For anyone to fully bury global warming, they would have to bury the
Greens.  A Green once said that if the Spotted Owl hadn't existed they
would have had to invent it.  So it is with global warming.  Their
fundamental opposition isn't to a warmer earth, it is to industrial
civilization.
The fact that the sattelites didn't match what the global warming
theorists said should be there is old news.  The news here is that the
temperature measures via sattelite have gotten even better and they have
been validated with a different means of measurement.
Rather than have to defend CO2 concentrations as not causing global
warming, people who believe in CO2 need a good explanation of the
"Medieval Warm Period".  Said period was warmer than what we have now,
and it obvioiusly wasn't caused by CO2.
In point of fact the predicted global warming due to CO2 is not caused
DIRECTLY by CO2.  CO2 doesn't trap that much heat.  Water vapor does,
and if you can get more water vapor in the air due to CO2 then you have
your warming theory.
Yet it would seem that the very stability of the earth's climate over
long periods argues not for an unstable system with positive feedback
loops but one where negative feedback loops predominate.
More water vapor can increase temperatuers, but that also leads to more
clouds.  Clouds both trap heat and reflect it, so it depends a great
deal on how the cloud formation shakes out.  Most climate models admit
they do clouds very poorly.
A good link is:
http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-
060302A
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
Jim
> Whitehead
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:23 PM
> To: Robert Harley; fork@spamassassin.taint.org
> Subject: RE: Goodbye Global Warming
>
> > Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> > >and say hello to the cool:  Oooo ... /this/ is going to cause
> > some stir ...
> >
> > Of course not.  Some people just don't want to be confused by the
facts.
>
> For anyone to fully bury global warming, they would need to explain
why
> the
> dramatic increase in CO2 concentrations are not increasing the global
> temperature. They would also need to explain why, worldwide, glaciers
are
> melting faster than they have previously in the historical record.
That
> is,
> people need more than refutations, they need a compelling alternate
> explanation (hint: climate variability doesn't cover all the bases).
>
> - Jim
>