Once again I will Point you to the kind folks at CPDN. They've done enough models to show that no matter what happened before, human influence from the Industrial revolution has caused massive problems around the globe and will cause even more massive problems in the future. Absolutely no Model that CPDN has run has shown any slowing in temperature rise. They deal with facts. not speculation. They know the amount of carbon burning that occurred and is occurring and they extrapolate models from that. As Carlin stated, this isnt a global problem its a human problem. The earth will survive us like a bad case of flea and will shake us off like we never happened when we die off.

Check out the low lying pine forests of the florida keys. they're gone, the islands of the south pacific are all losing land mass due to glacial melt. This is a modern problem and a human problem

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

---

Funny how Non or No science is crying foul. perhaps they should get investments from the oil and coal companies and perhaps the auto industry. Why you ask? Its just like an election. Suppress the oppposition with noise so they can't hear the truth anymore. I'm sure that day is just around the corner. Much like Rush Limbaugh claiming that the increased CO2 is a boon for Plants and by that line...US. Plants do not suddenly grow more because of increased CO2. Do we grow bigger from being put on 100% O2. for those that dont know the answer is NO.

Sure the Earth will right itself... in a couple hundred thousand years. we don't have that kind of time.

Heres a clue to figuring out whats wrong. we are burning millions of years worth of coal, oil, Peat, and wood in less that 200 years. thats an emormous amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. No matter how you try and cut this down the CO2 levels are getting dangerously high.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

.

Suppress the oppposition with noise so they can't hear the truth anymore.

Hey Skildude, it wasn't the skeptics that shut out all dissent, I was your side. It isn't the skeptics who doctored the data, it was your side. It wasn't the skeptics who tried to drown out all opposition, it was your side. It wasn't the skeptics who adopted the language anecdotal evidence and placed it into their official report, it was your side.

It is the AGW fanatics who have attempted to portray anyone who questioned the rationality of those who claim the activities of man can significantly affect global climate as the equivilent of holocaust deniers in their attempt to shut off all debate.

Now that Phil Jones has all but admitted that AGW is a total fabrication, it is your side that is again launching into ad hominem attacks against those who agree.

Models are nothing but models and if the data you are putting in them are skewed from the outset, then the results are skewed. Temperature data have long been skewed by the urban location of a majority of the monitors...GIGO

MOdels are designed by those who have an agenda...to prove the existence of global warming caused by man...small wonder they prove what their designers assumed.

The first step for an addict is to admit you have a problem.

Repeat after me:
"We admitted we were powerless over global climate and that the solar system is unmanageable."

You want "junk science," I give you Mann made global warming.

"Hide the decline."

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

I believe its been the Academics that have been under constant fire for their work. Please explain the agenda a scientist might hold? more funding? Say it isn't so!!! What agenda do the energy concerns have in this country. I can tell you. Continued and increased use of fossil fuels. here in DFW we get this nice brown color in the sky. Thats not normal that is polution. remember when the sky was blue?

So which is worse using all the fossil fuels as fast as we can dig it up. Or do we attempt to curb the use of fossil fuels, reduce green house gases, and develop alternatives to our current means of energy production. we have a Sun and a windy planet two very easily accessible energy sources you'd think this would be a no brainer to use

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The first step for an addict is to admit you have a problem.

Repeat after me:
"We admitted we were powerless over global climate and that the solar system is unmanageable."

So...

Is the first part of your denial held in your belief that we are not polluting the world on an ever greater industrial scale?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

he could come to US 287 outside Ft Worth Texas, sit and watch the trains heading south from Colorado and Wyoming full of coal. empties heading back. I've seem them day and night. I assume that from 8-10 coal trains head into Texas on this line alone. Day and night they bring millions of tons of coal. and they never stop.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Coal companies would be happy if they could dig up one lump of coal and make the same profit they are currently making. We (advanced countries) get around 60% of the energy out of coal while other countries such as China get far less. We have maintained the same carbon output for years before global warming was an issue even with a population increase. On top of that we will sell our solutions to any country with the money to buy it but there are no takers, How come we get the blame for what others are doing?

