a real religious scientist does not put any of his religious believes in his scientific projects. because it does not fit there.

There's no such thing as a religious scientist. There are either scientists who also happen to have certain beliefs, or fraudulent scientists who skew data to their beliefs.

I'm not too interested in the topic after having thoroughly looking into it years ago. There's so much data and things involved that we can only draw two concrete conclusions.

1) CO2 levels correlate to global average temperatures.
2) We give off a large source of CO2 than otherwise would be there without us.

How much we give off and how much that affects it isn't all that clear, although common sense tells us that cutting down the world's forests certainly doesn't help reduce CO2 levels.

Google knows much, and tells more. Why don't you look it up before throwing bottles around?

why dont you go do that?
why dont you reply on all the rest i said?

just look at the graph. it looks like a child tried to make a interesting looking graph but then look closer and you see it's impossible.
there can't be more then 100% manufacturing output.

It's from here. I'm pretty sure you're just interpreting it wrong. It seems like it's showing the growth of the modern powerhouse nations as an overall whole with each as a seperate portion of that, not a layered chart.

After the horrible Summer we had around here last year (30 days with at least 100 F and many 103,107 F + insane humidity), I'm worried it's just the beginning.  If it get's worst, I'm moving back to Canada, and I'll drag my GF by force if I have to. xD

I'm pretty sure you're just interpreting it wrong. It seems like it's showing the growth of the modern powerhouse nations as an overall whole with each as a seperate portion of that, not a layered chart.

so in the last 113 year we have only a 20% increase of manufacturing output? while world population has doubled since then.
or what is this 100% then?
it's really a amateuristic graph.

and that link doesn't look that credible to me. i mean, a russian site for the history of the uk. =/
how is that accurate info on this topic?

and last, plz. make a comment on what i said. not these non-sens graphs of yours. and if you really wanna go on whit it. remember that ive already agreed by the link provided by pang tong. that i went searching and found what i posted later. these graphs are the past we have to move on on topic. so plz, reply on my last double post

Lets always remmeber who made most of these graph shall we?

I dont belvie there is a conspiracy of sientict who say "we will break these Rich mans by saying htey ruin the world!"

Its like Asbestos. The owners of the Factories for Asbestos said "Its ok, nothing happen from it". Wher reaserch showd its make cancer they said "bull****, They are just hippies". And after 40 years of peopel getting lung cancer and Asbestos thrown all over the world, We start to clean it up.

Same here. So they say :The ocean is big, what is 10 tones of Poison thrown into it every day?". So 100 years from now, when the entire oceans will be dangeruse and fishes wil become poison themselve {Like they start to become now} They will say "Sorrrry..." and drive with there private jet to "help".

Same here. Who is against the Global warming? Reaserchers? no. Owners of corporations, of factories. These who will lose precius money from making the world a better place. Who is against law for Electric cars? Who is against more effective Power stations? The peopel who sell Oil. And when you help a Congress man with money, he wont stab you in the back. When you fund a reaserch with millions of Dollars, they tend to bring you "good Results".

I am not 100% that the world is realy warming. I have a theory myself - in 1000 AC there was what was called 'a seconde ice age". The world got colder. So maybe we are jut getting into 'Normal' temprature now.

But yet, you cant denay thet all of these Toxin and dust and gas who are thron into the sky do nothing. So even if the global warming is not as harsh and quick as some peaopls say, WE DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

and that link doesn't look that credible to me. i mean, a russian site for the history of the uk. =/
how is that accurate info on this topic?

The man to rely on for information is not the man you want information on.

So no one knows about the Ozone Hole? How interesting.

Also, as Kasic said, cutting down forests doesn't lower CO2 levels, so even if we ignore the toxins we cannot ignore the forests.

I have a theory myself - in 1000 AC there was what was called 'a seconde ice age". The world got colder. So maybe we are jut getting into 'Normal' temprature now.

The so-called "Little Ice Age" was just a cold period a few hundred years ago. 1000 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period. All those periods are fluctuations within the current interglacial, which is a phase of the current ice age. So yes, factually, the temperature raise is normal, the question is, is the magnitude normal or is there an anthropogenic (human) influence?

The man to rely on for information is not the man you want information on.

if i was looking for information about the history of the UK i see that as a valid source (but why russian?) anyway, i'm not so why should i rely on their info now?
and even then i would doubt it for the reason that the graph is made by a 5 year old who did not give all the info or just wanted to make it look fancy.
except for attacking me you might just take a look at the graph and use the logic in your mind. that graph is total BS. (or it is missing important info)

So no one knows about the Ozone Hole? How interesting.

it's just page 4. not that much to look back ;)

also master, your still not replying on my post only the BS part.
when are you actually joining the topic?