Okay, I have gone through this many times with this silly argument. I will try one more time. AGW as you call it is real. It is a fact. It was proven 40 years ago when "reasonable people" believed that we were headed into the next ice age by 1970. The facts are this, the sun, that bright shiny thing in the sky is growing older and weaker. As it ages it expands. At one time Venus was habitable. The habitability zone has moved away from there and we have the benefit of that zone, we are at the edge of that zone now and things are starting to heat up. This is evidenced by Mars, which is also getting warmer as documented by probes sent there since the 70's.

According to the IPCC report, and if you take every thing they say as fact. Man does increase the warmth of this planet by an amazing 6 one hundredth of one degree over the next 100 years. I read the reports and that is their conclusion not my interpretation of what they said. Now the alarmist scream that the temp will rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next hundred years but the science says different. We had a warming stage that went form 1950 to 1980 and we have been cooling the last 20 years, making it very hard to reach the 10 degrees, or the 2.4 degrees that NASA predicts. All because of the sun and what it does, sunspots have stopped so we are going to get cooler not warmer. When the sun starts up again we will get warmer. Either way the sun is still expanding and since we can't stop the sun from expanding unless, according to my calculations, we take all the hydrogen from the planets Jupiter and Saturn compress them until it reaches a metallic state and then inject it into the sun prior to combustion. this will fix the situation for almost a million years. since we don't have this ability there is nothing that can be done.

Conclusion: we don't have the power or the ability to do anything to this planet other than destroy man. The planet will have one maybe two more ice ages and then we will no longer be able to live on this planet. We can not save this planet. We cannot stop AGW. Wait, we can stop it but it would require us to put out the sun and since it is the only source of heat for the solar system that would be a bad thing.

Keep in mind that a volcano when it erupts puts out 14 billion tons of carbon a day, there are on average 56 volcanoes erupting world wide daily. The little bit of carbon humans produce yearly is less than one volcano in a day. Do you really think that the Earth knows we are here?

100 million years ago the atmosphere could not sustain humans. The animals that thrived at that time consumed carbon and sulfur leaving the oxygen, we came along and we consume oxygen and produce carbon. Man made global warming is a hoax.

Just so you know I have been studying this crap on and off since Earth day 1970 when I was freezing my butt off cleaning the forest to save us from the coming ice age. Back then we had 20 years to fix it or we would all freeze to death. Now we have only ten years to fix AGW or we will all burn to death.

With those facts, do you still think it is justified to wreck the world’s economy, stop most progress, and live as if we were back in the 1600's just to reduce the average global temperature by 6/100 of one degree over the next century?

Doctor Roy Spencer Climatologists Takes no money from “evil oil” or any one connected to oil companies. He is board certified and is current and well respected around the world on the subject. He and about 14 thousand other climatologists agree with him. Of the 700 scientist that are the consensus for this global warming hoax most have changed their position in the last three years. Are you suggesting that they changed sides because they received money from big oil? Or could it be that, like the Australian climatologist that most of the modeling was based on found errors and withdrew his part until he could make corrections and was attacked for doing so and is no longer credible in the pro-global warming gang. Reputations are at stake here and people are running for cover because in science your reputation is all that matters. The ones that are still on the AGW band wagon are people that can’t be hurt by a bad reputation. Of last reports, the “hacker” is believed to be someone inside the institution that is trying to save his reputation by leaking the information of people breaking the laws of the land to sustain global warming. If this report is true then he is not a hacker but a whistle blower. Someone from the inside trying to warn us of the hoax.

Nice how the clip was out of context. The quote was a jibe at the Senator because when an objection was made earlier this year he was told “we won the election, you lost, get a life”. In that context, he was joking rather than making a statement. I can see by your writing that you have not been paying attention to what has happened in the House of Representatives or the senate. Of those 20 out of 28 years you state only 7 of them did the right have control.

In particular I point you to the Reuters article that I referenced earlier that stated "there are many reasons why the climate bill could choke, but it won't be about a group of e-mails."

As far as cap and trade like I said I'm by no means a AGW expert nor do I even follow environmental legislation all that closely. In particular I have no real clue as to the provisions of Cap and Trade and so am by no means sure that I even favor it. In general while I fully believe AGW, subject of course to the caveats that I've mentioned multiple times of questions about magnitude, timing and what can actually be done about it, I am far less in favor of what I would consider "extreme" action against US corporations that would put them in a competitive disavantage with respect to companies of other countries.

