Ok to answer a few things

The Oceans are complex layers of different temps. Why do we only check one level when every submariner knows what to do when trying to evade detection, you go through the different layers and their very diverse temp ranges. Sorry recording the top is not sufficient, and try to say they detect the whole of the oceans, and I will laugh at you.

I mentioned Quantum theory since it's a joke of science also.

Thermodynamics can be explained by regular physics.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

seems like there 's actually no gravtiy either

@Nemeara

That site is all fake .

I guess it is up to me to help FC.

1) Millions of years? I will pay you $600 if you can show me the temp range with a 95% accuracy of the Portland Oregon area 2 million years ago (Unless Earth was a ball of magma or such)

2) If we chart with a graph, then where do the viking farms under the ice of greenland come into play? The ice still present under our current temp mind you.

3) There is also proof more carbon existed in the atmosphere than currently in the last 2000 years, so I guess I can get you a flower covered dress shirly?

>>but we can look back hundreds of millions of years at the global temps back then<<

Yes yes. Very accurate and precise science, that.

>>So , if its just a coincidence that the tempature went a hundred times higher in a billion years at this very part in time the same time we started burning fossil fuels<<

Your wording is terribly confusing because when you said "a hundred times" you really meant a tiny tiny tiny % (I'm talking Kelvin, measure of heat, not your silly C and F measures). And obviously you know how tiny a portion of those burning-fossil-fuel-emitted gasses man is responsible for putting in the atmosphere, compared to nature. I hope this helps, Shirly.

I hate how this bad science leads to bad politics, when even if there was cause for action the actions proposed and taken have NO effect they're claimed to be aimed at. They do hurt economies though. Environmentalists overly concerned with CO2 emissions are assholes.

Help My Blanket Is Chasing Me And It's Scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

like i said, though, no matter what i say it wont matter in your opinion.  Its easier to believe it doesnt exist...

im no longer replying. The only point of an argument is to explore new opinions and facts improving our point of view on the subject, and neither of us would do that. I think im goign to stop posting in the politics forum, its far to right wing for me.

im 22 btw, and how can you mean no insult when you blatantly call me immature and hinge your counter argument on the terms i used rather than the meaning behind the argument. Its like someone saying someone else is wrong because his grammer is off...so consider this my last post in politics forum.

Yeah goodbye Shirly!

With a cisco democrat as house speaker and the dems holding the senate and the white house ya neednt worry...in a couple years our biggest CO2 pollutant will be dung stoves and trashcan fireplaces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slTkJY-cTWY

I am pretty sure that there is global warming. The melting of ice caps is evidence of this. Collaborative evidence is the decreasing population of polar bears and rising water levels.

But, I do not think it's fair to say that it's entirely the fault of human activity. There is evidence that other factors are contributing to global warming, although to what extent I don't know. I think we should pursue cleaner and more efficient energy, and share this technology with emerging nations, but we should not neglect that it's in the interest of environmental groups to increase their power by exaggerating the problem and what we can do about it. Seriously, shutting down coal plants and substituting them with less efficient ones that raise the cost of energy is just dumb. Secondly, while the US produces a lot of pollution, we should not forget that we are also an industrial powerhouse. Our energy efficiency is light years ahead of emerging powers like China or India, which are less industrialized and also produce a lot of pollution. Even if we produced 0 pollution or greenhouse gases in the US it would have little effect because of the increasing pollution produced in emerging countries. If you want to have a real effect, then you would be better off investing in cost effective energy alternatives in China than lobbying to close a coal plant in the US. But environmental groups don't do that, because, well, they are more interested in the power they can grab.

Now if you can invent a viable and cost effective alternative to our polluting methods, I am happy to look it to it. I may even be happy to invest in such a project. But seriously, this global warming scare with demands for radical change seems to be more of an elaborate power play than a practical solution.