Too much of anything is bad. It can be too much CO2, too much H2O, and even too much O2.

It's all about balance - what life has adapted to. Jigger with that balance, and there will be unintended consequences. But don't worry, Mother nature will take care of the mistakes; the dinosaurs were taken care of. It just took a while.

In this case, both Blumenauer and Bachmann are both only partially right.

As for lunatic fringe, there is a lot of that going around on both sides of the aisle.

it is odd how you dems havent gotten it yet. so much evidence in front of you. so many people and scientists coming out about how human induced global warming is weak if not close to nonexistent.

Freeman Dyson, John Coleman, supervisor of Jim Hansen, Richard Lindzen and so many others yet you just say people are crazy.

i wish you all would just listen. 3% of co2 is emitted by humans. thats it! come on now get with the program.

i am surprised that you take blumenaurs word over bachmann.

this issue has become a partisan issue and it shouldnt. it should be a rational intellectual debate but dems just shut down and say anyone who denies the large crazy magnitude of human influence that someone like blumenaur professes is in the pockets of big oil.

i wish that dems would at least allow some debate not just a shut down of ideas. that is the root of ignorance.

I love how Bachmann said something then said "in other words..." and then said the exact same thing.

Bachmann basically represents a narrow corridor of Minnesota north of the Twin Cities, that much like that area south of Portland, contains the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the State of Minnesota. Otherwise, Minnesota is as least as progressive as Oregon. So if the definition of "crazyland" also applies to regions such as, say, Wilsonville, then that is an accurate appellation.

That said, Michele Bachmann is certifiably insane, but because we keep talking about her, the incredibly stupid people from the 6th get the impression that she is somehow akin to a bee getting into the underpants of the progressive movement. These are not people who really listen to the whole argument. Earl has better things to do than pick on a mentally damaged woman who has no right to be in government at all aside from the fact that the people she represents wouldn't probably vote for a Democrat no matter who he is. They're extremely pro-life, and even a minister couldn't beat Bachmann there.

The most laughable thing I heard this week about carbon dioxide came from John Boehner who defended carbon dioxide, claiming ( I paraphrase) that it's really not a carcinogen like the Dems say it is. After all we breathe out carbon dioxide. And after all, cows fart, and that's a natural thing so how could it be bad for the environment. Boehner and Bachman, the leadership of the GOP and their stunning scientific knowledge.

On the point Rep. Blumenauer brought up there.

I brought that same point up in a discussion and a right winger handed me some graphs that I had no response, particularly the graphs.

Look at the stuff at this link, particularly the graphs. http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=51

I'd like to be able to counter to what is brought up there.

Funny, how the Democrats blocked testimony opposing Gore:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

Not surprising, the Big Bore is short on facts, and a piss poor debater.

But, in a way, I hope the democRATS get their way on climate change in spades. Because, after a while people will realize they have been scammed, and higher taxes aren't going to change the weather - the gig will be up.

Oh and BTW, Earl's site sucks.

Zune: You complain about someone's debate style while you post this...

"democRATS"

You think that is good debate form?

Mike wrote:

It's all about balance

Balance? Let's keep that godless pinko talk out of here, okay? As all real, godfearin' Americans know, things are either all good or all evil. There's no in between. And since CO2 is a "natural byproduct of nature", it must be all good; sort of like cannabis, right?

And I don't think we should refer to Michelle Bachmann as crazy. Stupid, ignorant and deluded, perhaps, but not crazy.

This reminds me of SNL Sarah Palin (tina fey) saying that global warming was just "God hugging us a little bit closer"

"were discussing climate change."

Formerly known as global warming. Even the proponents are not sure of the effects. CO2 is a naturally occuring event, what we are arguing are the effects. I don't see what she said as wrong - unless you want to debate photosynthesis.

As far as Blumenauer how serious can you take a man who wears bow ties, even if he is a multi-millionaire?

Kinda reach, Mr Blumenauer's webmaster.

Steve "...As far as Blumenauer how serious can you take a man who wears bow ties...."

How's serious do you take Winston Churchill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

"...CO2 is a naturally occuring event, what we are arguing are the effects. I don't see what she said as wrong..."

That's because people who are scientifically illiterate are debating scientific topics. People who don't know crap about science don't get to be the judge of whether some other scientifically illiterate person's statement about science is reasonable.

For example...Having oxygen in a spacecraft seems like good idea. Having even more oxygen than is in standard air in a spacecraft might seem like a good thing for astronauts to a layman. Unfortunately, putting extra oxygen in a spacecraft makes that spacecraft a huge fire hazard.

