Word's are tricky. I didn't say man was absolved, if I wasn't clear I will admit that of course man is a factor, but there are other factors. Thank for you for sharing your valid ideas.

Think I said that.

What about volcanos, and super volcanos. What about frozen mammoths which so had vegetation in their mouth.

From what I understand it takes a long time for the planet to release all these gases. The Earths geomagnetic field has shut down completely in its history, and reversed polarity several times. According to John L. Casey who worked for NASA the Sun has been in a cooling stage in very recent history. He says according NASA the temperature of planet has been cooling. I appreciate your insight, but I don't think it is a slam dunk. I would feel it wasn't political if some of these theories were shared in a more public forum.

Its not like science is never wrong

I do find this way of thinking intriguing. All the scientists are wrong, but me... "not the scientist..." I'm pretty sure I'm right. And science is wrong all the time... and the SCIENTISTS get together and work it out... you know, with science.

@Leutrelle , the difference between the master and the novice is that the master has failed more times than the novice has even tried.

Casey holds a B.S. in physics and math, as well as a MA in management, but no peer reviewed published scientific journals, only his books which present no scientific data, just personal observations (like gee it's cold; global warming is bogus).

Scientist never assume they're 100%, at best 97%, we even consider uncertainty in our apparatuses that give us data. Which is why scientist are usually retesting the work published by other scientists. Scientist 1 claims: Doing A then B gives C. Scientist 2 claims: Doing A then B gives D. Who is right? Scientist 3 does A then B and gets C, repeats by doing A then b and gets D, oh there's the difference S2 thought he was doing 'B' but really did 'b' and that's why he got D!

As for "geomagnetic field has shut down completely", no it hasn't. It has reversed polarity, known due to magnetic polarity in sections of new sea floor that arose at each period of polarity. In order for a complete shutdown of the field, the earth would have to stop spinning or the core would have to cool to the point that magma no longer flows around the iron center.

Which brings me to a consideration that Casey should have considered, we do know that the core and magma are cooling, albeit very slowly. Which might be what you or Casey is misunderstanding because the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is more concerned with the large Mass of star dust from core to moon and not the 'surface temperature'.

You know how they make ice cream? Evaporation cooling, that's right, by applying an evaporating liquid (very hot) to the surface of the cream container, the container cools. i.e. you can have a 'cooling earth' but a 'warming globe'. Ever been outside in the hottest period of summer with wet clothes on? You can get hypothermia if you're not careful. News report: Man froze to death in the middle of the street during record breaking high.

@DreadlySmart

I am not sure where to start. I think Casey makes good argument 200 year cycle. You need read the book and then comment. I am not. saying you are wrong either. You obviously are more ahead of me on this subject. Truth be told I don't Know. Al Gore wasn't a Scientist, but he changed the path of history. Maybe he is right.

What bothers me is we out sourced much of our industry to China as a reaction to this Global Warming model. You can't even buy a pipe fitting that is made in America. We could make the fitting with much less pollution because of regulations. The pipe fitting would cost more, but we would pollute less than China does. I see a contradiction there if the priority was to save the planet, but it seems the priority is too make money. In the mean time the blue collar middle class suffers when industry is out sourced.

I was in the business of selling ag tractor parts. Most tractor replacement parts are made of cast iron and steel. They are made mostly in China and some were from India. We have lost many many manufacturing jobs. Their were no US made after market parts to by. It is the same way in the automotive industry. The parts are all out sourced.

Casey did not speak on the geomagnitic field. I picked that up on Discovery Channel which said the earth's field has shut down, but they didn't say it shut down completely ( my bad). They did say that poles reversed, and was evidenced through volcanic magnetite. We have never witnessed a polarity flip, so scientists don't know for sure what to expect.

How should I some this up? You make the best defense of Man caused global warming that I have heard to this date.

I have a Question. When does Atlantic Conveyer come into play, and reverse the warming trend? I would also like if you are willing to understand how we could effect the star dust temperature? I am intrigued.

@Leutrelle, feel free to message me too, I will admit some actions taken to lessen global warming are BS, like your example of out sourcing, and maybe that's another reason people don't want to accept it as scientific truth because idiots are in charge of how to fix it(which the head or the EPA is a joke and would be a political topic in line with this). For one the excessive production of CO2 anywhere is a problem, you can't move it to China and say it's fixed. If I can find Casey's book at the library or as an e-book I will give it a chance, I always think of this quote when 'arguing' with my opposition;

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. By Aristotle. Of course if the science and evidence are sound and it resonates with me then I incorporate it and look further but I digress.

Time to hit the science;

Thermohaline circulation aka "Atlantic Conveyor Belt" may be hindered by global warming due in part to the massive amount of fresh water that is being introduced to the oceans from glacial melt, which lowers the saline concentration since no salt is added in compensation. But I'm not certain it could reverse global warming, mainly since water has a higher heat capacitance than say metal, so the ocean is actually more of a reservoir for heat, in fact the thermohaline circulation plays an important role in supplying heat to the polar regions.

Of course as I write this I'm also reading published journals, and have found that the consensus is that it's shutting down(in support of my hindered claim earlier) which would stop that heat to the poles but also prevents the flow of other resources throughout the ocean(different matter though) but this doesn't correlate to a reversal but more of a plateau of polar melt (maybe).

When you say "I would also like if you are willing to understand how we could effect the star dust temperature?" are you referencing my choice of calling earth star dust or something else? I can kind of reference the earth and how we may affect it's temperature (the mass of earth not the surface/atmosphere) but it is harder to have a noticeable impact on the mass than the surface because of how dense it is, the effects don't always ripple as easily with all that resistance.

In writing that last bit I discovered that perhaps the confusion people see with global warming is they include the big hunk of rock beneath our feet in that. To be honest if we had a planetary thermometer to stick into the earth to it's core I feel we haven't caused any noticeable change to the body temperature of earth, but we don't live IN the earth, we live ON it.

Right now it's analogous to putting a piping hot casserole back into an oven that is preheated to a temperature lower than the casserole's center. Before it was put back, the air around the casserole was room temperature, once in the oven the air around it is hotter but the casserole's center is hotter still so the casserole will cool to the oven's temperature but the surface is still hotter than it was outside the oven and that is global warming.

@DreadlySmart actually 95% is a fairly standard confidence interval in science, though there have been calls for it to be raised to 97, or 99% and it is somewhat field dependent.

@Rufus_Maximus, must have been something pushed on me then in college because even my old lab books have 97%... though they're my notes so I could have written it wrong too... several times... but come to think of it the teacher was a hardass so he may have driven for the higher percentage himself. But yeah a google search for it would have corrected my mistake, nice catch, thank you.