I have to apologize for posting my response in this way, but it's a lot of writing to have to redo if I have the same problem with replies posting as I did yesterday. Seth Jarvis asked, "What science did Don post?" He posted findings in the research he was citing. He posted: "Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm. The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser. Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."" Then he posted the references. If some of these things are countered in the literature you find to be more credible, you should, as you did with the medieval period of warming, so state it. Also, as you have done, it is appropriate to call into question the validity of his sources. From a personal perspective, using the arguments that since the literature is from conservatives or that it's from industry lobbyists it is wrong is no more valid than if it were to be pointed out that most Universities have been under liberal control for decades, therefore most of the scientists publishing global warming papers are liberals and since they are liberals their main agenda is to further the liberal cause that global warming is man made. so anything published by them is suspicious. Both sides do this and it's wrong.