Defending the Truth

I'd like for you to explain away the fact that, between 1000-1300 - the most recent major warming cycle the earth went through - the average temperature of the earth was 3-6 degrees Celsius warmer than it is NOW.


Which horrible humans (I presume they were white, heterosexual christian males) we causing all that Global Warming back then?


Please explain.

You want proof that global warming is bunk. try this
Science, Politics and Death - The New American - June 14, 2004

Im not aware of any reconstructions that show temperature was that high back then.

Religion doesn't really have all that much to do with it. It's affiliation, and more importantly it's politics of economy. Obviously, concern for the environment would lead to restrictions on business practices. Conservatives cringe at this, and consider it an all-out assault on capitalism. They want to defend rather pointless practices such as pouring pollution into the air. Accepting the science of global warming (and it's human causes) would contradict this preconceived bias, as they would be forced to do something about it or obviously they would be perceived as irresponsible and immoral. So what's the only alternative? Attacking the science.

Here's someone putting his money where his mouth is. Even if there is no global warming, it'd be great to get pollution out of the air.

The graph on your link show the warming trends to be taking place over a 500 year period. The graph on my link show the current warming trend taking place in 27 years (and a 6 degree C. increase at that. Compare the two graphs!
As for your 'expert', who wrote the article on your link, heres just one of the articles I found about Dr Robinson:

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

I guess you would take the word of a 'Dr.', who is questionable at best, over 100 climate experts that has ha the task of studing the global warming subject continually, full time, for the past 4 years straight.

I followed your link. It went to the Center for Media & Democracy which is a leftist American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist wrtiter and political activist John Stauber. Dr. Arther Robinson is not alone in his criticism of global warming. Here are many others that agree with him
Global Warming Petition - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Exactly.

Global Warming is the new religion of the aging atheist hippies.

It's not about science. It's about having some cause to religiously believe in and pursue.

It's all the rage - and the Global Warming Cultists are doing EVERYTHING in their power to silence anybody who disagrees with them.

Like I already said, you'll have to come up with 100 real scientists, that study global warming everyday, to equal the panel's findings! Believe what you like. Your choice entirely.
I think the BBC is a good source.:

At a glance: IPCC report
Global climate change is "very likely" to have been human-induced, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.
KEY FINDINGS


It is very likely that human activities are causing global warming

Probable temperature rise by the end of the century will be between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F)

IPCC REPORT DEFINITIONS
Probability of occurrence:
virtually certain - more than 99%
extremely likely - more than 95%
very likely - more than 90%
likely - more than 60%
more likely than not - more than 50%
unlikely - less than 33%
very unlikely - less than 10%
extremely unlikely - less than 5%
(Source: IPCC)


Possible temperature rise by the end of the century ranges between 1.1C and 6.4C (2-11.5F)

Sea levels are likely to rise by 28-43cm

Arctic summer sea ice is likely to disappear in second half of century

It is very likely that parts of the world will see an increase in the number of heatwaves

Climate change is likely to lead to increased intensity of tropical storms
FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT


This is the first of four reports that will be published in 2007 by the IPCC as part of its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)

This report, from the IPCC's Working Group I, looks at the science of climate change

The other reports will look at: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; mitigation of climate change; and finally, the Synthesis Report
WHAT IS THE IPCC?


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep).

The role of the IPCC is to assess the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation

The global body does not carry out any research of its own

Its assessments are mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature

The First Assessment Report was published in 1990; the last one, the Third Assessment Report, was released in 2001
Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | At a glance: IPCC report

Published: 2007/02/02 13:47:20 GMT

© BBC MMVII

I think it is funny how you provided the same link that I used to prove how full of shit this petition is. Not to mention the fact that it originates from Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.
Another case of rich people saying whatever they can to keep their cash and stocks up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmeyers1944
I followed your link. It went to the Center for Media & Democracy which is a leftist American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist wrtiter and political activist John Stauber. Dr. Arther Robinson is not alone in his criticism of global warming. Here are many others that agree with him
Global Warming Petition - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

In order to get an accurate overview of changes in the temperature, it is necessary to have a history of centuries to compare to. Figure 1 in the link below shows that we are still cooler than the average of the last 3000 years on the surface of the Sargasso Sea. Figure 2 shows that global surface temperatures are not related to increases in carbon dioxide. Between roughly 1940 and 1970 the CO2 was going up while the surface temperature was going down. Figure 3 points to the most likely cause of any warming, solar activity. Scientific findings like those shown in this link speak for themselves. This is not a matter of what I believe. There is no provable causal relationship that increased CO2 caused an increase in temperature ( global warming). You can either accept these scientific facts or pull a typical liberal by attacking the messinger when you don't like the message.

Science, Politics and Death - The New American - June 14, 2004