I apologize for not providing links to my information. I can't get to my computer due to a surgery and instead use a smartphone that doesn't cut and paste, or if it does...I don't know how to do that.

I've been reading various articles on climate change on the internet. Two of them on FireWire. Glenn Beck's online news service.

According to one article, the artic ice cap shrinking is offset by the increase in antarctic polar cap mass. It appears that this is a normal and continual earth adjustment.

The other article was extremely informative. It stated that the earth's measured and documented warming has in fact slowed down over the past 25 years. It looked at ocean levels and found them static. It also noted that man's total world influence regarding carbon dioxide runs 1-'2% and that 95% of the carbon dioxide atmospheric content comes from ocean water vapor.

It said that proponents of climate change are looking at too small a time frame because records have only been kept since 1880. A much more lengthy time frame is needed to have any chance of accuracy because planetary balance is ongoing and there just are not enough years of evidence to predict the future. Minor deviations in weather patterns look significant when viewed on a short term but when viewed using a geological time scale are quite normal. This article also stated that any change in golbal temperature is primarily and directly related to solar activity.

A third article and satellite photo actually documented the shrinking of the hole in the oxone layer.

Good information, thanks.

It is interesting that you consider NASA to be your credible source.

Would this be the same NASA that Obama has crippled? I wonder how far they would go to please him considering. ....

Now about "fringe scientists". There were more than 1,000 geoscientists canvassed by Gore regarding global warming-climate change, whichever is your preferred buzz word. Slightly more than 70 said anything that could even remotely agree with him and even then they used the word "could". 70+ out of 1,000+. So much for "fringe".

As for CO2 emission......as stated, 95% comes from ocean water vapor.

Allow me a question. According to NASA CO2 has risen 25%. They show dry ground. Arid cracked parched ground. Nothing growing.
Maybe you aren't aware but plants eat CO2 and give off O2. It woukd seem to me that more CO2
would mean more planrs, less dry arid ground, and more O2.
NASA is by far one of the most credible sources of climate info in the world. Thats a fact Jack.

As to your point about CO2, the ocean is a great sink for CO2 but inc in temp drives it out. Gases dissolve better in cold fluids and less in warm. Plants do "eat" CO2, so to speak, to build their tissues and also make glucuse and other carbs in what is called the Calvin cycle. It increases biomass on the surface but any gain is negligable compared to atmospheric increases. The CO2 cyvles, if you will, are very compleX. You can dismiss the NASA data if you wish, but you join the fringe. Its simply the way it is. You might as well be arguing the "science of creation".

What do you think?