Any language that originated with WWF is, by definition, banal, and not fit for a headline in a serious political blog. The "language picture" is a form of life. Is that the value system you want to leverage for Oregon politics?

Balance is a figment of the deluded human imagination, a wistful reaching. It is rare to witness a balanced person, rarer still to witness a fair-minded one. Forget about objectivity.

Posted by: Mrs.Todd | Apr 24, 2009 4:49:06 PM

This reminds me of SNL Sarah Palin (tina fey) saying that global warming was just "God hugging us a little bit closer"

And that pressure from behind is Jesus Christ fucking us in the ass, locally in the person of Terry Parker, Frank, Bev Sharpf, Cindy Sizemore, the Car Shlock, etc.

Have that hypocrite Bachmann to something about the vast majority of her funding base that work/have apts in the Twin Cities, and have their "main residence" across the border in Wisconsin. There's an example of progressive taxes causing carbon emissions.

"Leverage"? Gag. Speak english.

And, Tom: in the past, cannabis was actually used as a medicinal. It was recognized as being useful for women's issues, used and gathered specifically.

Now it is divorced from its natural place in the healing pharmacopeia - it is used to get high exclusively. I would be interested, is this the parallel you were trying to draw? I got a little bit lost as to how it related to nutcase B's daft commentary on how wonderful CO2 is in any form you find it... can only think this is what you meant?

Hey, maybe we can get Bachmann to follow Hannity's example and show us how harmless CO2 really is, by seeing how long she can survive breathing only CO2?

i wish that dems would at least allow some debate not just a shut down of ideas.

I'm sorry Dan, but you can't just make stuff up and claim that crazy talk deserves a place in a robust debate.

If you really do support that, then let's have a little discussion:

I heard from somewhere that belly button lint comes from little lint gnomes, who deposit it in your belly button for safekeeping overnight. Do you agree? (Remember not to just "shut down" my idea.)

The root of ignorance isn't the discarding of wrong ideas; it's the failure to discard those ideas when all measurable evidence points to the contrary.

Mercury is a naturally occurring substance that I would guess appears in large quantities in Ms. Bachmann's district ... or at least her office. As is lead, much too much of which I'd guess Ms. Bachmann consumed in great quantities during her childhood.

That said, I sincerely and deeply hope that Ms. Palin wins the GOP nomination for president in 2012 and chooses Ms. Bachmann as her running mate.

To be fair, Blumenauer is arguing a wrong with a wrong. He states, "Ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for two third of a million years..."

Really?!? Wow, my history textbooks all throughout elementary, junior high, high school, undergraduate and graduate school must be wrong when they indicate that only in the last 100 years, we have only been measuring and studying carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Really, can someone tell me what tools King Tut and Cleopatra used to study carbon dioxide levels?

What were the carbon dioxide levels during Genghis Khan's Empire?

Was there a higher carbon dioxide level present in the atmosphere during the Black Plague in Europe?

Come one Earl, don't be unreasonable. Acknowledge that there is another side to the debate and that side fervently questions the validity and reliability of these computer models whose variables are created by human beings who engender their biases knowingly or unknowingly into the computer models.

Wow! You changed my mind because Blumenauer & Al Gore ARE a Scientists.

Oh, he's not? He was the Vice Pres. over 8 years ago and did what about this? And the other guy is a lifetime, funny dressed Politician.

Nevermind.

Enjoy the Hail and Ice on the car windows yesterday on April 23rd?

Please double my on a fixed income Mom's electric bill, she IS a Democrat (wavering though) too and then she will finally work hard at helping real Republicans get in office.

Great ideas, yeah.

Enjoy your one sided partisan illusions while you can.

Gee, for some reason the Republican party is getting more donation money this year, even in this bad economy, hmmm.

Wow, I have to make some corrections:

*on NOT "one"

*have we been NOT "we have only been."

Gore is a propagandist of bunk science. The oceans comprise most of the world's surface and carbon dioxide storage. When the oceans cool, they absorb gases, including carbon dioxide and release it when they warm. For scientific reference, look up Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's principle. You can see this principle in action by opening a beer. If the beer warms, it loses it's "fizz" or head. During the manufacturing process, beer is cooled to promote the absorption of CO2, the same occurs with soft drinks. When you want to make a good cup of coffee, you boil the water to remove non-condenseable gasses. I could go on.

So...what causes ocean temperatures to rise? Certainly not Man! The answer is in the sky, clearly visible during daylight.

