Don't lie. Lying only brings the weakness of your argument into sharp relief. If you had, you would have re posted the evidence I asked for rather than simply claiming to have done it at some point in the murky past.
This really is an article of faith for you, isn't it? It must be, because you clearly don't have the first clue when it comes to the science. You believe that a greenhouse effect is the only way to maintain the average temperature of earth? Is that really the only way or is that simply what you have been told?
NEWSFLASH!!!! The temperature of the earth can be rationally, and reliably explained by the ideal gas laws and adbiatic pressure. How do you suppose a planet like jupiter or saturn maintains a temperature with atmospheres of hydrogen and helium and not a whif of so called greenhouse gasses? Look to the ideal gas laws and adbiatic pressure. Astrophysicists have been predicting temperatures on the various planets for decades without the need to incorporate a fictitious greenhouse effect.
The science is a complete mystery to you and you choose your side based on your political leanings.
Again, a very old article. Here is some more recent PEER REVIEWED data:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Winkler/Chinnetal-1.pdf
And here, from the Norwegian Water and Energy Resource Directorate who keep close tabs on the nation's glaciers.
http://www.nve.no/no/vann-og-vassdrag/hydrologi/bre/bremalinger/massebalansemalinger/vinteren-2008---mer-sno-enn-normalt-pa-breene-i-sor-norge/
Translation:
Even older peer reviewed data show that glacier advancing.
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading list/Norwegian mountain glaciers in the past, present and future.pdf
You haven't debunked anything. All you have shown is that your data is way out of date and you don't know the first thing about the actual science.
What, drag old outdated data forward in an attempt to prove an invalid point? Your problem is that you don't do the research. You apparently don't know how and therefore simply accept the first thing you read from anyone who tells you what you want to hear.
My mind is easy to change. All you need do is show some hard, observable, repeatable proof that man is responsible for the changing global climate. Thus far, you haven't even come close. In fact, you have failed spectacularly.
Again, the laws of physics support me; and you still haven't provided even the smallest shred of actual evidence that man is in any way responsible for the changing global climate. If you believe that you have, then you know even less than I have given you credit for. I am afraid that it is you who is absurd and every word you write proves it.
