Why is Global Warming a Hoax??

[TClaeys]

The opponents of AGW seem to sort their arguments into few categories, but they don't stick with just one reason. They throw all of them out hoping one will stick. And the arguments to morph from one argument to another.
1. It's the suns fault
2. CO2 is good
3. We couldn't possibly cause anything, we are too insignificant
4. Sulfur Dioxide from various sources
5. It isn't happening at all, there is no warming
6. The data is all wrong or too selective
7. It's all natural and there is nothing we can do about it
8. The solar system is warming
9. Whatever other argument I'm missing

When discussing this I see that the opponents throw ALL these arguments out. But they never are at peace with one. I don't have anything to gain having an opinion one way or another, but while we have some scientists, usually backed by some energy company, saying we are not to blame the majority of science says otherwise. This is pretty clear despite any number of various people signing any petitions.

That being said, yes there will be and should always be alternative arguments. This is what science is about. Data collection usually needs revision or different methodologies. Other hypotheses need to be tested. The scientific method doesn't start with a conclusion and get tested from there, or at least it shouldn't. Certainly selective bits of data have been cherry picked by both sides and this is not only dubious, but downright dishonest.

To those that say we can't affect our world, I say that is complete rubbish. We are everywhere on our planet building power plants, factories, cars, etc. We are worse than cockroaches. History gives us several examples of us fucking things up.

Someone said use your common sense. Right,.. use common sense. Maybe the majority of scientists didn't think to use their common sense. I wouldn't be adverse to accepting whatever truth there is, but it has to be more than "Just think about it".

That said, we may still be heading towards another cold spell. Any graph of the last half a million years shows this. I have to seriously wonder if anyone has thought of how we might handle the reverse of global warming. This might be far worse. And as I kind of laugh about it, what if we completely mess up and "force" oursleves into an ice age??

Either way if our species is to make it long term, we will need to overcome large planetary problems. I wonder if this has been the demise of intelligent species on other worlds. Will we be one of the "intelligent" species that couldn't make it because we were too stubborn and power hungry and stupid to come to some global resolutions to our physical planetary problems?? It is quite possible.

 

[CapnG]

A few additional thoughts:

But just have 'leading scientists' say "Global Warming is real," and everyone suddenly falls over backwards and says, 'Oh, yes, of course. It must be true.' It's like shooting fish in a barrel. What happened to 'Question Authority' here? Why does it suddenly disappear?

That door swings both ways. If the "Argument from authority" is to be dismissed on the man-made side it cannot be cleaved to on the opposite side merely as a matter of personal preference, otherwise it's a hypocritical response. And we haven't much else in the way of options, either. None of us are environmental scientists (I think... anyone on the board who is, speak up!) so we can only interpret data from a layman's perspective. The suggestion would seem to be we can't rely on people who spend their entire lives studying this stuff to do their jobs. I think we have to kinda give them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to examine the motivations behind their work, well that is an entirely seperate issue.

Also, this outcry that "C02 is plant food!" and "The earth was once more carbon rich than it is now!"... these are irrelevant. In the case of C02 it, like anything else, is benefitial up to a point and toxic beyond that point. If I lock you in a room and pump in pure oxygen, you will die. Plants are no different. Modern plants would choke and die if you took them back to that carbon-rich time because they're not adapted to survive it.

The key concept here is finding the "tipping point". The whole "we're insignificant" argument tends to overlook this. The difference between water and ice for instance is one degree celcius. One degree difference is of little consequence if it's between 18 and 19 degrees or between -12 and -13 but if it's between one and zero it's VERY important. In other words, the straw that breaks the camel's back. Are you certain we can't do that to the biosphere? You wanna roll those dice? Are you sure? I'm not.

Now at this point some of you might be thinking "Jeezus CapnG, if you love the planet so much why don't you marry it?" Let me make one thing clear: I don't give a shit about the planet. The planet is a mudball in space. It's not alive, it's not concious. There's no "Gaia". It was here for billions of years before we showed up and it'll still be here for billions more after we're gone. I care about US. HUMANS. We are the ONLY species that has any concept of what extinction is and as such we are the only species that has any chance in hell (slim as it may be) of detecting it ahead of time and at least delaying it.