In particular I'm very much against anything that would result in payments from the US and other developed countries to underdeveloped countries on the basis that we've been allowed to pollute and therefore should pay them for not polluting. I think I may be mistaking provisions of cap and trade for provisions of the copenhagen summit but hopefully my point is clear.

I support *reasonable* controls on companies and taxes on the obvious externalities of pollution in general of which carbon emissions are simply one of many. I'm a bit leery of a complicated system that could allow polluters to continue polluting via some slight of hand means. I'm more in favor of simply requiring a gradual reduction in carbon emissions from all industries in parallel.

But I don't support putting American companies out of business in the process nor as mentioned above do I support payments from developed countries to undeveloped countries to try and force the undeveloped world to not pollute as well. Instead I would support pollution control (of which carbon is only a subset) of the undeveloped world as a precondition for allowing them access to our markets (along with other things like human rights, child labor laws and anything related that insures a level playing field).

Like I said I make no pretense of being any kind of global warming expert. Given that, I really have no great interest in arguing specifics. Like I said, from my viewpoint all I see is an overwhelming majority of what seems to be the scientific community saying that AGW is real and a handful of deniers *mostly* with some vested financial interest saying that it's not.

But I'll at least make a minimal effort to check some of the points you made. This one for example.

Essentially random, hopefully unbiased. As equivalent to randomly throwing a dart as I could manage. What I found was http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html which seemed geared to a high school level which suited me just fine.

The first thing the article did was to point out three potential effects related to climate change that volcanic eruptions may have. These are the ozone effect, the greenhouse effect and the haze effect. The article went on to describe the possible influence that volcanic eruptions may have on the ozone effect and concluded that while there are some negative effects they are indirect effects that are generally short lived. The conclusion was that human generated CFC’s have a far greater effect on ozone depletion than volcanic eruptions.

From there the article directly addresses your point of the relative contribution of CO2 from human activities versus that of volcanic eruptions; however this article totally contradicted your claims. The article claims that the CO2 contributed by human activities exceeds the CO2 contributed by volcanic eruptions by *150* times! There was no direct link but a reference was made to T.M. Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) supporting this 150 times figure.

The article continues with the influence of volcanic eruptions on the haze effect and to summarize quickly concluded that volcanic eruptions have a greater effect on increasing haze than they do on increasing the greenhouse effect and on the balance represent an overall cooling effect *not* a warming effect. The article then concludes with four well-known volcanic eruptions that resulted in a documented *decrease* in world temperatures albeit temporary.

The bottom line is that I threw a dart and came up with what appears to be a totally credible report, albeit somewhat simplistically written, that totally denied your entire claim about volcanic eruptions. Not only are the CO2 contributions of human activity 150 times that of the CO2 contributions of volcanic eruptions, but because of the haze effect volcanic eruptions are actually a net global *cooling* effect which is the opposite of warming.

Like I said I make no claim to being a AGW expert but I’m going to have to believe the claims of the Department of Geological Sciences at San Diego State University over your claims. Also like I said if you disagree with these findings feel free to argue with them, not me.

Is it something about JU that brings out this side of people, or is it just the interent in general I wonder?

If you can keep this in mind and move past the snot to the substance then that would be helpful.

What this AGW denial reminds me of in so many ways is how the tobacco industry successfully delayed anti-smoking legislation for so many years.The movie Thank you for Smoking is a perfect example of this.

The point is that there is no need for credible contrary opinion, all that’s required is a small but noisy group of deniers (funded by vested interests of course) and that along with the idea of “equal time” is all that’s necessary to claim that a “controversy” exists when in reality there is no such thing.

It’s always a losing strategy, it's a cost effective way of implementing a “delaying action”, but in the end the truth will out. Is there anyone today that can honestly make the claim that it’s not proven that smoking is bad for both those that do it as well as those that are exposed to it? Hardly.

But this is pretty much the method that the right has been reduced to on *everything*. Certainly the teabaggers and healthcare reform are being fought using the identical technique.

In 20 years the same will no doubt be true of AGW (and UHC for that matter), the only question is will we have lost our chance to actually do anything about it, assuming that we actually do have some chance now.

forums.joeuser.com

I could list peer-reviewed journal articles (ex 'Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature' This article uses Neptune to show that temperature increases on Earth have more to do with that BIG GIGANTIC ball of gas something Paladin said, and I could list 100 or so more peer-reviewed journals that I've reviewed/read)  but again you don't care.  You just keep appealing to the majority as if that's scientific or logical.  You also overly scruntize the other side when you should be scruntizing the side your own on as well.  They do get government money or money from somewhere in general (government usually just lavishes you with large sums of money though) can be very persuasive just as big oil money can be as well.

