Global warming. Why is man, and industry, blamed for causing it? There were few men, and no factories?

But the speed of the change, and the timing, strongly support the man-made theory (though are not conclusive proof).

Five your answer to my question was'nt very encouraging. GLOBAL WARMING? Humans caused this by their activites and chemical producin companies and products together with excessive burning of various stuffs release of various chemicals into d atmosphere especially by the oil producing companies like NNPC,and so much activites into and through space resulted in this 4 real humans are dominating humans to its injuries.

And they re the once ruining the earth,who else things re getting worse than they ever were since human history the various substance released into the atmosphere cannot be compared to this system we re living in now,not at all. Things re gettin worse natural disasters has never been this much. If not because of human activities wat else?

You don't follow the research do you?. Just because you tell a lie doesn't make it true.

Look at a coal power station, There's your answer.

By the same reasoning, there are no such things as human-caused forest fires. We have conclusively demonstrated there were forest fires long before man, so forest fires are entirely natural and can never be caused by man. All the arsonists in the world who are in jail need to be let out of jail.

Man cannot cause fire, because fire was here before man. Hm, let's see, what else... ah, man cannot grow anything! Crops are fake, because we know plants grew before man was around, so all plants are entirely natural genetic engineering is a big lie to get money for nothing and man cannot grow them, as they grew themselves before man was around.

This denial stuff is getting to be fun! Is there anything else we can dispose of with this line of reasoning? ******************************* EDIT: You specifically stated "global warming".

If it were not for man's activities, the earth would be *cooling* now. Therefore, global warming is caused by man. The sun produces the basic energy, the earth absorbs and re-radiates it, and man affects the absorption and re-radiation of that energy, mostly with CO2 emissions now.

The conclusion is obvious and simple: Man causes global *warming*. The sun provides energy, but it is not enough to cause the earth to warm. If it weren't for humanity's actions, right now, today, the earth would be cooling.

Because man has been dumping huge amounts of CO2, which is a gas known to trap heat into the atmosphere. Just because man didn't cause past climate changes doesn't mean he isn't contributing to this one. Man never caused severe air pollution or water pollution in prehistory, but he is now.

Edit; Cause or contribute...makes no difference. There are natural cycles, but speeding up or magnifying a natural cycle is not a good thing.

GOOD LORD. Have you TOLD anyone about this? This is inCREDible...just blows the top off the whole theory.Wow.

Say, now that you have solved the problem of global warming, would you mind applying this amazing intellect of yours to figure out this little project I have in mind? What I want to do is make a sound system that can be mounted in tailpipes of electric cars and attached to the tachometer, then when you rev it up it sounds all rumbly and loud like a big American V8. Wouldn't that be COOL?

It is now Climate Change. Prediction back in the early 80s: Manhattan will be under water by the year 1999. These alarmists just need your money and will say anything for it.

Many many years ago the ice cap extended down to Sioux City, Ia. That's what caused the confluence of the Big Sioux River and the Missouri River. Also, look at the flat portions of Illinois and Indiana.

These also were made by glaciers. Now unquestionably they have receded. That happen way before I was driving my Mercedes or all these factories have sprung up.

So in conclusion: the questioner is correct in the assumption since the Earth's natural diary shows that the Ice disappeared before man had a SUV and before smoke belching factories. That's true science.

Climate responds to a number of causes, including the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It does not matter if these are released naturally or by people. We should be in heading towards an ice age now but don't count on it as long as we artificially add greenhouse gases.

The word cause is associated with how much of the recent(100yr) warming is attributed to greenhouse gases. Yes, it's a cause for most of that recent warming, particularly after 1970.

“It’s easier to dominate a people by exciting their passions than by looking after their interests. ” —Gustave Le Bon "Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions. A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything, reject anything, if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his family's or his country's security and safety, whether it actually accomplishes it or not...." "It works like a charm.

A fearful people are the easiest to govern. Their freedom and liberty can be taken away, and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own good - to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their liberty - voluntarily." —Gene E.

Franchini, retired Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. ” —Bertrand Russell “The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion”. —Maurice Chapelain.

The ice ages you are talking about are most likely caused by Milankovitch cycles. These are periodic changes in the Earth's orbit. The three components of these cycles are eccentricity, obliquity and precession.

Earth's current eccentricity is roughly 0.0167 while it's axial tilt is approximately 23.44 degrees (Kutzback). Orbital forcing, however, is far to weak to account for the current increase in temperatures (Lorius). In order to claim, as you are, that the increase in temperatures is due to recovery from the ice ages we have to look at the cause of the ice ages, which I have done, and show that that cause, or forcing, is working to actively warm the atmosphere.It is not and is actually going in the opposite direction as shown in the Kutzback link and has been for the last 6-9 thousand years.

GunnyT: It is widely known that temperature increases do cause atmospheric CO2 increase due to Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba… http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/to… As humans are pumping additional CO2 from the geological carbon cycles back into the atmosphere, increasing the partial pressure of that CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans are currently attempting to reach equilibrium which is the reason why they are currently absorbing more CO2 than they are expelling. http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/docum… You have continued to post exactly the same thing time and time again.

Look at the links I've provided and see why your statements are false. Both the atmosphere and the oceans are increasing in CO2 content and heat content at the same time. One can not be coming from the other.