One more thing, based on my prior post, it can be determined that increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmophere are a RESULT of global warming, not the CAUSE. Some studies show an 800 year lag, which is a result of long term solar cycles.

What's up with shutting down the debate? :

'UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington.

Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon'

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face, they are cowards.”

"That's because people who are scientifically illiterate are debating scientific topics. "

Hey, careful, that describes every politician.

"How's serious do you take Winston Churchill?"

A lot more than I do Earl who is only about 60 years out of fashion tune.

"People who don't know crap about science don't get to be the judge of whether some other scientifically illiterate person's statement about science is reasonable."

Does it help if I have a MS I am only asking what it illeterate about what she said. I think she has as much background as Blumenauer or Al Gore in science - None.

Not that I agree with Ms. Bachmann, but isn't "it comes from nature, so how can it be bad?" one of the stock phrases employed by pro-marijuana advocates?

If Blumenauer really believed CO2 was a problem he would not drive a SUV. see portlandfacts.com/Earl/EarlInSUV.htm

Does the existence of this topic mean that Kari has finally found proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming?

Kari, please give us the peer reviewed citation, page and quote so that I can add it to SustainableOregon.com

B

Cyanide, arsenic and sulfuric acid are natural substances too. The ignorance of the right wing never ceases to astound me.

"Cyanide, arsenic and sulfuric acid are natural substances too."

Slight difference, they are not naturally produced in large quantities while CO2 is produced every time everyone exhales.

You od realize there is a rather large concentration of nitrogen occuring in air also? I don't think I'd want to breathing pure nitrogen either. I think it is dangerous when we have non-scince types like Earl, Al GOre and this woman start confusing mere presence with causality.

Carla,

I view your obvious superficial grasp of AGW as a sign you have studied very little of the issue. Like so many on the left, taking in only the Gore/Bradbury speak and wild fabrications that attribute all things observed to AGW, which has yet to occur enough to make them possible. If it wasn't so dumb it would only be funny.

This has been an amazing phenomenon to see as so many things are called AGW-caused when the warming and effects in the AGW theory have not progressed enough to cause them.

Yet loons are calling Katrina, species extinction, floods, fires, heat waves, and every fluctuation in all things climate evidence of AGW.

And with the "nuts" cap and trade policies coming how predictable was this?

http://icecap.us/

Apr 25, 2009 To get votes, Waxman offers cap-and-trade breaks

By Susan Ferrechio, Washington Times In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama. Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration’s “cap and trade” system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts.

Niced try Sal and Nick.

One says the farce doesn't matter and the other calls the Republican batshit crazy.

Here's batshit crazy ands it's your left wing fanatasism on the march. And notice the AGW movement is about far more than phony reducing dependence upon foriegn oil card the left plays. The left's obstructing the use of our own oil and expanding the dependency makes that play dishonest.

Here's your real agenda. Notice "All"

THE NEW DIRECTION FOR OREGON: All proposed, laws, rules, plans, policies and other actions must be judged in terms of how effectively they keep Oregon on track reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Proposed efforts taking us in the wrong direction must be rejected. Efforts that don’t go far enough must be strengthened to keep us on track. Every year and at every level, Oregon must assess how well it is doing and make adjustments as necessary.

Generally speaking, this is really all we need to do: Assert the New Direction for Oregon over and over again. Demand leadership, commitment and accountability. Expect real, measurable change. Keep in mind that we must stay on track along the New Direction for Oregon. We need to do more than simply demand measurable outcomes. We need to offer specific proposals for how to get there. But before it even makes sense to talk about specific policies, it is essential to frame the discussion and to make sure others are on board heading in the New Direction for Oregon.

I agree with Sal, when somebody comes out of deep right or left field with arcane, idiotic comments they should be held up for the outrageous statements that they are.

Regardless your belief/disbelief of human caused global warming/climate change; all should be able to agree that our dependence on foreign oil should be cubed. Certainly that is a more defensible position. Then the debate can be around more drilling vs alternatives (solar, wind, tide) rather than the various scientific extrapolations by non-scientists. That and we avoid the rediculous Cap and Trade argument with diatribes against the likes of Wal-Mart when they exercise their monetary rights under the scheme.

No Sal, My point was the one "I" made.

Of course I think it's important work towards energy independence.

Unfortunately, as so often is th case dialogue with liberals you always make up you own point instead of using mine to respond to.

I wasn't vague, leaving some gap for you to fill.

I also called BS on the left's hypocrisy over energy independence for their relentless opposition and obstruction to our using our own oil, gas and caol supplies. And that goes right back to your wrong headed obsession with AGW that is not happening. Alternative energy is decades away from replacing fossil fuels. Stop pretending otherwise.