---

What are you willing to pay per kilowatt hour or gallon of auto fuel. Are you willing to pay more through subsidies so that those who don't pay taxes can have reasonable energy costs. You are already paying more for ethanol laced fuel through your taxed-based subsidy, higher cost, higher food cost and lower gas mileage.

Are you sure that Ethanol is not just another false religious hoax.

Nice dodge Skildude...the brown you see in the air is not CO2 and has no relationship to AGW...do at least attempt to stay on subject.

Please explain the agenda a scientist might hold? more funding? Say it isn't so!!!

More funding indeed...and power. AGW was never about improving the climate, it has always been about political power and funding of research. No secret there.

I believe its been the Academics that have been under constant fire for their work.

A ludicrous statement. The academics have been in the catbird's seat for decades on this issue. Even today you will not find any in the mainstream media discussing Professor Jones' confession. There has been no honest debate on the subject for the past decade. All who are brazen enough to question the concept in academia are blackballed and ignored by the press...or worse mocked for not having published any "peer reviewed" articles which we now have proof was the intent of said academics.

What utter hypocrisy to criticize scientists for not doing something you (you in the general sense) have made every effort to prevent.

AS for the "green" technology and industry, when there is sufficient demand for them, they will appear without the assistance of any government edict. The free market has been the sole source of technological advancement in society. They are the producers of products and jobs, governments are consumers of wealth not creators. Governments are impediments to progress, not expiditers.

Consigning developing nations to permanent 3rd world status to advance a false cause is a detestible act; an arrogant act by elitist politicians and academics.

AGW is about control of the people, not about solving any presumed (and non-existent) climatological problem.

The so-called sience of anthropogenic global warming (or climate change) is rife with corruption and bad scientific technique. The data don't support the claims and the models are so filled with "fudge factors" and backfilling as to be entirely useless.

Again I say show us the data. Tell your boys at NASA to stop blocking access to the raw data. Let's have a little bit of sunlight in those cloistered halls.

The truth will out.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

Is the first part of your denial held in your belief that we are not polluting the world on an ever greater industrial scale?

ML1, Nice strawman attack. We are not discussing pollution, we are discussing the production of CO2 and whether or not it is causing global warming.

Here's a clue, CO2 is not a pollutant it is a naturally occurring molecule...you produce it everytime you exhale. You will find it in your Perrier and your beer.

As I said to Skildude, do at least attempt to stay on subject.

Diversion is an old technique of those who are unable to defend their own stance.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

Please explain the agenda a scientist might hold? more funding? Say it isn't so!!!

You appear to hold scientists above the general human population. Let me quickly disabuse you of this mistaken belief. Scientists and professors are mere mortals. They have mortgages that must be paid. They have children who must be fed with dental bills which must be seen to and tuitions that must by prepared for. They are no more or less venal than any other human being, but in addition to that they are as suceptible to their own vanities and beliefs as any other soul.

It doesn't require sinsister intentions to be self deceiving. Bias is a naturally occurring character trait of all human beings...even scientists. It requires effort to eliminate it from your work and if you are entirely convinced of the recititude of your theories, then you may subconciously excuse anomalous data points with nothing but the best intentions.

That is why the scientific method is so rigorous; that is why the goal of every scientist should be to disprove his own theories through experimentation, not prove them. That is why, when the data causes a model to fail, the answer isn't to tweak the model, it is to discover exactly why your theory falls apart or why the model is in error.

I have known and dealt with a great many professors and scientists in my life and when I was young I was somewhat star struck with them, but as I have lived and worked with them, come to know them, I now see them as they really are, fallible, human beings with all the foibles of every other human being, with just a touch more arrogance and vanity because of their advanced degrees.

