"... demonstrably NOT true..."

'debatably', 'arguably', 'questionably', but 'demonstrably'?

In the matter of the future of my children's children, and their children's children, I'd rather err on the side of a preponderance of evidence than requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

There are many useful "theories" some of which have opened the door to a great many discoveries, and useful corollaries.

A well reasoned scientific declaration is a hypothesis, which stands as true until proven false...

so by the same standard as you put forth, your declaration is not proof nor a definite result - so prove the hypothesis of the greater scientific community false.

Henry8, why is this statement not true because you say it isn't? What the hell is wrong with you and others like you? There are almost 7 billion of us on this planet, probably close to 1 billion cars/trucks and then there are power plants and almost a billion cows to feed us that fart methane, which is worse than CO2 in trapping heat. It's a simple equation, you make more CO2 and it traps more heat, but you and the knuckleheads who want to believe the earth is flat or that that Copernicus was wrong and that the earth is the center of the universe just won't believe that the earth is heating up until you're underwater from melting ice of Greenland and the poles. It's idiots like you that make me feel like we are doomed as a species.

Here is a link to a graph showing the rise in C02 for the last 50 years as measured from Hawaii. You'll see two lines. The red zig zag line shows the seasonal change caused by plants going active in the summer and dormant in the winter in the northern hemisphere. The black line represents the average rise between the seasonal changes. You'll see it rises very steadily at roughly a 35 degree angle.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

Now climate scientists say that this rise is caused by humans steadily pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. So they have identified a source that explains this VERY steady rise.

Henry8, or anyone else, please identify the natural source that would explain a steady rise in CO2 for the last 50 years that these observations have been made. This is a very simple question, and no volcanoes don't count. This is because volcanoes would cause spikes in the rise in CO2 when they erupt if they were the main CO2 source.

After doing a lot of reading on the subject over several years I have come to the conclusion that global climate change is being caused by human activity. But this is not some religious belief of mine, and I could easily change my view if someone presents a PLAUSIBLE alternative theory that matches the observations that are being seen.

It will be very interesting to see if any climate change deniers will answer my simple question or will they just ignore it and post later down the thread like this post doesn't exist.

People who don't think human activity can't change the environment need to realize how thin our atmosphere really is. The troposphere which contains 80% of the mass of our atmosphere, is only between 5 miles thick at the poles, and 10 miles thick at the equator. That's it. That is all there is between life on Earth and death in outer space.

Where I live, my 10 minute drive to the grocery store is longer than it would be to drive to the edge of the Troposphere. Think about that for a minute, seriously think about it...

Tom

Henry, it *IS* overwhelming. All you have to do is look at the longitudinal temperature record to have an *inescapable* Thoreau Moment.

As far as I can tell, you always do your best to play it straight, which is something I greatly admire, respect, and appreciate. Please, *please* look at the data!

do your homework. look at the data. the evidence is overwhelming and definitive. data comes from many many sources including ice cores, sea surface water temperatures, tree rings, etc, over vasts periods of times between glacial cycles. we have a background standard. the current time period isn't just an anomaly, but one that has a cause; namely, us. all previous anomalies were never as big in scope and their causes were well understood, none of which are exhibited today.

climate change deniers choose 5 industry scientists to listen to, and for some reason, choose to ignore the 5000 scientists who are in a consensus on this issue.

You claim that "declarations are not proof" one sentence after making the declaration "this statement is demonstrably NOT true" (while providing no evidence whatsoever).

There's way, way too much of this kind of anti-intellectual, anti-science nonsense on Common Dreams.

Henry8
I take issue with your premise, first. If I and the scientists are wrong as to the cause, I do not believe that it can be reasonably disputed that man made emissions will serve to make more severe whatever "Naturally occurring" warming might be, if it be due to some poorly or not at all understood phenomenon. That being the case, we have reason enough to do whatever we can to ameliorate rather than aggravate said phenomenon. It could be that what we do might keep us from passing some "tipping point" that takes us to total, but unnecessary destruction. If we fry anyway, we can go down with the knowledge that we did our best to recognize and correct our folly. If we do not ---- Well I am sure you see the implication.dh

Henry 8,

Your CV (USA Resume) please?

Several more decades? We'll be lucky to get several more years.

The trouble is that education isn't COOL.

The mass soporifics that are now in use by our rulers preclude any chance of reality penetrating the consiousness of most of the world's population.

You misunderstood, Tom. He's saying that's the myth underlying the denialists' nonsense.

Tom, pin the conspiracy on the Democrats.

As we received our government-mandated time extra hour of daylight last spring, it went unmentioned that Savings Time was formally adopted under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson in 1918, though but briefly. Democrat FDR reestablished it in 1942, calling it "War Time". Under Democrat Johnson in 1966 Congress passed the Uniform Time Act; since 2007 (guess who controlled Congress) Daylight Savings Time now starts three weeks earlier and ends a week later. It's now up to Sean, Glenn, and Rush to point out that with all that accumulated extra Democrat-delivered daylight striking the earth, no wonder we have global warming.

Absolutely true. As someone 'of a certain age' I've seen the deniers argument evolve in a predictable pattern:
1. What global warming?
2. What 'bad' global warming?
3. What human-caused, bad, global warming?
4. What human-caused, bad, global warming that we can do anything about?
5. What human-caused, bad, global warming that we can do anything about, that won't destroy the human economy in the doing of it?

The irony is, in delaying to step 5, they mold the issue to where they are right. By the time we HAVE to take step 5 to control global warming, it really WILL destroy the economy to do so.

Lets look at how this might work for McDonalds (instead of Exxon):
1. What weight gain?
2. What 'bad' weight gain?
3. What 'bad' weight gain that is really because we like Big Macs?
4. What 'bad' weight gain that is because we like Big Macs that requires us to enter a program to solve?
5. What 'bad' weight gain that is because we like Big Macs that requires us to enter a hospital program, that won't require an stomach-stapling operation to solve (which might kill us)?

And, so it goes...

Sioux Rose

FV HORN: Excellent post. The selfish aspect of the climate deniers almost makes me believe that such a trait owns its own genetic marker. I wonder how many climate deniers are perfectly OK with the priorities of the US budget insofar as its bloated investment in militarism and endless weapons' development are concerned? Few mentioned the military's footprint on global warming; and it is substantial, added to that of the wastelands of chemical detritus left in its wake. The recent article about the babies born in Iraq with two heads or one cyclops eye placed front and center are chilling reminders of karma's long legacy. It's the boomerang that keeps on keeping on... I wonder if some of the climate deniers here will reconsider their positions if and when it's their homes on the front lines of strange floods, freak storms, high-powered hurricanes, unprecedented tornado outbreaks, earthquakes in unexpected zones, etc.