The technology we have and will have for decades in using fossil fuels makes it efficient, essentially harmless and the vital bridge to futture energy technologies.

It is you liberals who support a status quo that enriches the tyrants who control most of the world's oil.

With liberals the debate about more drilling is as closed as AGW.

The emerging Cap and Trade policies are insane, period, and will be nothing but destructive in every regard.

As as the abundant evidence shows the AGW movment is far more than the pretense of relieving our dependence upon foreign oil.

Doretta and Nick,

First, the measurements of "trapped gases" in glaciers are particular to that measurement in that region. Trying to extrapolate "trapped gases" in an Antarctic ice block to the entire Earth during that time period is absolutely ludicrous. Let me make an example:

Lets say that 500 years from now, scientists measure "trapped water deposits" from the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. Is it fair to say that the pure water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains can be extrapolated to say that the water in St. Louis was as pure as the H2O from the Sierra Nevada Mountains at the same time?

No, you can't and arguing otherwise just conveys how irrationally religious some are when it comes to global warming and Environmentalism.

As for me not believing in dinosaurs, who in the hell are you to infer something that I have not stated to make me out to be a nut bag?

I see that my skepticism is infringing upon one of the most sacred hinges (Global Warming) of your secular religion called Environmentalism. Likewise, I could care less whether I offend your religious "sensibilities."

Forget Gore, listen to a REAL terrestrial expert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA

Sal Peralta: This "debate" is asinine. The fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring substance has zero relevance to whether or not human consumption of fossil fuels is contributing to an increase in atmospheric CO2, nor to whether that increase in atmospheric CO2 is itself contributing to an increase in the natural release of CO2 as the oceans get warmer. B: Time for a little logic.

If you cannot prove man is the cause of warming, then ceasing man’s alleged causes will not solve the alleged problem

Here is what you must prove: 1. Prove that observed temperature increases are real. 2. Prove that temperature increases are unusual in a historical context. 3. Prove that CO2 actually can cause warming 4. Prove the relationship between any given CO2 increase and temperature 5. Prove what a dangerous amount of global warming actually is.

If you cannot prove ALL of the above, you have no rational justification for taking action.

Lets look closer: 1. The best historical record that we have, the USHCN, is being independently surveyed for quality. The result is that only 11% of the stations are up to USHCN’s own stated level of quality. sustainableoregon.com/dataquality.html

We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465, 2007

The satellite data, also considered high quality, shows little recent warming.

1. Historic studies show that past warm periods were warmer than now. See sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html for a chart based on peer-reviewed paper(s)

2. I keep asking for leads to the peer reviewed papers that prove CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming and no one has come up with proof.

Both sides DO agree that water vapor causes MOST of the greenhouse effect, not CO2. CO2 causes, at most 20-30%, (From: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

1. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 (please don’t accuse me of leaving out the rest of this quote - the rest is classic example of the illogic that infests the warmer’s case.)

Conclusion: 1. People who believe in dangerous warming have little real evidence for their belief. Remember, all those cuddly bears, melting ice and rising oceans DO NOT MATTER, if you cannot show that man is the cause. 2. People who belittle others for being non-believers are arrogant fools.

Sal Peralta: Besides, even if global warming is all just a big hoax, the things we need to do to address the issue -- primarily reducing our consumption of fossil fuels -- is something that is in our national interest anyway (unless you like the idea of financing the dictators who control most of the world's oil). B: If you really believe this, then I hope you are in favor of increasing domestic oil production, shale oil, oil from coal and nuclear power. If not, you are being disingenuous.

B

Sal is right. There is little in the whole response to climate change that we shouldn't do any way, to reduce pollution, save money and enhance our security.

why "climate change" instead of "global warming"? because it is a much more accurate term. while we are slowly cooking the planet, the most immediate impacts are unpredictable, extreme weather events, including viable temperatures, both warmer and cooler.

it is interesting to see the responses of the climate skeptics/doubters and political fringe who somehow feel repeating the talking points passes for discussion. WE have had over 60 hearing in our committee on global Warming and Energy Security alone. we have actually tried to have debates on the floor of the House, the results on CSPAN for all to see.

I've worked with enough scientists to believe that analysis of deep core samples of ice from the two poles, geological formations does in fact yield reliable information, like the rings of ancient trees.Modern science doesn't need news video tapes from the time of Cleopatra.

