It was warmer in 1000AD than it is now. It was warmer still in 60AD. Cold spells from 500AD-700AD and more cold spells from 1300AD-1850AD. None of those times did mankind have any affect on global warming or cooling. It happened and there was no human generated CO2. No, I'm not worried about global warming in the least, much less how we caused it or how we're going to fix it. What truly alarms me is the socialists and socialist governments revving hysteria about global warming and jumping on the bandwagon as a new way to squeeze money out of their own citizens and everyone else in the world, too. I call those people limousine liberals and caviar commies - Al Gore and John Kerry come to mind - the sky is falling, but not on their lifestyles, only on everyone else's and out of everyone else's pocket.

So where are all these detailed records dating back thousands of years that will give us actual data to base our projections on? We simply do not have anywhere close to enough data to base anything on (global warming or cooling). The Earth is 4.5 billions years old. Our detailed records go back less than 200 years. Any other scientific study would require a much larger sampling of records. But, guess what? They don't exist. At the current rate of .9 degrees of warming over 100 years of time (from1905 to 2205)(according to the National Academy of Sciences) it will take about 8200 to 8500 years for the polar ice caps to melt. A rate I 'm really not worried about. Much of this warming over the past century occured been 1900 and 1940 (before the current "alleged" culprits even existed but, don't let little things like facts get in the way).
In addition, on Oct 12, 2006 both Detroit and Chicago reported the earliest snowfall on record. On Oct.13,2006 Buffalo shattered it's old snowfall record for that month by well over a foot. Numerous cities throughout the southeast reported record lows throughout November and early December.
But, I really can't sight these examples because they are only one of about 200 years worth of record keeping. The same period global warming proponents like to qoute from.
I'm not even going to go the arguement about how global warming is spurning the most active cycle in years. Suffice it to say it doesn't have the effect everyone wants it to have. Wow, 2006 was a very active year (0 landfalling Hurricanes )!
Just keep on piling incomplete data on top of incomplete data,somebody might buy into the global warming hoax (yes that is exactly what it is.)

I am skeptical about global warming being caused by CO2. CO2, currently is about 370 ppm while another equally effective global warming gas is present at ~2% (20,000 ppm). That gas is water vapor. In addition, only a fraction of the CO2 is man-made.

The results of the Vostok ice core has recently been released. A chart of temperature variance and CO2 concentrations vs time shows a very close correlation between temperature and CO2, but in every case the change in the CO2 lags the change in temperature, especially in the pre-glacial cooling periods. If CO2 were the cause of global warming, it would be the reverse.

When the temperature increases, the CO2 concentration increases for several reasons; 1) when the ocean warms, the CO2 is less soluble, 2) an increase in temperature increases growth rates, which results in an increase in CO2 from both plant and animal life.

The frightening thing about the temperature chart is that the warm (non ice-age) periods are evenly spaced at 90,000 to 100,000 years apart and last approximately 10,000 years. Between each warm period is approximately 90,000 years of ice age. We are at the end of the fifth warm period of the last 400,000+ years.

I am not convienced that what warming we are seeing is a result of CO2 or not. My brother and I had a discussion about the subject and he mentioned that Mars is suffering a warming too and it is causing the polar ice caps on Mars to receed. He also mentioned that this fact is never mentioned by those supporting the CO2 warming position. I looked for news about Mars's warming and it is a fact.

Since the industrial revolution has yet to impact Mars's atmosphere it would seem that our sun is the problem on Mars. Why don't we hear news like this from the supporters of global warming? Why don't we hear about this from our news media? Could it be that they have a hidden agenda?

It's nice to know that there are other people coming to their senses that used to believe the global warming hype just as I used to.

We know the world has had cycles of heating and cooling for millions of years…yet this time we are observing it, so….it must be our fault. Understanding be damned, we have rounded up the usual suspect….us. The logic is inescapable. “Causation by observation”

Oh my, how we take ourselves so seriously…. I want everybody to stand on one foot and say “COOL” ten times…and this to be done 5 times a day for the next 35 years in the industrialized nations. Developing world’s peoples are exempt from this…just trying to keep the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol…yeah that should solve the problem….
Conventional Wisdom now has enough power to stop scientific discourse as many sources are refusing grant money to study what the real cause is, but freely offer grants to really questionable science but espouse politically correct ideas…
With that logic in mind maybe I can get a continuous $1,000,000 grant per year espousing my idea of the “The One Foot COOL Theory for Combating Rising Global Temperatures.” (I trust the title is long enough and sounds serious enough)
I just hope I can get on the gravy train in time…..or maybe get a recurring nightly spot on some TV news show.

