Oh what, so the majority of the world's leading scientists are Marxists are they Beavis?

Captain Oates, your graph is a good example of the whole problem with trying to get to the bottom of a subject that so many people have vested interests in. The programme I saw didn't cover the far right part of the graph where the CO2 levels go haywire.

who is trying to be a scientist?

Oat, watch the show, they talk about that graph.

Northview, get a sense of humor dude.

His point was that many of the activists were once procommunist anti-capitalists. Now they are pro environment anti-capitalists.

it wasn't aimed at the scientists. I thought you watched this thing. If you didn't then you really should stop trying to read into my words and watch the thing.

The big deal with this is not so much what the cause is or how to fix that, but the fact that the effects are here and need to be dealt with. Sea levels are rising, ice caps are meliting, so what are we going to do about it? Cities on ocean coasts need to prepare for the change in sea level, who gives a rat's ass about how much more CO2 my chainsaw puts out than my Mazda? That part is irrelevant now.

I think to summarize the points to challenge the global warming group ... we could basically say:

a) The average temperature of the earth is supposed to change and fluctuate
b) Humans aren't the cause of it

So systematically increasing the level of CO2 (for example) in the atmosphere in huge and accelerating quantities for over a hundred years will not have any effect on the eco system? Why is that? If I were to take a dump in my fish tank I'm fairly sure it would have an effect.

The CO2 is there, we are the ones that put it there, and it's got to have some sort of effect doesn't it?

And considering communism is pretty much extinct, how did they suddenly manage to recruit most of the worlds scientists? Was some sort of hypnotic web-page circulated via e-mail or have they hidden subliminal messages in old Star Trek reruns?

Or... are there absolutely monstrous economical values at stake here for the people and industries that are causing the change in the eco system? Could companies who pollute have a financial interest in being allowed to continue polluting?

I guess you didnt bother to watch it eh?

no one stated anything you have in your post (which is based on a lot of incorrect info).

way to keep an open mind.

In regards to the discussion, I am saying that I am not going to get up and give reasons for why a particular chart (posted by oatmeal if i recall correctly), whose accuracy or lack thereof I am in no position to evaluate, may or may not give reasons to challenge the consensus on global warming. I am also saying that nobody on this board, as far as I know, has the scientific background to discuss this sensibly either.

I am going to defer to the real scientists on this one, rather than try to play one myself.

I'll try to have something more specific to contribute later.

that is far to resonable k3nt

I think he's a witch. Let's get him.