http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

which I will post
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor


Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature
over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the
Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've
got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global
warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world
has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are
the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the
past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary
system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly
into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the
oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a
fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations,
for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just
do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects
could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely
nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under
President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed
the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have
argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and
change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear
from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made
greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the
oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to
re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to
join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's
Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from
around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity,
and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions
made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed
warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of
similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a
politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations
start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument
is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since
1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett
said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the
oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40
years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's
come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in
the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects
for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that
warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf
Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into
the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected
to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains
on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

More proof that global warming is man made.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm argue against it in the
presitigous "The Brownsville Herald"
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm
from the Association of British Drivers.... Hardly an objective source.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html

Well worth the objective read it. It's from the Wall Street Journal, the
radical right wing organizations:-)
Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in
Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy
output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last
half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from
changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater
concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear
to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all
Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible.
As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human
beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the
effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers
similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out
of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how
water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it
wasn't!

Of course this came from biased sources/

Beach Runner wrote:
> I admit, he may have replied.
> But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in
> temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the
> world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say
> we are accelerating global greenhouse effect.
>
> There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a
> scientist.
>
> Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll.
>
> When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's
> of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I
> missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it.
>
> Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush
> reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be
> preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized
> resources and energy passive buildings.
>
> Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush
> canceled.
>
> Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that.
> It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and
> space. That's called reality.
>
> He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were
> originally told the troops would be home in a few months.
>
> What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in
> big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in
> a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age".
>
> Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global
> warming? That Bush questions it?
>
> It requires strong action now.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating
> the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy
> rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are
> his friends.
>
> I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar
> caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me
> for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I
> apologize.
>
>
> The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse
> gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore
> had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could
> compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status.
>
> If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do
> it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called
> me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise.
>
>
> He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A
> brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of
> natural resources, and seeing the world as one.
>
> Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in
> the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments
> are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since
> he's a change agent?
>
>
>
> Bob