met with healthy skepticism, But the overwhelming data available in support of global warming as a current active process has indeed been proven in a number of widely accepted scientific reports. So are these assertions in the accepted reports all lies?

I am afraid it is best for me to stay out of this discussion, It is fascinating to me on many levels.

Time will be the ultimate proving factor here. Ignorance it seems will be irrelevant soon enough.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Majic, GW began way back in the '60's. Scientists weren't sure whether it would be GW or global cooling, but they DID know something was out of balance with the Earth and climate. Now that we know more, the data just proves more and more what many scientists suspected in the '60's - that GW is real and that the earth is warming.
I don't remember anyone saying, since the early '70's or so that global cooling was a huge possibility. There were some scientists who thought so, but as MKennel stated, they were probably right, just that it would take 500 years or so for there to be a cooling trend, rather than a warming one, the warming trend comes first.
How do I know this? I remember reading about it in the press back in the '60's and I've been following it ever since then. We knew even then that greenhouse gases were out of balance.

Soitenly, where on earth did you get the idea that there's no CO2 in greenhouse gases? Plants emit CO2 and it is the major gas in greenhouse gases. It is a natural substance and by itself, not a bad thing, it's when it becomes out of balance that problems are created. Where did you get that idea? I sure hope it wasn't your teacher or that you read it somewhere. That idea is just plain wrong and it's a shame to me that anyone would think so and actually teach it or write about it.