It needs to be addressed.

Why? The Earth has warmed and cooled for millenia. Given the infinitesimal contribution man makes to the greenhouse, whatever action we take would be even that much more infinitesimal. It seems to me there is an issue of scale here, where people just do not grasp the statistical nature of the Anthropogenic Global Warming argument. There is continually more and more evidence showing many of the bodies in the Solar System are warming as well, whick lends credibility to the scientific argument that solar irradiance is contributing to ocean condensation. Also, this is coinciding with increased obliquity of the Earth. When the obliquity diminishes...

It needs to be addressed.

Why? The Earth has warmed and cooled for millenia. Given the infinitesimal contribution man makes to the greenhouse, whatever action we take would be even that much more infinitesimal. It seems to me there is an issue of scale here, where people just do not grasp the statistical nature of the Anthropogenic Global Warming argument. There is continually more and more evidence showing many of the bodies in the Solar System are warming as well, whick lends credibility to the scientific argument that solar irradiance is contributing to ocean condensation. Also, this is coinciding with increased obliquity of the Earth. When the obliquity diminishes and the solar irradiance subsides you will have your global warming cure free of charge without having to decimate the economies of the world and increase the wealth of the Global Warming Alarmist Industy. Keep your head on!

And that's where I stopped reading willie's post

Well, there is no doubt it is infinitesimal. Since 95% - 97% of the greenhouse gases come from the oceans and geologic activity. Then you have natural occurrences, for example the agricultural industry and cow flatulence that accounts for more than all of man's contribution, that account for some.
Then, after all that, you have to take into account the feedback loops that diminish the impact of any increased greenhouse gas, then feedback loops on feedback loops. You eventually reach the point that man's contribution is statistically NONEXISTENT.

How do you explain all the warming going on other planets and moons in the Sola...

And that's where I stopped reading willie's post

Well, there is no doubt it is infinitesimal. Since 95% - 97% of the greenhouse gases come from the oceans and geologic activity. Then you have natural occurrences, for example the agricultural industry and cow flatulence that accounts for more than all of man's contribution, that account for some.
Then, after all that, you have to take into account the feedback loops that diminish the impact of any increased greenhouse gas, then feedback loops on feedback loops. You eventually reach the point that man's contribution is statistically NONEXISTENT.

How do you explain all the warming going on other planets and moons in the Solar System.

And that's where I stopped reading willie's post

I take it this is what keeps you so misled. You believe what you want and when facts are presented you are not interested to hear them. This makes clear a point that I make often.

If you can provide alternative evidence, I will be glad to discuss.
I'm confident you will take the easy and low road.

Then you have natural occurrences, for example the agricultural industry and cow flatulence

Those are not "natural" sources in the sense that the MILLIONS of cows there are and the way we do agriculture is OUR doing and things we can change if we want to. Anti-flatulence pills maybe or some other solution. We have to do something or millions of people and animals are going to be affected by this. Do we just stand by and watch it happen? Mankind has always "tampered" with nature for good or bad. Shouldn't we, man-made or not, do anything and everything we possibly can to reduce and sequester CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases to at least TRY to avoid the catastrophic sce...

Then you have natural occurrences, for example the agricultural industry and cow flatulence

Those are not "natural" sources in the sense that the MILLIONS of cows there are and the way we do agriculture is OUR doing and things we can change if we want to. Anti-flatulence pills maybe or some other solution. We have to do something or millions of people and animals are going to be affected by this. Do we just stand by and watch it happen? Mankind has always "tampered" with nature for good or bad. Shouldn't we, man-made or not, do anything and everything we possibly can to reduce and sequester CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases to at least TRY to avoid the catastrophic scenarios we constantly are presented with? Droughts, floods, hurricanes etc? Even if global warming is totally 100% natural and just a cycle or whatever, shouldn't we still try to halt it and survive? If that is not the answer, then what can we do? Nothing?

Even if global warming is totally 100% natural and just a cycle or whatever, shouldn't we still try to halt it and survive?

WOW. You have taken the fearmongering hook, line and sinker. Dude, relax. Look at this objectively and quit falling for the hype. If I may say, you are coming across as a bit weird.

Will this happen in time?

Just as there is consistently NO "normal' temperature, the cycles fluctuate consistently and there is no static state. There is no "time" factor here. There are natural feedback loops. Throughout history the warmer periods have always led to a richer biosphere. It seems to me you do not grasp the scale and overriding context of all ...

Even if global warming is totally 100% natural and just a cycle or whatever, shouldn't we still try to halt it and survive?

WOW. You have taken the fearmongering hook, line and sinker. Dude, relax. Look at this objectively and quit falling for the hype. If I may say, you are coming across as a bit weird.

Will this happen in time?

Just as there is consistently NO "normal' temperature, the cycles fluctuate consistently and there is no static state. There is no "time" factor here. There are natural feedback loops. Throughout history the warmer periods have always led to a richer biosphere. It seems to me you do not grasp the scale and overriding context of all factors involved. The ONLY thing unusual about our climate is that it is cooler than normal, not warmer.

Even if global warming is totally 100% natural and just a cycle or whatever, shouldn't we still try to halt it and survive?

This tells me your feet are not planted in reality. I cannot begin to tell you the irrationality of that comment so I will not try. I will just say taht Man does not cause warming and there is nothing we can do to prevent natural solar cycles that have occurred for millenia.

Willhelm,
Are you convinced that global warming is the "fear
produced" flavor of the moment or do you think environmental
stewardship is a key responsibility for us as Christians and we really
need to think about practices that observe ecological systems while
also helping humans and the environment to survive? If so, what should
we do from a Christian stewardship perspective?

That is a good question Debbyski. I have said many times before that I doubt there are many here at CM that spend as much money on being "green" as myself. I also find it hard to believe there are many that have a greater love and appreciation for the outdoors and local environmental causes as myself. I ...

Willhelm,
Are you convinced that global warming is the "fear
produced" flavor of the moment or do you think environmental
stewardship is a key responsibility for us as Christians and we really
need to think about practices that observe ecological systems while
also helping humans and the environment to survive? If so, what should
we do from a Christian stewardship perspective?

That is a good question Debbyski. I have said many times before that I doubt there are many here at CM that spend as much money on being "green" as myself. I also find it hard to believe there are many that have a greater love and appreciation for the outdoors and local environmental causes as myself. I agree with environmental stewardship (AND HERE IS THE KICKER COMING FROM A CONSERVATIVE). I also AGREE it shoud be a government responsibility to provide more for our environmental protection the same way they provide for National Security.

However, Global Warming is a scam and not an environmental issue. The evidence supports the facts that that CO2 increases follow warming and that solar radiance increases the moisture in the atmoshpere, which is 95% of all greenhouse gas. Of the other 5%, man's portion is quite small and easily absorbed by the extremely efficient and large quantity of Earth's feedback loops.

All the alarmists engage in tactics like Duvelic's comment above. (appeals to authority, I'm to supid to understand the issue, I'm paid by some oil company, and the usual slurs.)