The GOP trolls here and Michelle Bachman are of the same ideological stripe as the GOP in Texas, who want to overrule science and change the science text books in Texas schools there to promote creationism, and the fundamentalist view that the universe is 6 thousand years old.

Hey, Sal, How are you doing with your project of debunking those 60 papers that do not support warming? You wrote: Here's my challenge to you, Pat: Provide me with a list of "experts" who publishes a position that claims to debunk Climate Change.

I will provide you with public information that demonstrates that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their work is funded, directly or indirectly, by energy concerns blueoregon.com/2007/09/novick-endorses.html#comments

Still anxiously awaiting you reply Thanks

AGW... the new cult that refuses to acknowledge scientific principals... the new Religious Left.

Old Ducker,

Quick, you'd let all those scientists at the IPCC know about Henry's Law. They must have missed it in school and now are confused about the role played by the oceans in the CO2 cycle.

Like other global warming skeptics who comment here, you suggest that our best scientists don't know basic science. To the contrary, they do, my confused friend.

Hey, Sal, How are you doing with your project of debunking those 60 papers that do not support warming? You wrote: Here's my challenge to you, Pat: Provide me with a list of "experts" who publishes a position that claims to debunk Climate Change.

I will provide you with public information that demonstrates that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their work is funded, directly or indirectly, by energy concerns blueoregon.com/2007/09/novick-endorses.html#comments

Still anxiously awaiting you reply Thanks

Jamais Vu: I am continually amazed that scientific data is viewed as a matter of opinion. The carbon, methane and other cycles are well-studied and the universal scientific consensus is that they have been thrown out of whack by industrial pollutants. JK: Then you must be able to show us the peer reviewed journal articles that actually prove that CO2 can really cause dangerous warming.

Absent that proof, there is no logical case for AGW.

Jamais Vu: Honestly, 99.9% of the scientific world says there is no debate about the causes of global warming, B That is simply not true. The single article that that claim is based not peer reviewed and turned out to have mis represented the search criteria.

Jamais Vu: For those insisting it is there political duty to save coal plants and the internal combustion engine, please tell--WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION? B Motivation? To save our current standard of living from those who foolishly think they can magically make alternative power sources appear at the stroke of a legal pen. They are wrong. There is no alternative energy that works on a large scale. Even the much touted wind has failed in Europe because if its intermittent nature.

Jamais Vu: You don't HAVE to be the party of compulsive stupidity, honest, you don't. B Right - you just need to learns some basic science to end your condition.

earl blumenauer: I've worked with enough scientists to believe that analysis of deep core samples of ice from the two poles, B Then you recognize: 1. that past temperatures have been warmer than now. 2. First temperature rises, then hundreds of years later the CO2 rises, proving that CO2 cannot have been the cause of the temperature rise.

As a logical person you should know the required chain of evidence that I posted above. None of the chain has been proven, so you cannot show that man is responsible for any warming that may have happened:

1. Prove that observed temperature increases are real.
2. Prove that temperature increases are unusual in a historical context.
3. Prove that CO2 actually can cause warming
4. Prove the relationship between any given CO2 increase and temperature
5. Prove what a dangerous amount of global warming actually is. See: sustainableoregon.com/noproof.html

You know this and continue to push your agenda, because your real agenda is to rebuild society along your utopian vision, roughly called smart growth.

earl blumenauer: geological formations does in fact yield reliable information, like the rings of ancient trees. B You show your lack of knowledge when you hold up tree rings as some standard of excellence. There are a lot of other things, beside temperature that affect tree’s growth. AND most trees do not grow in the winter and hence hold no data about winter temperatures. That you ignore this is further proof that you real agenda has nothing to do with climate - climate is only a convenient excuse to push your grand plan for how others should live. Just like all of the other religious zealots.

Are climate change and glabal warming mutually exclusive terms? I don't think so. Climate change takes into account the lengthy cycles of natural climate shift - a well-documented thing taught in the nation's junior high schools since this old grey mare was a sweet young thing. Add to that the synergy of the warming phenomenon, and you have a recipe for bloviation without end.

Torrid, I have to say you're one of the most shallow contributors I've come across form your side of this wrestling match.

I mean "so what oil company do you work for, Richard?" is just so weak. And perhaps before you call someone a moran you should learn how to spell moron.

What part of my remarks were moronic anyway?

It's easy to deny AGW. Not so mcuh climate change, since climate is always changing. Short term and long term.

You can hide behind your asinine accusations and remain ignorant on AGW. You seem comfortable there. But at least try and bring something worthy of posting.

