Defending the Truth

Yeah I know. It's politically incorrect to speak out against the Cult of Global Warming, but it seems that more and more people are doing it.

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists | the Daily Mail
The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com

Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics
A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues.
Democracy Now! | Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics

Hurricane Katrina forced a mass evacuation of New Orleans and may leave up to a million people homeless. As this unprecedented storm deluges the South, we look at new evidence that human-induced global warming is causing the increased strength of tropical storms.
Democracy Now! | Is Global Warming Causing More Devastating Hurricanes Worldwide?

Does it? Based on the links you've provided, it seems like there are ten scientists who disagree. One of those links talks entirely about a Malaria specialist who disagrees. Further, because these scientists are published in the news instead of reliable science journals, their expertise is questionable. This compares to the countless scientists who believe that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

It seems to me that only a few scientists disagree with global warming, but those few are getting a lot of media attention, probably because the news likes to give the viewer "the real story" and "both sides of the issue", even when the "real story" is unlikely, and the "other side of the issue" isn't really backed up by science.

In case it is unclear, both of those links are talking about a TV show entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". One is apparently an advertisement for the show, while the other is a news article.

This is the argument of those opposed to global warming by green house gases, as I understand it:

While some of the recent global warming is due to green house gases, the majority of it is due to increased solar activity. In the future, we may still see temperature increases due to green house gases, but those temperature increases will not be as dramatic as other scientists believe, because we are overestimating the effect of green house gases today.

While it is clear that the increase in the sun's activity will have very little direct impact on the Earth's temperature, it will have an indirect one. Increases in the sun's activity reduce the number of galactic cosmic rays which reach the Earth. These rays are responsible for the creation of low-level clounds, and because there are less of these rays, there are less low-level clouds. This results in more of the sun's energy reaching the earth, and thus there are higher temperatures.

I found further explanation here:
Sciencebits | Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

This is a relatively new theory, which has not undergone much testing. It is criticized because there isn't really enough evidence to say that this mechanism happens at all. That is, they've got theory behind it, and they found some correlations, but in other places, the relationship seems to disappear. It may be that they are ignoring places where the numbers don't line up, focusing on places where they do. Furthermore, it does not seem that there is necessarily anything wrong with the green house gases model. It is difficult to look at the green house gases model and say that it is must be wrong for some reason.

I found further explanation at these links:
RealClimate » Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
RealClimate » The lure of solar forcing

Since, it seems like the numbers supporting the galactic cosmic rays theory seem to fall apart in some places, and the large majority of scientists support the green house gases theory, I feel that the most logical theory at this point is the green house gases theory. Further, both sides do acknowledge that green house gases do increase the Earth's temperature; the debate is about how much it increases, so the claims that "Global Warming doesn't exist" or "the Greenhouse effect is a myth" are backed by no scientist.

It really amazes me that people can not see the correlation between global warming and mankind's impact on the planet. I can understand if you think some of these organizations are over-exagerating the problem (most of them are), but we must acknowledge that there is a problem, and that it must be addressed.

That's because it would go against their noe-conservative leanings.

Jax, great post. Now I don't have to go through it again. _42435555_global_temp_3_416[1].jpg

Sorry if the second graph is blurry, as I scanned it. It is a look at the ice core samples mentioned in Jefferson's link. It compares the temperature to the Carbon in the air for a given year. The gray line indicates, on the far right, the current temperature. The closest dip is the last ice age. The blue line ends on the first red dot, the current Carbon, in parts per million. It currently is almost twice what it was at the last nautral warming period. The second dot is projected carbon in 45 years.
The abnormal sharp increase starts at the beginning of industrial revolution.
Temp vs carbon.jpg