Bill McKee wrote:
The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles
of earth, or something else? How much is man to blame?

THe short answer- nobody knows for sure. There are good reasons... if
you understand the science... to believe man's activities has played a
large part in it.

... 10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. And has not come back. What caused this
warming?

There are much more and better documneted variations in macro climate.
Around 900AD there was a period called the "Little Climactic Optimum"
which changed the weather in Scandinavia to be more favorable for
crops... more population, same land, somebody had to go... hence the
Vikings. And Greenland was really green, for a while.

... Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

Hmm.. this is saying seems to have changed... I've heard it claimed many
times that 'Mt St Helens caused more air pollution in one month than all
mankind since the beginning of time' which blatantly ridiculous to
anybody who can do a little simple math. It went right along with the
ditto-head saying 'there are more trees in America now than when
Columbus landed.' These are an ignoramus' way of justifying destruction
of what little environment we still got left.

Specifically, what ozone killing chemicals did Mt St Helens spew? What
percentage of it's overall eruption gas?


... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970.

Not really.

... When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming.

Oh yeah, it's those gol-durn pointy-head scientist what cain't git real
jobs, trying to rip off us pore taxpayers!

I suggest you take at least a minute or two and look at the status of
Federal science funding. And turn off the Rush Limbaugh show, it seems
to be causing daim branage.

DSK