A PhD is not proof of greater intelligence it is proof or greater persistence.

You have not lived until you witness the emotional explosion with occurs when a lowly technician (degreed or undegreed) shows a PhD chemical engineer why and how their calculations or assumptions are wrong. It is a humbling experience that all PhD's should experience. It makes them far more willing to accept other people's ideas and more likely to question their own infallibility.

I have great respect of both scientists and professors, but I see them as they are rather than as the world of academia would have us see them.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

What agenda do the energy concerns have in this country. I can tell you. Continued and increased use of fossil fuels.

No, not quite, it is continued and increased profitablility. They are (or should be) only interested in turning a profit. It doesn't matter what the source of that profit is, as long as they get a return on their investment.

"Green" sources of energy will be developed as soon as it becomes profitable or economically tenable for businesses to pursue them. Far from being the big monolithic beasts you seem to believe them to be, the oil industry is constantly researching other means of generating energy.

Shell has invested million is research on fuel cell technology. If they were as monolithic as you believe, such an investment would not make sense. However they are as far sighted as anyone else and see the potential of such an energy source for transportation. When it becomes financially viable, the technology will be made available.

You seem to believe that being in academia is somehow enobling and being in business-seeking to make a profit-is somehow evil, a point of view I find amusing...someone who generates a commercial product and generates wealth is evil whereas someone who is basically a leech, deriving his income from taxes and the sweat of someone elses brow is noble.

I veiw them as being basically the same. Each is providing a product for a customers. However, only one is contributing to the greater wealth and well being of society in general.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

"Carbon dioxide concentrations analyzed by a
portable gas chromatograph ranged from less than 1% in
healthy forest, a typical figure for forest soils, to more than
90% at several locations within tree-kill areas. Where CO2
concentrations exceeded 30%, most trees were dead."--
4repuglyconsToo...

Uhhh...geo...perhaps you should have read the whole article. The that CO2 was magmatic, not man made. It in the soil, not in the air. The trees were asphixiated by the soil, not by CO2 content in the air.

A higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere generally causes greater growth...which I sure you know can be verified by any home grower of pot who uses cylinders of CO2 to increase the yield and quality of their crop.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

maintained the same carbon level?

How so? we've been opening more and more Coal burning plants in this country. this isn't maintaining this is increasing.

As far as the brown haze you are correct thats most likely Carbon Monoxide. Coal plant unlike your family vehicle do not have catalytic converters. thus a great deal of their exhaust would be Carbon Monoxide. Gas burning plants would produce CO2 but they are rare in the day of the coal plant

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Uhhh...geo...perhaps you should have read the whole article. The that CO2 was magmatic, not man made. It in the soil, not in the air. The trees were asphixiated by the soil, not by CO2 content in the air.

Uhhh...Malvein...perhaps you should have read the whole...

That was in response to Won'tsee:

"Also, when are you going to get it through your head that CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food."

---------------------------

Yer neoLuddite fudDrivel is de bunk before you post it.

Do you get paid by the word--
obviously Firebrand doesn't...

weather <> climate.
GCC
GCC4Repuglycons

---

I hate to repeat myself. BUt you screwy psuedo science that says increased CO2 causes increased plant growth. this was junk spewed by Rush limbaugh 15-20 years ago and seems to still have a foothold with his followers.

CO2 to plants is O2 to us. We don't grow bigger/faster with more oxygen. We respirate O2 and planets respirate CO2. By your logic giving a newborn straight O2 all its life would aid in maturity of the child. Guess what, It doesnt. increased CO2 doesnt increase crop yields or reforestation. Crop yields are almost soley due to improved hybrids. Plants grow from taking nutrients from the earth.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

maintained the same carbon level?

How so? we've been opening more and more Coal burning plants in this country. this isn't maintaining this is increasing.