How do most scientific movements start off?  Most movements start off small. It doesn't matter what the other side could say to you.  Which again is highly unscientific. My previous posts point stands true.  The reason I have been silent is due to the fact that I was observing my day of rest.

Its a good thing that ID believes in freedom of speech and let's people speak EVEN when they disagree and doesn't go blocking them.

News flash: Democrates have controlled congress more years than republicans since 1945 (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm ) and I am suprised you bring up the fact the republicans controlled congress during clinton's years because most democrates champion clinton as balancing the budget when congress has more to do with that.

I am basically through having this palavar with a coccydynia lepton.

Remarkable what a little typo will do.  CG should have been CC.

The tobacco analogy is a bit odd.  But oddly appropriate.

The way I remember it, the tobacco scientists weren't behind an international, government backed plan to force everyone on the planet to smoke and pay taxes for the privilege.  In this case, it's the AGW scientists who have cooked the books and ignored reality, much as the tobacco-backed scientists did, and it's the 'deniers' (your term) pointing out that the emporer has no clothes.

Furthermore, the proof that the use of tobacco is a major contributor to chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer (not the only contributor, mind you, but an overwhelming one) is far more solid than the proof that man is the principle cause of global warming, on the order of several magnitudes.  AGW (not GW/CC, but AGW) remains a theory - it hasn't been confirmed and can't be tested in the same way.

I have a few notes to point out here.  The CRU is one of four sets of Data that the UN’s IPCC report and many other Governmental GW reports are based off of.  It is the most highly sited Data.  The second most used Data is from Dr. Hansen at the GISS.  If you don’t know Dr. Hansen, he is the man that has been working with and has many non-NASA related projects funded by many of the new Green Industry corporations started by (you guessed it) former VP Gore.  Dr. Hansen’s data was revised last year after a rather inconvenient numbers of “Flawed” numbers where discovered after some of the reporting station numbers did not match his.  It has also come to light the similar “Faulty numbers” problems from Australia and New Zealand have been discovered recently too. 

Now lets look at the fact that last year the CRU claimed that a large chunk of historical RAW data collected from reporting stations from all over the world had been “Lost” or dumped to save space in their new building.  This revelation happened soon after a freedom of information act request was ordered and conveniently about the same time these email had been sent out requesting co-workers to delete any emails with data on them.  Without that data, we now will never find out if the CRU’s data is telling the truth or if the data is just a bunch of “tricked or adjusted” (their own words) numbers.  This is where the emails admit that “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”.

Many scientists rely on that Data provided by CRU and Dr. Hansen.  It is easy to get a “consensus” if the data provided to the scientist are thought to be accurate.  Unfortunately these bad apples, which had not been able to get the raw data to fit their models, have been adjusting the numbers at the collection point and deleting the raw data.  They have been playing the rest of the scientific community as fools.  When conducting scientific experiments, if you get results that do not fit your theory you take stock at what went wrong and change that theory.  Then try again.

Guys like this give all science a bad name.  Which is a shame.

P.S.  I am still wondering where those holes in the ozone layers went to?

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding."

I repeat "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support."

Idiot

Oh I know exactly what it said. Except in the 70's nobody called it conjecture.  The hypothesis may not have had support, but its silence was deafening. What term do you think they have for GW in the 2040"s? Sham, hoax, scheme?

You implied you never heard of it, I just provided proof it existed not to convince you it was real or not. Nice attempt to twist though. I'd award you a Robert Gibb's button if I could.

Talk about double trouble.

The situation is not analogous.  Big Tobacco did not have governments basing penalizing multitrillion dollar economic policies on thier work.

The assumption that climatology is a science like any other is false.

The notion that overwhelming agreement with something makes it fact, let alone infallible, has not been borne out by history.

The case that we must do what has been proposed to mitigate a problem that appears to 1) be less severe than the alarmists would have us believe and 2) be inconsequentially contributed to by man, at the cost to be incurred has not been made.

Putting aside whether you believe the alarmist's science is good or bad, there is no evidence that whatever we'll buy with all the money they propose to raise through carbon taxes will do squat to 'solve' the alleged problem.  But there are people and (evil) corporations which have positioned themselves to reap immense (dare I say, 'windfall'?) profits from such schemes.

Cap & trade is 'solution' still looking for a problem.

Nothing wrong with 'being green' - but that's as far as it should go.