 

[pixelsmith]

very interesting conference here. they usually post lots of downloadable information (audio/powerpoint) when it is done.
The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change



2009 International Conference on Climate Change

News Releases > March 2009
Environment > Climate: Realists
Email a Friend
Written By: Dan Miller
Published In: News Releases > March 2009
Publication date: 03/09/2009
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
NEW YORK--Environmentalists--even mainstream environmentalists such as Al Gore--are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behavior and restrict economic activity, the president of the Czech Republic told the second International Conference on Climate Change here Sunday.

Vaclav Klaus, who also is serving a rotating term as president of the European Union, triggered the approving applause of about 600 attendees as he said, "Their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development, and return mankind centuries back."

Klaus was one of three presenters Sunday evening as the largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics kicked off a 2 1/2 day conference confronting the issue, "Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?' Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, which produced the conference, and Richard Lindzen, a leading meteorologic physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earned prolonged applause with their presentations as well.

But Klaus was the hit of the evening as he declared that the global warming alarmists he has encountered "are interested neither in temperature, carbon dioxide, competing scientific hypotheses and their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their businesses and their profits--made with the help of politicians."

While Klaus hit hard at what he called the political rent-seekers, he earned another round of applause as he said alarmists are "not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998, and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that the people have been adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere."

Klaus scoffed at politicians who urge radical actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through various schemes, such as taxing current to benefit future generations and being "generously altruistic" in restricting the pace of business activity in their economies.

He declared, "We could have made such far-reaching decisions only on the absolutely unrealistic assumption that we know all relevant parameters of the future economic system."

He concluded to a standing ovation by saying, "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate. They want to change our behavior ... to control and manipulate us."

MIT's Lindzen told the audience that global warming alarmists have been encouraged by some scientists who in Lindzen's opinion do credible work on global warming, but who nevertheless endorse global warming because in so doing, it "just make their lives easier."

He said, "The fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding, provides little incentive to complain about the spin."

He cited three scientists by name who fall into this broad category--colleagues Kerry Emanuel and Carl Wunsch, and Wally Broecker.

This politicizing of climatology, he said, "has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence" because the science that attracts funding doesn't deal with climate "but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change."

One practical way to counter this trend, he urged, "would be to undermine the authority of scientific organizations" through mass resignations in which "thousands of scientists [would] resign from professional societies that have taken unrepresentative stands on the global warming issue."

Heartland President Bast opened the conference on an optimistic note, declaring that the nearly 700 registrants at the conference and the 80 presenters "demonstrate ... the breadth and high quality of the support that the 'skeptical perspective' on climate change enjoys."

Bast said if the scientific community were persuaded that the consequences of global warming were catastrophic, "perhaps no price would be too high to pay to save the Earth."

But he added that several surveys of scientists show the majority don't believe the Earth is in a global warming crisis or that what warming has occurred was caused by human activity.

"On the question that might matter most," he declared, "climate scientists are perfectly split over whether they know enough about global warming to turn it over to policymakers to take action."

Even among global warming skeptics, agreement is far from conclusive on the severity and causes of global warming, a situation Bast says demonstrates "that it is the skeptics, not the true believers, who are more likely to discover and publicly discuss the true science and economics of climate change."

 

[TClaeys]

Oh yeah, great stuff. Brought to you by big oil.

Yes, the same group with dubious connections to the tobacco industry.

The ones that feature Richard Lindzen, the $2500 a day consultant paid by oil and coal.

The Heartland Institute started a list of 500 scientists who doubt AGW. Surprisingly many of the alleged scientists DID NOT agree with this or give permission to be on any such list. And the Heartland Institute refused to retract their names. Read on.

Dennis Avery and the Heartland Institute issued a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" earlier this week. DeSmogBlog contacted 122 of the people on the list that they found email addresses for, and received replies from 45 of them within 24 hours, indicating that they did not agree to be on such a list and felt that the Heartland Institute had misrepresented their views.

