In reference to your question. I almost never believe anything that is told to me at face value. I always do my own research and make an educated decision. I will ask 10 people the same question different ways and see what kind of answer I get. On top of reading many different books and researching the internet.

In your question you make reference to "political talk show host, liberal anti-smoking alarmist, the internet, or another poster and Dr.'s", (I don't always believe Dr.'s either) and question which one is going to believable. I would have to say that the only one that you list that I would even consider would be the internet. And you and everybody else knows why. I would also take the advice of a Dr. or two after investigating their history. I guess I could ask you where it is that you get your information and all those fancy graphs that you post to try and prove your point. And you can't say the internet. But I guess the internet is only right when it comes to majorities.

"The vast majority of scientists used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth; that didn't make it so. Nor did the Earth begin revolving around the Sun only after Copernicus convinced his colleagues to switch their votes at some Renaissance science symposium. Aristarchus, the Greek astronomer who first postulated in the Third Century BC that the Earth revolves around the Sun, wasn't wrong for nearly two millennia just because the main body of scientists mistakenly chose to believe Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the universe."

fathersforlife.org/articles/gunter/Kyoto_7.htm

I don't necessarily believe everything I read on the internet either, but I still question what caused the polar ice to expand and then recede, thousands of years ago? Why was the Middle East a lush green oasis, and now a sand box today? These things happened long before man had influence over much of anything in the world.

"The rise in temperature has been far from smooth. The early decades of the 20th century showed a distinct warming trend, peaking in the 1930s. However, from the 1940s through to the early 1970s, temperatures fell - sufficiently for commentators to raise the spectre of global cooling as we slid into the next ice age. A sudden jump in the mid-1970s heralded the return of a warming trend and led to the current concern about global warming.

But peak temperatures were recorded in 1998; since then, we have had eight years with no warming. In the meantime, CO2 levels have risen inexorably.

Since we cannot experiment to test the effect of this on climate, scientists rely on observation and, in parallel, produce mathematical models of how the climate system operates. These models - fed with a range of assumptions about how population and energy use may change - are run on the world's most powerful supercomputers to give projections for future climate changes. It is these on which tales of future catastrophe are based.

But the climate over the past century has not behaved as simple models predict. Scientists have tweaked the models to reproduce the stop/start pattern, by adding in the effect of volcanic eruptions and man-made sulphate aerosols. Because they can be made to simulate the actual pattern of 20th-century temperature change, the assumption is that they provide a good model of future changes.

What the modellers do not explain are documented changes to the climate during recorded history. During the Roman Warm Period, England was a significant wine producer, a thousand years later Greenland was settled and farmed during the Medieval Warm Period, and harvests failed and ice fairs were held on the frozen Thames in the Little Ice Age of the 17th and 18th centuries. None of it was a result of man-made CO2 emissions.

The answer may lie in the ultimate source of warmth and life on Earth: the sun. Solar activity varies in a cyclic way, with sunspots being an obvious sign of changes. The more spots, the more active the sun. On a simple level, we know that the Little Ice Age coincided with a very low level of solar activity. We also know that the sun is currently in a particularly active phase."

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-vie...-still-be-wrong.html

www.c3headlines.com/greehouse-gases-atmo...2methanewater-vapor/



Like jdeere said I would have to say that the issue is more political than you think. I personally think that it is highly political. What isn't in this country, or any other country for that matter?

I did answer your question. You just didn't like my answer. Learned a long time ago that people that don't like a particulair response to something always have a response similiar to the one you posted, and I will leave it at that. Like I said before you have your opinion and I and others on this forum have ours. Read the below links maybe they will answer your questions.

www.c3headlines.com/greehouse-gases-atmo...2methanewater-vapor/

c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b5803...c0128768a565a970c-pi

La Nina is about over, so we can expect global average temperature to return to the escalating trendline. Tropical Pacific Sea Surface temperature, Nino 3.4, has been neutral - smaller than -0.5 degrees for a month now. They say that this fact, combined with a continuation of above average sea-surface temperatures in the Caribbean and tropical Atlantic, makes conditions ripe for another above average huricanne season. Hopefully we get lucky like we did last year and the big ones don't make landfall.






Will we have a new El Nino next year and shatter the previous record high temperature? A 50/50 chance IMO.

Why didn't you just post where you got those fancy graphs?