Milankovitch cycles also do not cause such a steep increase in temperatures and, according to the data on the current phase of that cycle, we should be in a long term cooling trend. See Kutzback link again.

Kutzback - courses.washington.edu/holocene/K… Lorius - atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/2….

And cycles have specific descriptive spectral properties. Unless you provide the significant peaks or 'periodicities' along with a plausible hypothesis to explain such regularities, we can only conclude that your explanation is scientifically illiterate Bullsh!t.

Well, you do hit the argument where it is weakest. The proof that man has caused nature to behave other than it would have done in absence of man is with those who contend that to be the case. That is, geological evidence tells us that climate is a highly variable condition that is essentially always in a state of flux (change).

And it is also true that we are in what most geologists would call a cold period in the history of the earth (continental glaciation is not a normal state for the earth, based on what we can tell from the rock record). Further, the evidence tells us that we are in an "interim" warm period within that extreme cold. As far as can be determined, the interim periods are short lived, and if patterns follow previous examples, this warm interim is well over half way done.

This means a likely return to much more severe cold in the geological near term (perhaps in less time to the future than the 5000-7000 year long period covered by man's documented (recorded) history). Even on a shorter term, the present warming trend began some 250 years ago, about, before industrialisation had caused changes to CO2 contents of the atmosphere, so clearly the present trend is at least in part natural. Most people do not want to think about how truly complicated it is to determine whether man or nature is dominant (or whether man is actually keeping things from going back to the cold).

It is easier to just say pollution is bad (that is fairly easily documented) and so man has done a bad thing to the climate (that is a big leap, as it presumes that CO2 is bad as is most chemical pollution, and assumes that change from natural progression is bad, or change from current conditions must be bad, none of which are demonstrated). So yes, I agree with what you are driving at.

Your post displays your ignorance. Simply because a phenomenon such as global warming can be caused naturally does NOT mean it cannot be caused by human action. Only someone totally ignorant of science -- or logical thinking -- would make such a ridiculous statement.

ITt is the same thing as saying that because a forest fire can be caused by lightning, there's no reason to think a forest fire can be caused by careless campers building a fire. If I sound harsh -- you deserve it. If you were a studnet in one of the college classes I taught, I would hove told you to leave and stop wasting the other student's time.

Every king was once a crying baby & every building was once a picture. Its not about where you are today but where you will reach tomorrow.

But the speed of the change, and the timing, strongly support the man-made theory.

What is funny is that they have said there is warming on Mars, and no one lives there. UNLESS yes martins are there and they are burning coal and oil. That has to be it YES MAN.

Well, ill be looking forward to your Nature paper then that disproves decades of mutually supporting work in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, oceanography, hydrology, glaciology, geology, biogeochemistry, etc, etc. @ Gunny: How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cant even get the name right. They are Milankovitch cycles, NOT Malkovitch as you repeatedly claim. And for the record, no scientists are ignoring these cycles, and they actually know what they are called.

Twenty thousand years ago, the average global temperature wasn't increasing as rapidly as it now is. The global average temperature started to increase late in the 19th century when the developed world became industrialized and started burning large amounts of hydro-carbons.

As you say;warming trends and ice ages have been happening for millions of years. Perhaps eco freaks think the last global warming was caused by the civilization,industry and factories of cave men? There are people crazy enough to think that cows farting are adding to global warming.

Maybe they think that millions of years ago it was caused by dinosaur farts. This type of people live in a fantasy world only tenuously connected to the real world. They seem to be led by a mental aberrant named Al Gore.

Companies and people use it to make money and scare people, you are correct, if global warming isnt natural how did the ice age pass.

Global Warming and its best friend Global Dimming started in the steam age (18th century) when man stated burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas used by factories, cars, ships, aircraft and will continue doing so until it all runs out, and the general consensus of opinion today is: "Who cares, for in one hundred years from today all the people here on Earth will be dead. " Global dimming! Oh, yes, that's the stuff in the sky that's blocking out most/some of the suns deadly rays that used to be held back by the ozone layer, which is something that will soon cease to exist and another thing, when the Gulf Stream and other warm sea currents dissipate/disappear, then we can look forward to the new ice age.

Sorry, did I say WE. My mistake as when the ice age comes WE will all be dead, so who cares? I do.Do you?

My Theory is assume Glaciers at North Pole as 100% and South Pole also as 100% then assume at this year as usual summer annual Glaciers breakage at South Pole is 15% next my theory continue that when 15% of summer broken glaciers reached the Equator 7.5% will continue traveling till North Pole and the other 7.5% will travel back to South Pole, which my theory stated that any gases, vapors or liquid traveling to Equator will always be 50 - 50 in direction to North and South. Also Theory is assume Glaciers at North Pole as 100% and South Pole also as 100% then assume at this year as unusual summer annual Glaciers breakage at North Pole is 25% next my theory continue that when 25% of summer broken glaciers reached the Equator 12.5% will continue traveling till South Pole and the other 12.5% will travel back to North Pole, which my theory stated that any gases, vapors or liquid traveling to Equator will always be 50 - 50 in direction to North and South.

If it wasn't for global warming, Chicago would still be under a mile fo ice. Fortunately, Cro Magnon people learned how to make fire and the smoke from their campsites melted the glaciers.

Both studies support each other and pretty much prove C02 (and temperature) varies with solar distance. It appears there are those who are ignoring real science in favor of beating each other with hockey sticks and voodoo beliefs.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.