The "settled science" play is exhibit A in the ignorance case. But since you mistakenly think every honest, smart climatologist on the planet agress with your false impression there won't be any education you'll comprehend. You're not very perceptive or observant.

Let's review your echoing cannards:

The denier works for oil. The denier is on the take. The science is settled. The denier belives in God and Jesus. The evidence against AGW doesn't amount to anything.

Like I said, weak and shallow you are.

You just don't realize how bad the case for AGW has become. From all indications most people with your brand of acceptance don't really care if it's real or not. The rest of your crackpot left wing agenda picks up where AGW leaves off.

" too bad so sad" ? Perfect Joe.

You can talk about "industries with profits tied to fossil fuels" all you want as you propagandize that skeptics are corrupted. But the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the skeptics, with or without expertise, have nothign to do with any industries at all. Anyone can observe them discussing their work at any time. From all over the world.
www.wattsupwithat.com www.climateaudit.org www.icecap.us

They take great offense at your ilk casting them as oil interests or big tobacco types etc. Your left wing boiler rooms cook that stuff up and you're eager to distribute the propaganda.

Take a waltz over there and accuse them of being paid by oil.

What ever aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign skeptics have in any form is paled in comparison to the AGW propaganda machine you're embracing. In a local context you're like joining the broad establishment support for the Tram and calling the opponents crooked.

You can't even point to your strongest evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing AGW. Because it isn't happening. The sloppy science by supposing doesn't count. Making up connections between observations and AGW doesn't count. Telling people scary tall tales like more Katrinas are coming doesn't count.

AGW is a theory based upon flawed assumptions and worsening science. The IPCC projections have become laughable having been based upon hypothetical scenarios and assumptions. Many of which have been shown to have been wrong to begin with. But how would you know that? You selective sphere of exposure and impression is constrained by your fanaticism.

Hey Little Farmer:

Lord Mocckton, who has absolutely no background or education in climate change had his moment of sheer absurdity in last week’s Energy & Commerce hearing on climate change adaptation when he declared CO2 "plant food" and talked about how Earth is a “carbon starved” planet, making it seem as though we desperately need to seek out new sources of CO2 emissions if we have any hope for survival as a species.

But hey, he does have a degree in journalism and inherited his title from his daddy.

why not solve this in the simplest manner possible? Let's ask Bachmann and any other politician who believes carbon dioxide is "harmless" to cheerfully volunteer to sit in an airtight glass booth while carbon dioxide is pumped into it. On live tv, of course.

"But the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the skeptics, with or without expertise, have nothign to do with any industries at all."

And, as it turns out, the vast majority of skeptics aren't really skeptics after all.

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.” -- Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.” -- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

"I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.” -- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

In January 2009 it was uncovered that the latest list of "650 International Scientists (who) Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming" seems to be more of the same: dead guys (Fred Seitz, Marcel Leroux, Reid Bryson ...), paid deniers (Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Sallie Baliunas ...), and a much larger group of weather forecasters and "experts" from unrelated fields, many of whom (eg., Edward Wegman) don't even disagree with the scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change. There were also 11 webpage designers listed in the group.

Of course if you dig deeper, after looking at who was on Inhofe's list of scientists that he claims dispute global warming and on the Discovery Institute's list of Darwin dissentors, you will discover a large number of duplicates including chiropracters, homeopaths, poets and this my personal favorite: Eduardo Ferreyra. President of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (which seems to just be Ferreyra and a couple of his friends). Not is he in complete AGW denial, but Ferrerya also has his own theorys regarding HIV/AID (it doesn't exist) and DDT (it actual helps the environment).

But hey, don't let me rain on your denier parade and let's get back to more of that cut-n-paste from Exxon.com!

Ho, ho ho Scott. Lemme guess: you slipped some of that text into a google search box and found out where all those quotes are being scrounged from? Or was that mere epithet? I hope for the former: too rich.

Ummmmm Sal? I'm on your side buddy...... or, rather, was teasing gleefully along with Scott. Read more slowly. It helps when the jesters weigh in. I'm determined not to engage in shit flinging. Only foolery. :)

Next thing ya know, Nicholas will be exploring the linkages between gasp SEcular Humanism and Godless Paganism as manifest in the expressions of Environmental Movement. Stay tuned, chirren.

Anyone want to address the foundation of the AGW claim - CO2?

Can anyone actually prove that CO2 is capable of causing dangerous warming?

FWIW, Bachmann was correct, although her presentation was repetitive and boring. It was Blumenauer who was full of crap (as usual).