As far as the brown haze you are correct thats most likely Carbon Monoxide. Coal plant unlike your family vehicle do not have catalytic converters. thus a great deal of their exhaust would be Carbon Monoxide. Gas burning plants would produce CO2 but they are rare in the day of the coal plant

Coal plants generate very little carbon Monoxide even without catalytic converters. Carbon Monoxide is produced because fuel is burned without enough oxygen something power plants modern plants don't do because they want to get all of the heat out of the fuel or because the gasses are cooled off by the cylinder walls before it has time to burn completely. In power plants the burn takes place over seconds ensuring that the burn is clean, Power plants in the US are also required to remove Sulfur and fly ash making the exhaust clean, If you see anything, you are seeing the moisture cooling off and creating fog.
If you see brown haze in the surrounding area, the odds are it was caused by autos, fireplaces or some non-power plant related source.
I go by a massive coal power plant in northern Arizona once a year and the only way I know it's running is a white cloud that extends about 30 feet from the exhaust stack. Other than that, the sky is crystal clear. On the other hand, I go by an atomic plant west of the city and I can see the steam off the cooling towers as much as 50 miles away.
The way the rules are set up, Old power plants only need to install limited improvements as long as they don't upgrade the plant. When they do upgrade, they need to bring it up to modern levels. This has taken most of the old plants out of service because the upgrade cost are so high it's not worth running them anymore. Thats part of the reason Enron had so much fun in California. Many of our old plants were taken out of service and we only have a few nuclear plant and a limited number of natural gas fired plants. We now import much of our power over what was Enron power lines. Take a few of our local plants off for "service", take out a power line or two and you have rolling blackouts and power companies paying top dollar for any power they can get.

---

I hate to repeat myself. BUt you screwy psuedo science that says increased CO2 causes increased plant growth. this was junk spewed by Rush limbaugh 15-20 years ago and seems to still have a foothold with his followers.

CO2 to plants is O2 to us. We don't grow bigger/faster with more oxygen. We respirate O2 and planets respirate CO2. By your logic giving a newborn straight O2 all its life would aid in maturity of the child. Guess what, It doesnt. increased CO2 doesnt increase crop yields or reforestation. Crop yields are almost soley due to improved hybrids. Plants grow from taking nutrients from the earth.

Plants are mostly carbon and they get that from the air. All they get from the soil is a few minerals. To correct your analogy, when humans eat a large amounts of food, they do get fat. Humans also feel better when they get more oxygen when they are exercising but thats because it allows them to get the CO2 out of their system faster.
On a commercial level they boost the levels of CO2 in green houses to improve plant growth. Do you think they would do this if it didn't help the plants? Plants evolved at much higher levels of CO2 than we have today and still have that left over genetic memory of liking higher levels of CO2 than we have today. With higher CO2 levels, plants put more effort into root development. The levels plants grow best at are higher than humans can tolerate, but higher levels of CO2 result in faster plant growth and improved drought resistance.

---

I googled " increased CO2 increased crop yield" Here is the first thing on the list

noticed that increased temps and decreased moisture add up to more than a 50% less growth in open air trials than was expected by the closed/controlled experiments predicted. So no it doesn't help. Since we are dealing with more than just a single problem. Increased temps, melt polar ice, which cools the oceans, that produce fewer clouds, which produce less rain, which creates dry conditions which produce less crops, which means we need to drain more aquifers,if available, to sustain our current level of crop production. There in a nutshell. All the while we are using the Oxygen we need to breath to stay alive to move ineffienct vehicle around and producing even more CO2, which as some don't realize, will eventually sufficate oxygen breathing animals including humans.

/edit and Read this one.

"But there's a tradeoff between quantity and quality. While crops may be more productive, the resulting produce will be of lower nutritional quality."
Nutritional quality declines because while the plants produce more seeds under higher CO2 levels, the seeds contain less nitrogen.
"The quality

Also note that even with increased plant production, the CO2 level continues to rise. Plants just can not keep up with our prodigious production of CO2

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope