[GreenSpartan]

Heartland Institute - Are you comfortable getting your science from an industry front group that denies the danger of second hand smoke?

Originally Posted by lars

No ...he is not alone. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
Solar Link Possible
Scientists are not sure whether the Martian warming is entirely due to Mars-specific forces or may be the result of other forces, such as increasing solar output, which would explain much of the recent asserted warming of the Earth as well.
Sallie Baliunas, chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C. Marshall Institute, said, "Pluto, like Mars, is also undergoing warming." However, Baliunas speculated it is "likely not the sun but long-term processes on Mars and Pluto" causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure.

Pat Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, similarly expressed a desire for more information about the Martian climate. "What is the internal dynamic that is warming Mars?" asked Michaels. "Given the fact that there are not a lot of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on Mars, and given the fact that new research indicates that 10 to 30 percent estimated conservatively of Earth's recent warming is due to increased solar output, the Martian warming may support that new research." [note: I fixed to quote to match the source material]

Models May Be Wrong
The new research mentioned by Michaels is the October 2 release of findings by Duke University scientists that "at least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxin gas released by various human activities."

Your two supporters say "not likely" and "may support research on Earth". That's a far cry from your first link.

Originally Posted by lars

550 million years ago C02 levels = 6900ppm

Big deal. The point is humans are responsible for a significant increase in the CO2 now, which in theory has led to an increase in the current temps. Why are CO2 levels from millions of years ago relevant to the amount of CO2 we've put in the current atmosphere? They're not.

Originally Posted by lars

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/sc...gewanted=print

'Other experts say that is an oversimplification of a complex picture of natural variation. The fluctuations in the gas levels, they say, often fall out of step with the planet’s hot and cold cycles, undermining the claimed supremacy of carbon dioxide.
“It’s too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods” on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack, a geologist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies past atmospheres. “The record violates that one-to-one correspondence.”

I'm not aware of any scientist claiming this. Most seem to think the glacial cycles are driven more by long term, cyclical variations in the Earth's orbit. Paleoclimatologists readily explain that CO2 and temp. don't always correlate because of other factors. However we have 650,000 years of data from the most recent past saying that for this period of time they do. We have testable, scientific reasons for believing CO2 and other greenhouse gases are driving the increases we're currently seeing.

Originally Posted by lars

True..but cows account for more 'global warming' gases than all the cars and trucks in the world. Increasing production of cows is the greatest threat according to the UN. So why is Al Gore and global warming alarmists not targeting the meat eating C02 footprint of the world?

Well if you were familiar with the discussions in the environmental community you'd know they've been talking about reducing meat consumption for years to protect water quality and land as well as save energy and lower antibiotic use. If you google "un cows climate change" you'll find any number of environmental sites saying this is yet another reason to reduce or eliminate the amount of meat you eat.

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by lars

So lets recap, your "global warming caused by humans" view of climate change is riddled with contradictions in evidence, inconsistency, conflicts among scientists and models that many scientist view as inaccurate.

You keep ignoring the fact that your conflicts and model doubters are from fringe players and exceedingly small in numbers.

Originally Posted by lars

But you're sure your scientists are right

No. What I've been saying all along is it's the best science we have right now. We've always based policy on the best current science. Why should this be any different?

Originally Posted by lars

despite a long history of being wrong on climate (see 70s global cooling)

Wrong again. The scientific community never really bought into that.

Originally Posted by lars

and that C02 from humans is the cause dispite recent evidence that solar output is increasing and warming of other planets in the solar system.

You do realize the models incorporate solar forcing, don't you? You can add up all the effects we know about: solar effects, cloud cover, absorption of heat by the oceans, etc., but the only way you get the current temps is by adding anthropogenic GHGs.

Originally Posted by lars

But then again Al Gore couldn't be wrong.

I haven't mentioned Al Gore once. You seem to be the one hung up on him. Ironically you're probably one of the ones who decry the politicization of the issue. Maybe it's more a case of you don't want Gore to be right.