Hi Neil,

I didn't only suggest that some web site(s) might be influencing you (as the things I suggested also influence me, by the way).

Anyway, I've had a look at the link you referenced below.

1. Too bad it's not dated.
2. Too bad there's no link to describe the fellow's "credientials".
3. Too bad there's no link to suggest who else might be involvd in funding the site.
4) The site demonstrates my argument that random 'facts' are associated to present a conclusion that may not be correct. Along the lines of: "The grass is green. Jane's dress is green. Therefore it must be St. Patrick's day.".
5. The '17,000 scientists sign petition' artilce is dated 1998. A lot has happened in 8 years.
6. Why would oceans be immune from global warming? The article suggests that the oceans are warming and seems to attrubute changing core hot-spots as the cause. Why cannot global warming be adding to the oceans' heating?
7. It's always been my understanding that "equilibrium" has to do with the relative status of two or more things amongst each other, which of course will change as one or more of the components change. Yet he states "Equilibrium means absolute regulation.". Not consistent with what I've learned.
8. The Kilimanjaro glacier and the Greenland glaciers are not in ocean water yet they are disappearing at alarming rates. Greenland glaciers may be thickening now, but that doesn't mean they are not disappearing too.

I've gone to the "other side" as a result of my thinking through the matter with my meagre knowledge. I fully understand that I have been influenced by propaganda from both sides.

But I wonder if you can answer the question John Harvey seemed to ignore... if funding is pushing scientists towards the illogical conclusion that global warming is real, where is that money coming from? Given that most of the money for such 'ventures' comes from government or corporations and corporations have both undue influence on governments and vested interest in debunking the theory, what is the source of the money for the studies and erroneous conclusions?

cheers
>Hi Jim,
>Your inference that I had been influenced by some website was not correct, as I hadn't actually searched the net on the subject, so I have just googled "Global Warming NOT" and found quite a number of links, the following is quite objective and deals with facts in an objective way. http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
>
>His assertion that water is the greatest controlling factor is correct, as is the case in all combustion processes.
>
>Keep an open mind.
>
>>>Hi,
>>>It would help if you queried their conclusions and not accept them as gospel.
>>
>>Well THAT has to be the height of arrogance!
>>
>>Scientists who have spent their lives in the field and have billions of dollars of equipment and analyses at their disposal and have carefully considered measurements from all over the planet going back thousands of years are coming to a widespread consensus and Hilmar or me or you are to "query their conclusions"????
>>
>>We're not talking about some way-out theories here that trouble common sense!
>>We're not talking about some small matter that has only local implications at best.
>>We're not talking about some theory that only has political impact.
>>
>>But we are talking about an issue that has lots of people worried about their pocketbooks (particularly corporations) and so have vested interests to keep the issue at bay and have the money to do it.
>>
>>It's fine to question their conclusions but it makes no sense at all to dismiss them on the basis of some 'calculation' that doesn't "fit". To conclude that their issue is hyped on such a basis is simply wrong. Do you honestly believe they have not considered any 'calculation' you might come up with? Have you challenged even one of the proponents with your hypothesis?
>>
>>What/who one chooses to believe has far more to do with the sales jobs being done by the opposing forces than anything else. Perhaps you should examine why you believe what you believe on the issue. You may find out that you've been influenced by some web site(s) and/or publications and/or speakers/writers surreptitiously funded by forces with a vested interest in the status quo.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>It has everything to do with the principles that I mention, fact not fiction.
>>>>
>>>>It would really help if you do some reading on "greenhouse effect", so that you know what the discussion is all about.