>I'm debating the scientific proof of Man Made Global Warming and >whether the debate is over or never happened.
How about man made versus man enhanced? How about "ok it is 100% natural cycle", we are still not screwed how? You confound me when in one sentance you speak to "Man Made Global Warming" and in another you say "Manhatten will not be under 20' of water". Which do you want to debate? There is no such thing as global warming, never happend before, never will again? Or is man possibly contributing to the speed of change in this cycle? >Time to look at some current photos: >http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh Ok, I did and this is supposed to counter my point how? http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=28&fy=1980&sm=08&sd=28&sy=2007 Directing me a site that can easily show a significant percentage of the ice gone is telling how? You are a hard person to have a discussion with, your points jump all over the place. In this last reply you brought up whether Global Warming is happening at all, whether man can be a contributing factor, and what would be the best way to counter our contribution. Which of these three radically different points represent your position? No Global Warming? Global Warming possible, but man has no effect? Global Warming possible but current initiatives are not the best way to counter man's contribution to it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249283 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