Here are some of the quoted responses:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
"I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

"I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist." Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.
"Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat." Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University
"Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?" Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
"They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science." Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey
"Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research." Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo
​

From what I can tell this group is a political group (wonder which side?) set up to spread total bullshit paid by bullshit. Again I can handle any truth to this matter, but this is hardly convincing at all. In fact it seems to be rubbish.

 

[pixelsmith]

ok then, TClaeys has proven that man made global warming is real. run for your fucking lives!!!

 

[TClaeys]

Sorry I couldn't find the "Screw You" button.

Pixelsmith- You seem so willing to accept that we aren't contributing. So what is it?? Is it Volcanoes? Is it "just natural" -nothing to worry about? Is the buildup of CO2 good?? Are we too insignificant?? Or is it the Heartland stuff?? Because you given all these reasons. So which one do you think it is?? Or are you just hoping this will cover your bases??

Is the stuff I said about the Heartland Institute inaccurate??

There is a difference between alarmism(run for your lives) and "Hey you know maybe we should watch what the hell we're doing".

Here is what I think. We are contributing CO2 to our atmosphere. This is partially, if not primarily, responsible for the warming. To what extent I do not know. But if we are causing it, even a little bit, then we should consider doing something about it.

Can you summarize your reason for not buying it without throwing out a laundry list??

 

[Ron Collins]

State of Fear by Michael Crichton. I think the book, though fiction, does a good job of delivering the actual facts. Crichton also believed that environmentalism is being practiced as a religion. Here are a couple of speeches by Crichton that are pretty good as well.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Environmentalism as Religion

 

[Schuyler]

It is interesting that the arguments here are boiling down to mutual accusations of conspiracy, not only at our level on his forum, but globally. I'm referring to the Prez of Czeckoslovokia, for example, who says Global Warming enthusiasts are just looking for big bucks. On the opposite side it's Big Oil that is 'bad.'

I'm not convinced of either. I don't believe every 'scientist' who endorses the idea of AGW is a closet socialist bent on a New World Order and Government whose sole purpose is taking resources from those who produce it and giving it to those who want a handout and have done nothing. I also do not believe that Big Oil is out to increase profits and prevent us from using new technologies because it will reduce our dependence on said Big Oil and is actively attempting to subvert the AGW theory as part of the 'vast Right Wing Conspiracy.'

Both sides seem to be taking the view that 'Our scientists are better than your scientists.' and also the usual 'Follow the money.' arguments. What that tells me is that no one knows really what is going on and everyone is entrenched in their positions. If you want to follow the money, the AGW proponents point to that evil Big Oil subverting their studies--and they probably smoke, too! On the other side it is pointed out that research grants drive scientific studies and it is unlikely research money can be had for proving AGW wrong. You can follow the money both ways and use it as an argument.

But we can't even agree on 'factual' matters. Here a few weeks ago it was discovered that the sensors monitoring the arctic ice had drifted so far off course that they were reporting a vast area of arctic melting the size of California that just happened to still be covered in ice. That's reported above. Yet we're immediately told by the agw guys that this 'glitch' doesn't matter and their conclusions remain the same. It is pointed out that the last ten years have gotten noticeably cooler and we're told that 'it's just a bump' and global warming will REALLY take off in a few years. It's pointed out that the infamous 'hockey stick' graph used by Al Gore & Co. was a result of a computer program that would create hockey stick graphs out of random data no matter what was fed into it. It disappeared from the latest UN report, and we're told not to look at the man behind the curtain. The hockey stick was 'never there.'

It's no wonder people are feeling sucker-punched here. Your B.S. detectors ought to be on red alert. Here everyone is quite certain the government and those in authority lied to us about Vietnam. They lied to us about UFOs. They lied to us about Watergate. They lied to us about Iran/Contra. They lied to us about Monica. They lied to us about Saddam and WMD. Pick ANY subject and we'll hear the same thing, the same old litany. They lied. They lie. They will lie. It's nothing but lies.

