1. The correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are perfectly in sync.
2. No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true.
3. Global warming is evident throughout the Solar System, lending credibility that the cause is solar irradiance.
4. The earth has warmed and cooled for millennia.
5. The troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house effect).
6. It is an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading are taken from the northern hemisphere around ...

1. The correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are perfectly in sync.
2. No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true.
3. Global warming is evident throughout the Solar System, lending credibility that the cause is solar irradiance.
4. The earth has warmed and cooled for millennia.
5. The troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house effect).
6. It is an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading are taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. Also, many stations are placed in urban areas which increase the readings. The satellite readings, which are much more accurate, are kept out of the formula.
7. Over 95% of all green house gas is ocean evaporation. This has increased with the current warming trend, which is due to solar irradiance.
8. The ppm measure of green gases increases as a result of warming, not the opposite.
9. When you see Al Gore showing footage of pieces of glaciers crashing into the ocean, this is actually called sheathing. It is a geologic process that occurs when glacier recede AND advance. But in this case, it is just an emotional appeal to ignorance.
10. If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our best math model would be, if that perfect world existed? It equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the scientist knew all the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 percent.
11. CO2 accounts for about 5 % of greenhouse gases. 95 % of CO2 occurs naturally. So man’s contribution of CO2 is extremely small and is vastly outweighed by the increase in ocean evaporation which is 95 % of greenhouse gases.

Willhelm,
You sound hostile. It's not good for your heart. I'd like to think that despite the safety of anonymity on the internet that we could engage in civil discourse instead of labeling. My guess is that if we met on the street, you'd probably treat me differently. Just what are "pasty-white-basement dwelling materialist liberals" anyway? Are you sure I fit neatly into this box? I'd venture to say that we are more varied than the "red" and "blue" labels would suggest. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining and hurt. I want meaningful discourse. Labels are a simplistic means of avoiding deeper understanding. You seem to have significant knowledge and interest in this subject. By s...

Willhelm,
You sound hostile. It's not good for your heart. I'd like to think that despite the safety of anonymity on the internet that we could engage in civil discourse instead of labeling. My guess is that if we met on the street, you'd probably treat me differently. Just what are "pasty-white-basement dwelling materialist liberals" anyway? Are you sure I fit neatly into this box? I'd venture to say that we are more varied than the "red" and "blue" labels would suggest. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining and hurt. I want meaningful discourse. Labels are a simplistic means of avoiding deeper understanding. You seem to have significant knowledge and interest in this subject. By starting your post with a personal slam, you did not create a good scenario for me to want to listen to you and perhaps learn something and maybe even be changed.

I do not engage in labels. I engage in observation and facts. It is Materialists that divide the world into groups, not me! So get your facts straight first. Second, I am not trying to change your mind. I am simply stating facts. You can choose whether to remain ignorant or accept the facts. Third, the hostility you perceive is a red herring, not based an any real knowledge. Freedom of expression is a great thing. Wouldn't you say? Please do not try to infringe on my freedom to express myself how I choose! Fourth, if you do not know what a materialist is, then I suggest you get very busy reading history and the consequences of Hitler, Stalin, Malthus, Darwin, The pseudo-science of Sociology,...

I do not engage in labels. I engage in observation and facts. It is Materialists that divide the world into groups, not me! So get your facts straight first. Second, I am not trying to change your mind. I am simply stating facts. You can choose whether to remain ignorant or accept the facts. Third, the hostility you perceive is a red herring, not based an any real knowledge. Freedom of expression is a great thing. Wouldn't you say? Please do not try to infringe on my freedom to express myself how I choose! Fourth, if you do not know what a materialist is, then I suggest you get very busy reading history and the consequences of Hitler, Stalin, Malthus, Darwin, The pseudo-science of Sociology, Mao, Communism, and Fascism in all it's sorts. Fifth, I do not perceive you as whining or hurt, and I would not care if you were.