"Bill McKee" wrote in message
. net...

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:ZPklf.137519$y_1.112054@edtnps89...
[top posting corrected]

Same top posting you did. And if it was so simple, even you would get it.

You forgot, well the whole point!
[top posting corrected]

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net...

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142


Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic
ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for
the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards
Global Warming is what is the cause?

What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation
I presented?

You need more proof than what you post

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if
you prefer)?

Something other than you have shown.

C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions
specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of
institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly
demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you
accept as "the smoking gun" of findings?

Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the
temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is
higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation?
That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures
are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past
massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand
years? Would all of that convince you?

I note that you did not answer the question. What evidence would convince
you that AGW is real and dangerous? What problems did you find with the
pages I presented, aside from the wiki ones which I don't mid withdrawing?

And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Our CO2
jumping over there?

First, it is a single ice feature that has been observed, so it is a little
premature to infer a global behaviour from this, don't you think? Second,
we have observations over the last 10 years only, so it is unreasonable to
devine what is "normal" from such a limited timeframe.

Maybe it is over fishing of the seas, and we are getting too much ocean
plankton and algae that are affecting the ocean temps and the heating.

Maybe there is research and data from experts to prefer over the
non-sensical WAG's of Bill McKee on usenet.

CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least
a supra majority could agree on the causes.

It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see, NOAA,
GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every other major scientific
institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic and climate scientists do
believe that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current global warming, so the
agreement you seek is already here.

Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and
more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset
ideas. You are not open to real science.

Present some.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")