But Global Warming? Oh, yeah, that's true. 'Scientists' say so--at least some of them, so it must be true. All that data that tends to point the other way: Mars is experiencing global warming, for example. Doesn't matter and it's unfair for you to use more than one argument.

Well, I still don't know. But I do know that if you take a long-term perspective on global climate changes, a perspective involving tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, then what you see in the recent past is a history of climate fluctuations involving Ice ages and warming trends where the ice ages include an ice pack covering North America and Europe. And if you look at the graphs what you will find is that it's been about 12,000 years since the last ice age fluctuation, and that of the future trend equals past experience, we are about due for another turn toward cold.

IF that is true, that the future will resemble the past, then until we can find a better way, the best way to counteract this is to throw some CO2 into the atmosphere. Besides, unless China and India sign off on this whole deal, it won't matter anyway.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Global Warming is Bullshit.

It's a 100% fraud, being perpetrated by people who want to create more controls, and steal more of your wealth, all the while depopulating this planet.

These are the same greedy assfuckers who think that we could all be replaced by robots, and the sooner we are the better.

They would gladly sacrifice half the world's people in order for them to have a little more.

The UberElites are the cancer and blight on the world.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Sorry I couldn't find the "Screw You" button.

Pixelsmith- You seem so willing to accept that we aren't contributing. So what is it?? Is it Volcanoes? Is it "just natural" -nothing to worry about? Is the buildup of CO2 good?? Are we too insignificant?? Or is it the Heartland stuff?? Because you given all these reasons. So which one do you think it is?? Or are you just hoping this will cover your bases??

Is the stuff I said about the Heartland Institute inaccurate??

There is a difference between alarmism(run for your lives) and "Hey you know maybe we should watch what the hell we're doing".

Here is what I think. We are contributing CO2 to our atmosphere. This is partially, if not primarily, responsible for the warming. To what extent I do not know. But if we are causing it, even a little bit, then we should consider doing something about it.

Can you summarize your reason for not buying it without throwing out a laundry list??

Hey, What was the temperature when the Romans conquered England? It was hot enough at that time, for them to grow Grapes all year round.

How do I know this? By being a history major in College, and one of the reasons why the Romans had no problems conquering all of Western Europe was that food was plentiful, the climate was WARM, and best of all, didn't have the conventional winters we've had for the last 1000 years.

Mini-Ice Ages have occured 3 times over the last 2000 years. When Krakatoa went up, it was darker for 3 years after that event.

Man Made Global Warming is utter bullshit. Will ALWAYS BE BULLSHIT.

 

[Tommy Allison]

It is interesting that the arguments here are boiling down to mutual accusations of conspiracy, not only at our level on his forum, but globally. I'm referring to the Prez of Czeckoslovokia, for example, who says Global Warming enthusiasts are just looking for big bucks. On the opposite side it's Big Oil that is 'bad.'

I'm not convinced of either. I don't believe every 'scientist' who endorses the idea of AGW is a closet socialist bent on a New World Order and Government whose sole purpose is taking resources from those who produce it and giving it to those who want a handout and have done nothing. I also do not believe that Big Oil is out to increase profits and prevent us from using new technologies because it will reduce our dependence on said Big Oil and is actively attempting to subvert the AGW theory as part of the 'vast Right Wing Conspiracy.'

Both sides seem to be taking the view that 'Our scientists are better than your scientists.' and also the usual 'Follow the money.' arguments. What that tells me is that no one knows really what is going on and everyone is entrenched in their positions. If you want to follow the money, the AGW proponents point to that evil Big Oil subverting their studies--and they probably smoke, too! On the other side it is pointed out that research grants drive scientific studies and it is unlikely research money can be had for proving AGW wrong. You can follow the money both ways and use it as an argument.

But we can't even agree on 'factual' matters. Here a few weeks ago it was discovered that the sensors monitoring the arctic ice had drifted so far off course that they were reporting a vast area of arctic melting the size of California that just happened to still be covered in ice. That's reported above. Yet we're immediately told by the agw guys that this 'glitch' doesn't matter and their conclusions remain the same. It is pointed out that the last ten years have gotten noticeably cooler and we're told that 'it's just a bump' and global warming will REALLY take off in a few years. It's pointed out that the infamous 'hockey stick' graph used by Al Gore & Co. was a result of a computer program that would create hockey stick graphs out of random data no matter what was fed into it. It disappeared from the latest UN report, and we're told not to look at the man behind the curtain. The hockey stick was 'never there.'

