the fact the french prof changed his mind should ring huge alarm bells. the guy probably theorized about man made GW and was convinced 'a priori'. when he did the necessary research to confirm his fears he found contradicting data and not any where near enough solid material to support the man made view. the actual GW propaganda is very well orchestrated, politicians fabricate and distort data to support agendas, we have multitude of examples, the bush push for the noah's grand canyon for instance, and no shortage of opportunistic scientists willing to compromise for political and financial gains. and if there's an agenda in place with politicians in full control of it, u are not gonna hear much from the other side, no matter how sound their research, GW critics will be shunned upon and ridiculed for speaking the truth if the truth hurts.
here it is: the bbc "great global warming swindle" documentary full length, 1:15. science trumps fiction and facts trump deception. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&hl=en
I realize that my post may be a little hard for you to understand. So I'll explain it in simpler terms. It is well known that the earth's surface temperature had very large swings, on both hot and cold ends, as recent as 10000 years ago. Early earth was so hot, that no living things could have existed. During the ice ages, the population of many species dropped dramatically, and many species went extinct. The global temperature stablized to a relatively narrow range in the past 10000 years. It's only a matter of time that the temperature would swing out of this range. Do you think that it's a coincidence that agriculture started approximately the same time when the global temperature stablized to the current range? What do you think would happen to agriculture (and human population) when the temperature swings out of this range? There is nothing wrong with the science (about the wild swings in the temperature). The idiots were using the science to argue that because the earth was much cooler or hotter before so we don't need to worry about it. It's like building a house on a floodplain, then argue that because there had been floods here before the house was built, so there is no reason to worry about future floods.
no i understood exactly what u were saying and it is totally moronic; u are undermining the whole research by focusing on historic temps and taking them out of contest. the argument is not on wether past periods of warmer weather in itself form the basis for natural GW. it is the fundamental relation between the greenhouse gases, specifically the CO2 and temperatures in past cycles, the sun hot spots, the magnetic field and it's effect on temperatures. we are talking not only about recent past presence of much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it's effective lagging behind temperatures, but that is actually lagging by 100s of years, and for a long period even inversely proportional to warming. if CO2 lags by such long periods it cant be the cause of GW but a byproduct, a fallout. infact only the solar activity follows closely with the temperatures chart, the CO2 fractal not always does. and CO2 is not just created by fossil fuel and certainly not a recent phenomena. infact man made CO2 constitutes a tiny percentage of all the CO2 emissions from nature: volcanos, plants, us human as bodies, animal life, decomposing matter but above all the oceans make up for most of the total CO2 in our atmosphere...even if man made GW is real, which is not, reducing CO2 emissions would have a minimal effect on temperatures where oscillation from volcanic eruptions alone create more emissions than more of all our factories combined can produce.
In other words, we just watch helplessly ourselves become pressure-cooked meat. We can do nothing about it.
if you are so worried about co2's then stop farting and kill a bunch of squirrels. from 1940 till 1980 they were scaring you nellies with global cooling.... NY was gonna be a sheet of ice. just another hoax for you sheeple to open your wallets and scream save me mommie. wait, let me grab my birkensocks and eat some rice cakes.
For those that want to read what scientists are saying about most of the arguments and counter-arguments quoted in this and other GW threads on ET, go here and start reading: http://www.realclimate.org/ For example, they discuss the British show, ""The Great Global Warming Swindle", here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414 You may have to scroll to the top of the page... nitro
where? i am curious, since i thought the warming is agreed upon fact and discussion is on reasons not the facts by themselves.