It’s the cow flatulence, stupid

Um, how does 4% make mankind the "largest contributor"? Actually most of the "greenhouse gases" come from decomposing bio-matter in the world's oceans (for methane), and Volcanic activity (for CO2). Mankind, at its worst, has contributed nor more than 4% to the total greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere, and that's a the highest measurement. A good chunk of that 4% gets broken down into carbon and oxygen due to sun and weather activity too, in addition to photosynthesis.

Once again, junk science makes assumptions where empirical data is lacking or non-existent. That is obvious.

Hmm, North America has one of its coldest winters ever on record, and as a result the Earth has cooled an entire degree in less than one year, yet because of religious zeal and politically popular junk science, even major cooling is somehow blamed on warming. What?!

Gas does not a weather system make, even greenhouse gases. There are far too many variables involved (sun activity, Earth's weakening magnetic field, axis tilt, volcanic activity, plant cover, ocean currents, cloud cover, water vapor, air currents, dust, solar system debris entering the atmosphere, soil color and reflectivity, ocean salinity, and localized differences in these affect other micro-climates, etc.) and no computer model is capable of predicting the weather or climate even mere hours in the future, let alone years.

Even the junk science of the past had models and mathematical formulas to prove the Earth was the center of the universe. All were marvels of mathematics and thought, yet despite the "accuracy" of their charts and models (their "proof"), they were dead wrong. The main reason was because they refused to see the whole picture and just concentrated on the popular theory and that it could never be wrong and based their models and math on a completely wrong assumption, which means no matter how good the math and "science" is to prove a theory, if the theory is wrong, then it's wrong.

What they lacked was the full perspective of the solar system, just as our modern day junk scientists refuse to view contradicting evidence that doesn't fit with their theory, which is usually only based upon gas measurements, ice packs and earth "temperature" readings by equipment sitting on asphalt driveways and next to fire engine radiators (gee, I wonder why there are spikes of heat). Besides, politically, doing so can ruin their careers, no matter what the truth is.

Seeing junk reporting like this is equally disappointing. Making a broad declaration on something that has no basis in fact is an expression of religious belief and not responsible , impartial, and honest reporting. Religious belief is best put in the context of religion and not something that requires debate as the Global Warming zealots refuse to do.

I expect most of the members of the Church of Global Warming will respond with the usual attacks full of anger, accusation, and vitriol they use instead of the required evidence or calm debate. Questioning someone's religion tends to bring that behavior out in those with so much invested in it, that have not an intelligent deity to humbly ask if it's true or just a fairy-tale. Lacking any real religious understanding they use the usual adolescent response of name calling.