It's no wonder people are feeling sucker-punched here. Your B.S. detectors ought to be on red alert. Here everyone is quite certain the government and those in authority lied to us about Vietnam. They lied to us about UFOs. They lied to us about Watergate. They lied to us about Iran/Contra. They lied to us about Monica. They lied to us about Saddam and WMD. Pick ANY subject and we'll hear the same thing, the same old litany. They lied. They lie. They will lie. It's nothing but lies.

But Global Warming? Oh, yeah, that's true. 'Scientists' say so--at least some of them, so it must be true. All that data that tends to point the other way: Mars is experiencing global warming, for example. Doesn't matter and it's unfair for you to use more than one argument.

Well, I still don't know. But I do know that if you take a long-term perspective on global climate changes, a perspective involving tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, then what you see in the recent past is a history of climate fluctuations involving Ice ages and warming trends where the ice ages include an ice pack covering North America and Europe. And if you look at the graphs what you will find is that it's been about 12,000 years since the last ice age fluctuation, and that of the future trend equals past experience, we are about due for another turn toward cold.

IF that is true, that the future will resemble the past, then until we can find a better way, the best way to counteract this is to throw some CO2 into the atmosphere. Besides, unless China and India sign off on this whole deal, it won't matter anyway.

If Global Warming is EXCLUSIVELY MAN MADE, then how come the surface of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter have gone up? Jupiter's temps went up so much that it spawned a second Super Storm. Yet I have never heard of SUV's being driven on Jupiter. Can you explain that?

 

[TClaeys]

If Global Warming is EXCLUSIVELY MAN MADE, then how come the surface of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter have gone up? Jupiter's temps went up so much that it spawned a second Super Storm. Yet I have never heard of SUV's being driven on Jupiter. Can you explain that?

Well, on Mars because of dust storms, or at least the research says.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

Each planet has it's own mechanisms and uniqueness, so we can't say that what makes Earth warmer will make Mars warmer. Unless in fact it is primarily the sun. But several studies have demonstrated that it is NOT the sun primarily on Earth.

You don't have to trust me, but I'm not sold on AGW. But in the meantime whenever I find something I think is interesting and look into it further, it always seems to be a bunch of crap tangled in politics.

So while we both think there is bullshit involved, then why do the vast majority of scientists say that it is true?? How are they involved in this hoax?? I refuse to think that a majority of scientists spent all this time learning and becoming a scientist only to become involved in some lie. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Tommy Allison]

If other planets have their own mechanisms for climate change, then how come Earth is exempt?

You don't have an explanation, and neither do any of the scientists who preach and scream that we're all going to die because of so called Climate Change.

The ones that do, attribute ALL of our warming to Sunspot activity. Which DOES have a major correlation to the timing of our warming periods.

The ONLY reason why people who are in science tell lies, is so they can receive a paycheck. If I pay a scientist to find global warming, and he doesn't succeed, I'll find a scientist who will, and pay him the money.

It's all about payoffs and lies from the scientific community. In 3000 years we haven't been able to find a cure for cancer have we? Yet, all the money and research in the world keeps getting poured into something that seems simple enough to fix. The problem is that they can't make curing cancer profitable.

If we see any breakthroughs, it will happen because the Baby Boomer Generation of liars will need more life, and heaven knows they won't just die off like their parents did.

And as I write this, it's fucking snowing. Not just little flakes, but big fat flakes that will become a foot of snow that I have to fucking shovel.

 

[TClaeys]

And as I write this, it's fucking snowing. Not just little flakes, but big fat flakes that will become a foot of snow that I have to fucking shovel.

And that really sucks when you can't even refuel the tank. You are still in starvation mode right??

If science is based on starting with a conclusion then finding evidence to support it, then this predicament is quite sad. Science used to be the quest for the truth although it took a long time to convince anyone (many times not until the correct scientist was dead). I guess I have this romantic view of scientists honestly trying to unravel the mysteries and problems of the world and beyond. And probably some are. But then, what are we to think?? Geez considering this, is it any wonder people don't buy evolution??

If this is any indication of how we would handle global matters, then we are all completely screwed. Because something will undoubtedly happen that affects us all on a global scale. Stuff that makes global warming shrink into nothing. The asteroid that missed us. Disease. Alien overlords. And we're supposed to calmly and deliberately solve the problem, when we can't even agree there is a problem.

Coincidentally I just watched a show on the History Channel - How the Earth was Formed. And the little bit I saw focused on Krakatoa, and the "other" volcano building nearby that will rival or exceed it's mother. This will happen. The Yellowstone supervolcano will happen. Another ice age will march into our region at some point. What do we do then?? Oh yes I almost forgot : KILL!!

Either way, it seems both groups have something to gain from either accepting or denying AGW. Why would Exxon put so much money into science intended to show AGW is bunk?? And why would the powers that be put so much effort into showing it true?? They both have something to gain. So the true spirit of discovery is lost in a money laden, conclusion first, drama. That sucks.

 

[pixelsmith]

...Coincidentally I just watched a show on the History Channel...

the History Channel?

 

[0uterj0in]

It's all about payoffs and lies from the scientific community.

Please, tell us more about this.

 

[Schuyler]

Some of you don't like the Heartland Institute because you say it is sponsored by the evil Big Oil and besides, some of them smoke. On the other hand, some people don't like the United Nations because they say it is a front for the NWO and are as corrupt as a Chicago politician.

They just sponsored another Conference on Climate Change in New York City that ended yesterday. Oh, you didn't hear about it? That's kind of strange, isn't it? You would think the media would cover a major conference in New York, especially considering the speakers there, who presumably, spoke willingly and don't mind having their names used. None of them are going to insist their names be taken off the list since we have video of them speaking.

Vaclav Klaus, now President of the EU, was there, as has been in the past. Just to cherry pick one of his statements:

{alarmists are} "not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998, and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that the people have been adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere."

Here are the proceedings: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf Note especially who these speakers are, and what their fields of expertise are. I think you're going to have a hard time debunking ALL these guys.

There are also a number of books out on the subject. The following are from my own collection. There are several more listed in the two proceedings I have linked here.

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," by Christopher C. Horner. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007, 350pp, ISBN: 978-1-59698-501-8.

"Cool It; The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming," by Bjorn Lomborg. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007, 254pp. ISBN: 978-0-307-26692-7.

"Shattered Consensus; the true state of Global Warming," by Patrick J. Michaels. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005, 291pp. ISBN: 978-0-7425-4923-4.

Meltdown; the predictable distortion of Global Warming by scientists, politicians, and the media," by Patrick. J. Michaels, Washington, DC: The Cato Institute, 2004, 271pp. ISBN: 978-1-930865-79-2.

The 2008 Conference Proceedings are here, including PowerPoint, audio, etc.: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.html

 

[Mogwa]

If you've bothered to do your research on this subject with an objective approach, two things become manifestly clear:

The environmental movement is primarily based on political and social convictions, not science.
We are witnessing the rebirth of an ancient worldwide religious cult which is attempting to replace those failing "revelatory" religions that supplanted it.
So if you find the weather not to your liking, stuff a few wicker baskets with babies and burn them alive to appease Gaia, our Angry Mother. They aren't really human after all because they don't vote, and I'm sure the the Magna Mater would be pleased enough to bless us with a bountiful harvest.

 

[musictomyears]

You can stop with tying your brain into knots. Just watch this docu (9 parts):

 

[musictomyears]

If Global Warming is EXCLUSIVELY MAN MADE, then how come the surface of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter have gone up? Jupiter's temps went up so much that it spawned a second Super Storm. Yet I have never heard of SUV's being driven on Jupiter. Can you explain that?

Well, I have definite proof that American SUVs heat up Mars' atmosphere: