Global warming in not a ridiculous theory

You don't like Wikipedia? Try Britannica: http://www.britannica.com... The temperature measurements remain the same. Given that the debate is: "Global Warming is not a ridiculous theory" If you then say "of course it's warming" (as you have) this debate is over. Nobody can now rightfully vote for you. ----------------------------------------------- Still, I cannot resist your side issues a) Global Warming revolves around Al Gore? Is that really happening in the USA? It certainly isn't in the rest of the world, where the central focus is the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch... I recommend you read their reports. There is no greater authority. b) Human emissions and Global Warming. The problem with the current incidence of global warming is: - "Our climate is warming at a faster rate than ever before recorded." NOAA Administrator D. James Baker 18-April-2000 - CO2 levels are also now higher than they have been for 450,000 years (ice-core data) This massive increase in CO2 (and other green house gasses) has all occurred since the industrial revolution. The 0.6 degrees of warming has also occurred since the industrial revolution. c) Thousands of credible scientists disagree with global warming theory. Really? Well, they may be credible to you at the moment, but let's take a look more closely... - It was published by the "Victorville Daily Press" A tiny daily with nothing to lose (no offence about your hometown). - No consensus man-made global warming exists or that the science is settled. All it takes is for one anthropologist to disagree, and we have no consensus. This is the norm in science, and the world in general. - The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Is infamous for cherry-picking and misrepresenting data. Here is a page of examples: http://www.realclimate.org... - "their degrees are in 'various scientific fields'" Like physics and medicine - notice only one climate scientist (Richard Lindzen) is mentioned. Richard Lindzen also believes that "lung cancer isn't closely related to smoking" He has also been paid a lot of money by ExxonMobil http://en.wikipedia.org... - What about the other scientists, could they have been paid by ExxonMobil too? Actually yes, they could have been: http://www.guardian.co.uk... I worry that such corrupted scientists are confusing people on a grand scale. Of course this suits big business (cars, oil, coal, gas and other big polluters) very well. d) From the first four comments below, I think you and "Labrat228" might like to do a little experiment. (i) Get an accurate thermometer and measure the temperature of a body of gas with broad-spectrum light shining through it. (ii) Add 30% more CO2 to the gas than there was. (That's the increase we've had) (iii) Measure the temperature again after a few hours. This type of experiment was performed in the 1800s and was how greenhouse gasses were discovered. As Labrat says... once you've shown it via experiment, it's no longer a theory. P.S. Joseph Bast's "Heartland Institute" has accepted $560,000 from ExxonMobil and over $200,000 from Philip Morris tobacco. Another remarkable coincidence. Unlike you, he claims to not believe there has been any global warming trend. http://en.wikipedia.org...