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
• Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
• OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
• Humans can only claim responsibility for 3.4% of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere annually
• U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% over the last few years

Tom Civiletti,

Of course you're correct. The scientists are lying (and they're well paid for doing it). The same thing applies to economists of the mainstream species.

Duckie: your measures are divorced from the general corpus of the synergies of pollutants.

So about 1400 the "Little Ice Age began. What was the earth like prior to that anyone know? Are we going to be like it was then in the near future?

torridjoe writes: "But people without any of the weight of science on their side who belittle believers of the facts are...what exactly? How would you describe yourself, Kaarlock?'

So please explain to me the role that undersea volcanoes have on this issue. Given that about three quarters of the earth is ocean and we have little or no knowledge of what is happening down there and since the number of volcanoes under the ocean is about three times the numbers we see how can it be that we have such a solid foothold on what is happening and the impact those volcanoes have on the upper atmosphere? Don't those undersea volcanoes give off gases and what might those gases be? Anyone care to guess?

You don't sound like a total moran

Irony?

Great post Kari - For some reason this topic always brings out a crowd of deniers who come to the debate with a ready to go set of cut and paste arguments. Kudos to Earl for responding to Bachman. I truly feel well represented in Congress.

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

Throughout the 1990s, when the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures.

Environmentalists have long maintained that industry knew early on that the scientific evidence supported a human influence on rising temperatures, but that the evidence was ignored for the sake of companies’ fight against curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action. -- NY Times, April 23

The parallel to the tobacco companies is striking. In both cases, industries with a lot of money at stake adroitly manipulated science and the media to create the public impression there was still a controversy over what really was a well-established consensus.

"Here is what you must prove: 1. Prove that observed temperature increases are real. 2. Prove that temperature increases are unusual in a historical context. 3. Prove that CO2 actually can cause warming 4. Prove the relationship between any given CO2 increase and temperature 5. Prove what a dangerous amount of global warming actually is.

If you cannot prove ALL of the above, you have no rational justification for taking action."

This is exactly like the tobacco companies back in the 1950s and '60s arguing that no "direct causal relationship" had been shown between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The strategy then -- and the strategy of the energy companies now -- is to sow confusion in order to delay action as long as possible.

It isn't the oil companies sowing confusion.

You just refuse to face facts.

Sal, et al, must ignore the fact that the vast majority of the skeptics, with and without expertise, have nothing to do with any oil or other industries at all.

Attempting to confuse is your side. Just as Sal demonstrated by misrepresenting the expert opposition as nonexistent or oil funded.

The money blitz is coming from the AGW side with the tsunami of misinformation propping up the floundering AGW movement. The full monty of fabircations knows no limits as you and yours distribute one falsehood after another. Far worse than the tobacco campaign.

Your AGW campaign is a massive campaign of lying.

And as the remains of the hoax fall apart your later pretense that you were following the best science at the time will fall equally apart as all of your fabrications and propaganda has been preserved on the web.

This thread alone is evidence of your misinformation. The totality of your misrepresentations have painted you into a very ugly corner.

Adding to Rep. Blumenauer demonstrating his extraordinary ignorance and dishonesty on AGW is this quote from Henry Waxman. “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

From the WUWT "That’s probably the scariest statement on “science” ever uttered by a Congressman."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/#more-7357

This is the same level of misunderstanding and misrepresentation most of exhibit.

And on this you demand and push for sweeping policies that will be destructive on many levels while not providing any benefit you imagine.

You have severe problems.

oops, for clarification

This is the same level of misunderstanding and misrepresentation most of YOU exhibit.

You want to talk about money?

AL Gore is making millions 1. Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

1. Al Gore is a partner in Silicon Valley's preeminent venture capital firm: After "a conversation that's gone on for a year and a half," according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm.

2. “The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new $683m fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing.” “The Climate Solutions Fund will be one of the biggest in the growing market for investment funds with an environmental slant.” “The fund will be focused on equity investments in small companies in four sectors: renewable energy; energy efficiency technologies; energy from biofuels and biomass; and the carbon trading markets.”

3. Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking. See this for one example (price is on page 5):

4. Al Gore’s mutual fund profits from carbon trading as it bought 9.5% stake in CAMCO GLOBAL

5. Al Gore’s mutual fund , was a prized Lehman client.

6. A convenient £50m for green Gore He has come a long way since losing the 2000 presidential election to George W Bush when, according to official documents, Gore was worth just £1m.

7. Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria Al Gore made $100 MILLION

Then there is the big mouthed NASA “scientist”: 1. Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.” (Award was in Mar. 5, 2001. The Kerry award is in honor of John Kerry’s wife’s first husband. In 2004 Hansen endorsed John Kerry for president.)

