thegreenhouse effect would be natural that the troposphere warmed faster than thesurface. But data from both satellites and weather balloons show no suchwarming. Indeed show that the surface is warming faster contradicting thetheory of the greenhouse effect and confirming the theory of higher incidenceof solar radiation on the surface.The environmental movement today, as PatrickMoore says, has become a political movement. And its most extreme portionbecame anti-development and therefore anti-human. Because once you tell poorcountries not to use oil, gas and coal to generate electricity and that they needto use solar and wind energy, in truth you're saying they can not haveelectricity. If in developed countries solar and wind energy are expensiveimagine for an underdeveloped African nation. And if you're thinking thatelectricity is not so important, after all we survived thousands of yearswithout, imagine your life without fridge, light and hot water. Imagine a worldwithout steel. Electricity is the main factor in developing countries and inimproving the living conditions of people.In Brazil we do not think much of theimpact that would have if power generation from fossil fuels stopped becausemost of our energy is generated by hydroelectric dams. But do not forget that85% of energy generation in the world comes from fossil fuels, including indeveloped countries. Much of the energy generated in the U.S. has coal as fuel. Energy fromfossil fuels is inexpensive making it affordable for a large portion of thepopulation. If we restrict its use the development in several countries willstagnate and may even regress, particularly in Africawhich has large reserves of oil and coal, and only now start to use them.Today the few scientists who speak against the theorythat global warming is caused by man are marginalized as if they were sayingthat the Holocaust did not happen. Often they see their funds decrease and arerepeatedly attacked by the media.For the people who think the discussion is closedit is worth remembering that thescientific debate can never besuppressed, it is against thevery principle ofthe scientific method. A good example is the field of physics. WithNewton'sGravity Theory it was thought that it was just a matter of time for everythingto be explained untilEinstein came up withthe Relativity Theory and showed that Newton's Theory was only anapproximation of reality. We havequantum physics where there are several branches.There is a predominantbut the others werenot annihilated and discarded. The debatehas lasted for nearly a century and nobodyknows which oneis correct, if there is evena correct one.A great scientist and fomenter of science oncesaid: "The theory that is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded orrevised for more than we liked the idea,"his name was Carl Sagan. Do not watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as thedefinitive popular presentation on global warming as Carl Sagan did with the"Cosmos" series. Al Gore is not a scientist, much less Carl Sagan.References:Documentaries filmsAn Inconvenient Truth of Davis Guggenheimhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/Not Evil Just Wrong of Phelim McAleer & AnnMcElhinney;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1493038/The Great Global Warming Swindle of MartinDurkin.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020027/ArticlesGlobal Cooling is Here - Evidence forPredicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades of Prof. Don J.Easterbrook Department of Geology of Western Washington Universityhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783Climate Science: Is it currently designed toanswer