Welp, took longer than I thought it would but there is now a story which is refuting the article I refered to in a prevous post.

With little surprise to me, the first thing the article does it attack the credability of the author, falling just short of outright calling him names. As it usually boils down to in thoes who support the global warming debate, why attack the science when you can attack the author???

He goes on to mention the graph and then makes his proof simple: They are measuring two different things.

Welp, measuring temperature as apposed to measuring temperature... Two completely different things... Riiight...

First off he says that the first graph is global, the second is European... Well that clears everythign up... Because everybody knows Europe isn't really part of the globe any damn way... So what happens in Europe plays no role in a global measurement... So if it gets 20,000,000 times warmer in Europe durring that period, as long as it gets 30,000,000 times cooler in, say, Antartica, then globally it's cooler...

He then proceeds to stat the scales are different... Welp, there ya go... If you've got two graphs measuring something, but they are in different scales, then there's no way to compare data, as they are absolutely different... I'm not a mathamatician, and not an expert when it comes to temperature, but last time I checked, scales are easily adjusted and comparisons can be made...

The author then further goes on to explain how only someone with a science degree dare attempt to analize and understand envronmental science...

It is a fact that Albert Einstein dropped out of school. So how dare he write the theory of relativity without having a scientific degree.