[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca How does the climate's changed before make it so that Human's industrialization has no ill effect? Why not be safe rather than sorry when it comes to the condition of the whole planet? Would not the logic "pollution changes the enviroment" make any reasonable person cautious about any sort of massive amounts pollutants in the enviroment. Obviously I'm skeptical, that's why I ask so many questions. So until somebody proves human's emmissions do not negatively impact the climate we should be the safest and cleanest stewards as our faculties provide us.

The message from Al Gore and cohorts is that man-made emmissions and industry are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels, which in turn is partially responsible for global warming.

The ice core samples disprove both of these messages. If man-made industry is responsible for rising CO2 levels, then how do they explain the proven history of escalated CO2 levels that obviously occurred when there was NO man-made industry? The answer is obvious - rising CO2 levels is a cyclical phenomon that has been occurring long before mankind could possibly have had any impact on it. So industry certainly is not the cause of it.

Why not be "responsible" and control emissions anyway? Nobody is suggesting not to do that. But the message being sent out is completely different - the message is that mankind is causing the rise in CO2 levels, which scientific data conclusively disproves. Industry may be one contributing factor, but it certainly is not the sole cause.

As I said before, when you manipulate the data, you taint your message. When you taint part of your message, the whole message becomes suspect.