Re:How is Global Warming still a controversy? (Score 2, Interesting)

There is scientific evidence to suggest that as the climate is (naturally) warming, more CO2 is being released from the seas - if anything, this particular research has been covered up in favour of the politically-motivated idea that man *must* be the cause of Global Warming.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. Any scientist anywhere will tell you that the ocean is a carbon sink - absorbing CO2. Only after the Ocean gets warmer does it release CO2.

The point is that the Ocean wouldn't being emitting CO2 if it wasn't absorbing so much of it from man made sources in the first place. As you mention An Inconvient Truth, its this absorbtion that is wrecking havok among coral reefs and creating huge storms.

In essence, man-made CO2 is partly absorbed by the ocean, heating it and making it acidic, and then released back into the atmosphere with whatever CO2 wasn't absorbed. It is still man-made CO2, it just went through the ocean first.

Al Gore, while he mentioned a number of previous Ice Ages, noted that the CO2 levels directly related to temperature, and that at no time in 650,000 years did CO2 levels ever go higher than 300 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The historical high is 280 ppmv.

In 1960, there was a concentration of 315 ppmv. Today we sit at 385 ppmv. There is no projection that it will slow down or decrease, but rather increase much more. By 2010 we expect to break 400 ppmv. But who needs words when you have a graph?

Oh, and whenever these articles get opened up for discussion, why is the fact that ice is getting thicker in many areas of the North and South pole conveniently overlooked?

Where's those facts? I dare you to link them. But you wont, because they don't exist.

The only dispute is over the "average ice density" in the Arctic, but no one disputes the reduction of ice of the caps, or Arctic Shrinkage. The before and after pictures are shocking.

As for Antarctica, both NASA and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) disagree with you.

Politically, there is a strong case for promoting MMGW which would stop the development of the Third World, thus ensuring that Third World imports into rich countries remain cheap, thus keeping the populations of the rich countries fat, dumb & happy. And because the Third World countries remain poor, more people live in poverty and die younger from diseases that are curable. In actuality, MMGW is an *anti-Green* viewpoint.

I personally love this part. A conspiracy theory that portrays Big Business and the Rich as the minds behind global warming. Yes, they are the ones who will profit by stopping the development of third world countries.

Yes, its not like Big Business would want to maximize their profit margin by cutting out as much environmental regulation as possible and decrease overheads so they exploit countries better. And its not like they have been buying scientists and congressmen trying to lobby against global warming at all by calling it a hoax! No, those were other people...

Do you listen to yourself?

As for developed countries and population, they tend to limit themselves without regulation; the U.S. average family now has 1.9 children as compared to a generation ago where they average was 4 to 5 kids.

Please, read a book or accredited source, not just typical zealous conservative rhetoric.