It turns out that the dry atmosphere is composed of 78.084% nitrogen, 20.946% oxygen, and .934% argon. That leaves .036% of the dry atmosphere being composed of everything else. .035% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (CO2) [1] and it has increased from 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 365 ppm in 1998 [2]. That is a 31.3% increase over 248 years in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or put differently, in 1998 .0087% more of the atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide than in 1750. That means there has been less than 100th of 1 percent increase in the percentage of the total dry atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, carbon dioxide makes up about 84% of the greenhouse gases and these gases are not even all man-made. Some accure naturally [3]. Last, but not least, we can add to all this that water vapor is the single largest source of the greenhouse effect and accounts for 36-70% of those effects [4] and yet water is generally not even counted among the greenhouse gases

In conclusion, I am not yet prepared to say all the fuss about man-made global warming is nonsense, but it does appear to be highly questionable.

Further reading: Climate and the Carboniferous Period. This is an interesting article on CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 600 million years. A quote from the article:

For those who believe on religious grounds that gay marriages should be banned, that should be sufficient reason for them taking the stand they do. However, that argument will certainly not placate the majority of those who believe gay marriages should be permitted. Therefore, please allow me to present the following "secular" argument against gay marriages.

Marriage has been a fundamental institution in every human culture ever known to exist. In all cultures marriage has served two functions: 1. to produce and raise the next generation and 2. to define sexual and other specified relationships between individuals. Although gay marriages can fulfill the 2nd function, they cannot fulfill the 1st function since they cannot "produce" children without additional individuals being involved. If marriage is defined as having nothing to do with the production and raising of children, then there is no longer any reason for people not to have children out of wedlock and this certainly cannot be good for the children. Of course there are other dangers as well, since separating marriage from the production and raising of children would weaken the family bond in other ways that we may not even be able to see at this time.

There are also other arguments against gay marriages such as where do you draw the line? If gay marriages are permitted then certainly it should be legitimate for a man to have multiple wives or for a woman to have multiple husbands. Indeed, such marriages would be even easier to argue in favor of than gay marriages since such marriages would fulfill the 1st function of marriage I stated above, while gay marriages can't. Should a man be allowed to marry his goat? The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Personally, I have nothing against civil unions between members of the same sex, but marriage should require that the parties involved be of the opposite sex.

Elitist liberals still don't get it. On Nov. 7, 2004, Maureen Dowd wrote in a New York Times editorial titled Rove's Revenge:

"W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches."

It is such blatant ignoring of the truth and twisting of the facts that led to the Democrats taking such a beating in the election. They seem to think that a major reason for Bush's win was due to the polling booth being too conveniently located along the route between Bubba's trailer and his favorite liquor store. If Dowd's ridiculous article is typical of the way that liberals react to Bush's win in the long term, then they have already lost the 2008 election - irregardless of who the candidates are. A vote for Bush and other republicans is not a sign of ignorance or religious fanaticism. At least one poll showed that Michael "There-is-no-terrorist-threat" Moore's attitude led more people to vote for Bush than for Kerry.

I for one am sick and tired of being considered stupid because I don't buy into the ludicrous arguments of the self-righteous left. It is also part of the reason that for the last two elections I have voted a straight republican ticket. I don't want to see a democrat in any office anywhere!

As for trying to argue with the liberals, perhaps Ann Coulter was right when she wrote, "the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes." Although Ms. Coulter's statement is a bit over the top, it does capture the essence of the idea that liberals do not seem to be living in the real world.