A good read, Glenn Beck, title of book, An Inconvenient Book. Chapter 1, Global Warming Storming and Conforming.

You said that oil & gas funding makes no difference, seeing as how they are "enviromentally green". This is incorrect, and I listed examples (albeit in a rather facetious manner, I believe the outrageous nature of your claim balances this out). You referenced this part of my post to Mikhayl as a call to return to pre-industrial stage. This, again, was incorrect. my intent was to to illustrate how little you seem to understand of what comes out of power stations, trains, and cars. As Mikhayl said, you are not reading. I fail to see how I could make the intent of my post clearer.

Can you back this up, please? Even the most conservative estimates put CO2 and others at 40%.
Solar activity is not, to the best of current knowledge, forcing climate change. It is a factor, certainly, seeing as the Sun is the source of our continued existence. However, the Earth has never warmed so much in such a short time before, so an extraneous factor such as greenhouse gases must be considered.

I'd immediately challenge this premise. Asher (he's been quoted before on other threads) is quite prone to the "it was cold today, how can the Earth be warming?" fallacy.
Your selective quoting helps, too. Here's another bit.
Are greenhouse gases the sole agent? Hell no. What makes them important is the relative novelty of carbon pollution.

Am I for real? Most likely. I'm not sure if you are. Let's have a quote
A character judgement on something that you've made up, invented. Are you for real (two can play this game, and it's bloody boring)

You rubbished a newspaper because it disagreed with you, and ignored Bob Carter's funding. If you post bull****, you will be called on it. Simple as.

Logic gaps - the first that comes to mind is posting articles from a man funded by the fossil fuel industry as objective commentary on climate change. I'll repeat my question from a previous post.
Would you not agree that a scientist writing about climate change is normal, whereas a scientist writing about climate change, funded by the fossil fuel industry muddies the waters?
Incorrect conclusions - that myself and Mikhayl (although I can't speak for him) are arguing for a return to pre-1850 lifestyles.
You say that I have a problem with logic and conclusions, please show me where, I don't doubt I do.

If you could avoid biased sources, that would be nice. Something not funded by fossil fuel, if that's not too far a stretch.
A grounded, non-hysterical piece that explains the general trend of Earth's average temperature is downwards.

I've been following this thread since it started and Tchocky has my full support. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I have read recently about how the current innactive phase the sun is going through may be pushing us into a "Little Ice Age" like the one that happened in the 1700's. This by no means that global warming isn't going on. Will it affect global warming ? Yes, until the sun starts to get more active again. Then, you will probably see the climate begin to rise to reccord levels again. The issue with the sun may postpone global warming for a few years, but garunteed, it will rear it's ugly head again and continue.

The pro-oil industry and other groups with anything to lose with absolute proof of global warming are spin doctoring this short term cooling into meaning that global warming is not going on. This is absolutely not the case. It's happening and there have been so many findings and studies from independant agencies that find that it IS happening.

I have a huge problem that this guy is funded by the very industries that will lose most of their assets if global warming prevention legislation goes through. :nope:

All that you have posted Subman amounts to show that in general we have had a cold winter. All that proves is we had a cold winter. Climate change theory doesn't prohibit having a cold winter once in a whilea, and infact some parts of the globe may well get cooler due to interuption of global sea currents.

If the evidence proved that there was a downward trend over a number of years then that would overturn the conclusion that in general the earth was warming but this does not seem to show this despite the wishful thinking of oil backed scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...ice/index.html

Not more comment this thread is worth: too much ideology, too little reason and science.

How exactly do you see the oil and energy companies loosing assets? I mean with a world population of 6 billion and growing and increasing numbers of them becoming dependant on modern conveniences I see all forms of energy staying in high demand regardless of what legislation is passed.