Dr. Ted Stucka
Maryland, NY

Almost all of the discussion of global warming in the media and by politically active people is at the elementary level of "getting warmer - is not - is too." The questions that are important for responsible action are not discussed, such as: 1) what percentage of the increase in temperature can/must be attributed to human activity (with evidence rather than rhetoric to support that attribution), 2) of the warming that is attributed to human activity, what percentage can be affected and to what extent by the changes proposed (evidence to support that, rather than the selection of the highest number from the most extreme examples), and 3) what study (like the environmental impact studies that are so popular with political activists) has been made of the human impact of the economic and social changes that will result from those proposed (as in Kyoto, et al) actions. I have yet to see reasoned consideration of these questions anywhere.

Ed Livingston
Loudon, Tennessee

it has been my experience that in order to find the answer to a question you need to examine the facts or data in order to determine the legitimacy of an argument...if you do not wish to do the homework, then you are left with deciding based on someone's opinion who supposedly did that...the point i am trying to make is that we here one "experts" opinion vs another "experts" opinion then based on that, we should decide who is correct in the global warming debate...having trained in the geological sciences, earth history is familiar to me...so is relative hot, cold, dry and wet spells, rise and falls of co2 content that span 1000's of years detailed in the geologic record...considering the relative snapshot in geologic time at the center of this debate, it concerns me more what the effects public policy based on this issue (nonissue in my opinion) will have, than the perceived threat global warming will do...if i may allow myself to predict the future as some meteorologist claim they can a hundred years from now, then with no uncertainty, i predict that it will cost me more in tax dollars because of this issue...global public policy based on a few years of data that can forecast hundreds of years in advance is ridiculous given the multitude of variables we dont know...take for example a typical accuweather forecast for my home town here in midland...it is particularly amusing to see the high and low temperature forecasts consistently error by 3-4 degrees and many times much greater than that in the 15 day forecasts you guys post for the U.S...yet, we're supposed to believe that we can predict a global temperature rise or fall in tenths of a degree in a hundred-two hundred years in the future?...come on, what are you guys doing...do you really believe you can predict with accuracy an average GLOBAL temperature two hundred years in advance to within a tenth of a degree...what happens when the next volcano blasts tons of dust and gas (yes, that bad co2) in the atmosphere and cools the global temperature...is this an anomaly to be thrown out?...then, tell me how co2 absorption not only at the oceans surface but 2 miles below changes daily, weekly, a century from now and what role does deep sea currents effect this and by the way, do it on a global basis because we are talking worldwide here...in order to answer a global question then i need data not only next to the beach i go visit, but in the arctic and places where we dont even know what kind of critters live there...same for solar heat reflectence due to cloud cover and how daily changes in cloud cover effect daily temperatures that we measure to predict global variance and what effect these variables effect the above variables in all the same places all over the world...dont forget, their is a big yellow ball in the sky that is burning nuclear fuel at varying rates and we need to plug that into the equation on not only a daily basis but a historical one as well and by the way, you need to be able to predict how that will change...dont forget, the earth is wobbling around in space and on the time scales we are using, its effects need to be considered, as well as those darn oceanic spreading centers are spewing hot rock warming and not warming the ocean and i bet at variable rates so we need to consider that...the point i am making should be obvious....global temperature forecasting is error prone because it is influenced by innumerous variables based on unknown future interactions...you would do better to go to you local terot reader and ask her what lies ahead...if you are skeptical of my opinion watch the daily forecasts from not just this source, but others as well, write them down, each day, then ask yourself do you think someone sitting at a computer workstation back in room at a university campus can tell you what the high and low temperature is going to be in your backyard 100 years from now...perhaps, laura you could do a piece on where, how and by what means global climatolgy gets its data and how it uses it to arrive at their magnificent conclusions so that everyone can use this information to decide for themselves and dont forget to mention all the variables that go into these conclusions, not just the ones i mentioned above...as you qualify in your opening paragraph, i too am no expert in the field of global climatology, however i do know you guys that get paid to do meteorological stuff cannot tell me if its going to rain in two weeks and whether it will be ok to till my garden because it will be a warm day so why should anyone allow that your peers in the forecasting business, can make those kind of predictions to that kind of accuracy a hundred years from now...

If we are casuing global warming with green house gasses, how did the global temp rise centries ago? There where no cars then, or coal fire plants. Lot of people will be sory that we fell for this nonscence.

The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor and it accounts for almost 95% of the so called "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere.
CO2 is a little more than 4% of the remaining greenhouse gas. By far the largest producer of that amount is first the ocean then comes decaying vegetation, volcanos and humans come fourth in producing that 4%....wow...
Lets give up everything and go back to no electricity/gasoline and the temps will still rise.
The biggest cause of global warming is the SUN ! Thats why temps are rising on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and even on Pluto. I am sure that you think that I may be driving my Suburban on those planets and that may count for the rise....Sheesh, how about a little logic instead of all this alarmist hyperbole for a change?

