[IR15H]

Whether there is a scientific consenus or not, is, to a large extent, irrelevant - and not a point I have argued. If the majority of the world though that it was flat it wouldn't make it true. Raise points about the evidence you disagree with.

Your first link, dated '92, says it feels the worst case scenrios are unlikely. It mentions that man made greenhouse gases account for a small percent of total greenhouse gases but says nothing on how changing this affects nature's balance. The last bit is about scientific consensus, which I've already addressed.

Your second link, from what I gather, is someone who supports global warming. He says that someone missed used his work, by edited out some lines on a graph, in an attempt to discredit it. He says sceptics are useful as they make people search for the answers to the questions and he feels that in time the questions will be answered.

Your third link, seems to suggest man contribution to CO2 is largely insignificant. I would disagree with this, seeing as in 650,000 years CO2 ppm never exceeded 300.



I don't buy that massive increase in natural. Furthermore, it argues that water vapour is more important but also fails to adress the effect the other greenhouse gases have on water vapour. The latter half talks about Kyoto Protocol not being the best way to tackle the problem, which doesn't mean there isn't one.

Your fourth link, written by a journalist with no argue of substance.

Your fifth link, argues that because CO2 is responsible for warming holding it steady will result in a drop in temperature. However, the point is that CO2 levels are not steady, and with China opening up a new coal plant everyday, or something ridiculous, there is no sign that it's going to be a problem. Also, it doesn't deny current warming, and how such current warming could result in the release of more CO2 from natural sources, such as the oceans. It also fails to mention any greenhouse gases other than CO2. I only read the summary and introduction, however.

Your sixth link, talks about thermohaline circulation, saying it feels it is unlikely that global warming (which it didn't deny) would be unlikely to result in th shutting down of the Gulf Stream - which would actually result in localised cooling for parts of Europe. The Gulf Stream has shut down before, when glaciers from north America melted and flooded the stream with massive amounts of freshwater, this resulted in a mini ice age for Europe. The concern this time round is with Greenland, and the effect it's glaciers melting could have on the stream. The research into this is as of yet inconclusive and it is only preposed as a possiblity.

Your seventh link, talks about sea levels. Given the industrial revolution has been for over 200 years I would have prefered to see sea levels of longer than just 100. However, it says that the sea levels have indeed been rising. Furthermore, it mentions nothing of what continual rises in temperature would do, particularly on the effects of land glaciers melting, or the density of water changing due to temperature change. Also, rising sea levels is just one possible effect of climate change.

EDIT:

In future could you please post specific things you disagree with and why you disagree with them. Posting a list of sites to read isn't really a debate as such, and is very timely to go through it all and pick out points that you are trying to present as your disagreement.