Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming. However, in a recent article entitled "Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?" I presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause.1 But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun's electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark,2 Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center....
To further offend empiricists, I'll critique a Wikipedia article "proving" man's involvement in "global warming": [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Climatic_Research_Unit_study]]]Climatic Research Unit Study[/URL]
They chose the arithmetic mean among many possible ways to process the data (vs. min, max, mode, median)? Maybe the mean is more "democratic"
How do they know that the period of study of polar temperatures is adequate enough to establish the trend? The data points can be satisfied by infinitely many mathematical functions, which any algebra student should know. And curve-fitting begs the question.
To argue that "natural forces alone cannot produce such a warming" assumes godlike, categorical knowledge of all natural forces & their interactions.
How do we know the # of weather stations are considered an adequate sample? E.g., in Tucson, according to a news report, the annual rainfall last yr. was either 5 or 10", depending on whether you use the Airport or Foothills station data. Which is representative?
They used computerized climate models, which are arbitrary mathematical inventions assumed to emulate nature. The equations were invented, not discovered.
Finally, there's the fallacy of "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc." Back to logic class, y'all!
Faithful Remanant says: 'Some fresh air on the matter would be nice'
How about a sound book by a sound bible believer
http://www.lulu.com/content/4352796
The Green Agenda by K. B. Napier
The Green movement has nothing to do with 'saving the planet'... it has everything to do with bringing back Marxism and Fascism on a grand scale, suppressing truth,hiking-up taxes and bringing in crippling energy controls. This book shows the truth behind the Green... ignore it at your peril.
447 pages written by a UK christian pastor but written also for the unbeliever to understand exactly what is at stake-packed with facts and a must for your bookshelf.
Oh goody! Let's all choose up sides and spend a gozillian bucks on some new-fangled, thrumped up, snake-oil, thats just come out on the market. Get back to solid scientific research, before you bankrupt the world, make the Democrats rulers of the mankind, and make things far worse that they are!
Could somebody turn the thermostat down,please? Some fresh air on the matter would be nice. My opinions on the matter: If you think the earth should get warmer, get a sauna and greenhouse so you are not imposing your opinion on your fellow citizens. If you think this warming is real and don't like warm weather, move to a cooler locale. It shall be interesting to see what kind of a winter I experience here at 60 degrees north latitude. Ah well, I enjoy sauna...and a warm summer, but a cool snowy winter is nice too, but my favorite season is spring.
Mike wrote: It's about time for a new theory of global cooling. Global warming is getting old.
Hi Mike, you speak the truth !
NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records . . .
Many have noticed there is an early start to winter this year, not only in the U.S.A. London received snow this October for the first time in 70 years.
See list (from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center - NCDC)with the 115 new or tied low temperature records:
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
How about a sound book by a sound bible believer 