Wait a minute, what makes those people that believe the scientific facts about the Earth's natural climate cycles the skeptics?
It would seem more honest to call those that question the scientific facts, the skeptics.
In ninth grade Science class, we were taught the three levels of scientific conclusion. Global warming is only theory, just as global cooling was a theory in the '70's

( skep?tic also scep?tic(skptk) n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions)

The Great Global Warming Swindle
Long segment. Please watch at least the first 7-1/2 minutes to understand the argument. You may be surprised...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

When discussing this subject with folks who are being persuaded by the deluge of MSM pro-catastrophic-warming propaganda, I suggest they not be so gullible. The truly basic information is easily available. They should look it up themselves, and draw their own conclusions.

It's a recorded and undisputed fact that CO2 has risen substantially, by about a third, over the past half century, likely due to human combustion of "fossil" fuels. Exquisitely accurate, and truly global, satellite measurements show the temperature to be increasing at the ordinary and benign rate of a degree or two per century. And, each new increase in CO2 is less effective than previous ones in "greenhouse" effect. Therefore, the results of the great (albeit inadvertent) experiment are in. There will be no catastrophic global warming caused by CO2.

There are many benefits from increases CO2; milder temperatures are better for human life. It has unequivocally been shown that plant growth has increased about 10% due to the increased CO2, resulting in the greening of our earth, increasing its life-carrying capacity for all of nature, and us.

Remember Global Cooling in the 70's?

WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHY THE PLANET MARS AND NEPTUNE ARE WARMING UP,WHERE AS EARTH IS NOT... I BELIEVE THE EARTH IS GOING THROUGH ITS 18000 YEAR CYCLE AND MAN HAS VERY VERY VERY LIITLE TO DO ABOUT IT...JAKE

as a formar skywarn storm spotter-i am a skeptic of global warming for several reasons-nmber one- if this stuff was warming as rapidly as they think it is-there would be a cap- or a lid surpressing t-storm development- second off- i am still seeing hail sizes in excess of 2 inchs in diameter- the most recent yesterday- they want to think everything supposedly causes it- i heard dog doo-dee causes it- fishing, ect.- i cannot see anything scientific about it- anything they say that causes- such as as the drought- they want to blame the drought from global warming - not true at all- an area of high pressure in the southeast preventing cold fronts to pass threw therefore no rainfall- you know there will be years where temps are above normal- then there will be years below normal temperture wise- now instead of the "global warming" you know theres 2 real scientic evidence- el nino and la nina

Climate is very complex and of a very large magnitude. It is clearly very difficult to model. Some of my perspectives on what the debates should be looking at independent of money sources:

1. It is clear that there are big cycles out there that have caused glaciation and interglacial periods over the last million years or so. There are some good theories on the causes but I don't think any have been identified as THE cause conclusively.

2. There are smaller cycles that occur over hundreds of years. Once again, these have a number of postulated cause but not a proven cause.

3. During the last 100 to 200 years, humans developed the internal combustion engine and cut down massive expanses of forests.

4. During that period, climate measurements have gone from few crude ones to relatively sophisticated monitoring but with still poor geographic distribution.

5. Many monitoring sites have undergone substantial change over the last 100 years due to urbanization and other causes that are likely to have casued change in the results from those points due to changing microclimates (e.g. urban heat islands) and reduced quality of measuring station. It is unclear how good the quality control of the data is that is being used to justify the various arguments is.

6. New positive and negative feedback loops in the climate system appear to be "discovered" periodically. Each one of these could have a significant and still unknown impact on the models being used to predict the future.

Unfortunately, there are huge amounts of money on the table with respect to changing entire societies cultures and lifestyles, as well as international politics and perspectives. This means that there are lots of agendas out there that are competing to have the "right" story instead of just letting the scientists get on with their work in understanding the system.

My general inclination is to put policies in place to prevent execution of strategies known to be highly risky based on current known conditions (e.g. building on a beach in Florida) where past history would indicate signficant potential for devastation and hold off on society and world wide changes that would not be necessary in a "benign" state of climate change.

Since many of the countries which are likely to grow into massive carbon users generally struggle with friendly relations with some of their key neighbors, it is unlikely that they are going to unite with otehr countries on the other side of the world to prevent a potential calamity that may be 100 years off, if it were to ever arise.

At the moment, we need to better understand the science while picking the low hanging fruit of preventative measures. If we can't organize something to get a levee raised properly, how are we going to be able to manage changing the world?