1. “Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement,” ...

A $10 BILLION DOLLAR market Sir Nicholas Stern launches carbon credit ratings agency 1. “Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the UK’s Stern report on climate change, will launch a new carbon credit ratings agency on Wednesday, the first to score carbon credits on a similar basis to that used to rate debt.”

“Among our principal guests were Sir Nicholas Stern, who will be joining us as Vice Chairman, IDEAGlobal Group on August 13th 2007,”

“The markets for emission reductions under the flexible mechanisms and the EU ETS have increased from small and hesitant trades to a growing market, projected to possibly exceed $10 billion in the CDM alone. In a follow up commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, projections place a market size at over $100 billion.” Links to proof at sustainableoregon.com/bigmoneyscaring.html

'No, TJ's making a reference to this picture'

Oh I get it now.

That picture is supposed to be of the top AGW denialist scientist and he obviously works for Exxon.

Hmmmm Let's compare and contrast billlly with Al Gore:

Al Gore's resume: - Graduate with honors from Harvard University - Graduate of Vanderbilt University - Served in the U.S. Army - Former Senator - Former Vice President of the United States - Cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing - Cofounder and Chairman of Current TV - A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer - A Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. - A visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee - Best selling author - Academy Award winner

billlly's resume: - Can spell "Harvard" - Blogs about how much he hates Al Gore - Technically proficient using the Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V keys on his computer to cut-n-paste articles from the Drudge Report website

But hey billllly, thanks for sharing your obsession of all things Al.

I see Scott in Damascus has run out of logical arguments again.

Blue Oregon named best state blog, wattsupwiththat.com named 2008 Best Science Blog. Watts says global warming is a crock. Of course, I am sure they "bought" that best blog award.

Gore's resume if his dad wasn't a Senator:

Graduated, Elmwood H.S. Graduated Salt Creek Community College (2.9 GPA) Attended University of South Carolina (did not graduate) Drafted, sent to Vietnam, KIA 2-13-70

How about the liars?

Lets start out with George Bush on Iraq: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous Iraq is

Do you agree that it is OK to lie to us to get us into war?

Well, actually the quote is NOT from Bush, it is from Gore and is about global warming. See below.

1. Al Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.

Notice that AL Gore says it is OK to lie to you in order to trick you into acting. And he just happens to be profiting form the solutions

BTW, a British court found a bunch of inaccuracies in Gore’s film (“over-representation of factual presentations”?) See: newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

2. Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists' dilemma this way: "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, Bold Added (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal) 3. Jim Hansen: (He controls NASA’s historical climate records): Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. from naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html, bold added Some quotes from Jim Hansen’s former superior at NASA: He was never muzzled ... He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988.. ...some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results... They have resisted making their work transparent ... Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy... Links to sources at sustainableoregon.com/oktolie.html

I find it interesting that none of the bloggers here, who are apparently very concerned and knowledgable about the environment noticed the video's largest mistake! Here is a cut out from WIKIPEDIA about the atmosphere:

The Earth's atmosphere (or air) is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.

Back to me: The Earth's Atmosphere is not 3%, it is .03%. New CO2 entering the equation, most reputable scientists on both sides of the equation around AGW agree is 3% man made/97% natural, she got that right. You are worrying about 3% of 0.03%!!!! You are attributing it incredible POWER, considering it's scarcity - relative to Water Vapor - which again both sides agree does 70-80% of all the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere.

Regarding toxicity or how much is too much? Most commercial greenhouses maintain a 1% CO2 concentration to help plant grow faster with less water, they're employees are just fine. As anyone with any equilibrium background knows, if our Atmospheric Concentration were to double and double and then double again (0.03 to 0.06 to 0.12 to 0.24%), CO2 would still be a trace, well below any toxicity concern, but it would now be consumed by the vast plantlife and Ocean's at a much higher rate. BTW, our Earth has had sustained CO2 concetrations of between 5-7% for millions of years - it's Inconvenient, but true.

Since the Globe has been cooling for the past 7 years - agreed by all 4 major temperature data sets, documented to Congress by Lord Monckton using only peer review literature, acknowledged by both sides again - at a rate of nearly double than the heating of the previous 30 years, CO2 concerntration will doubtless change again. The Oceans have cooled for the last 2-3 years as well, this will significantly reduce the biggest part, the 97% and so things will change.

Since Environmental Science or more accurately "Climate Science" is all of 30-40 years old. Since the models predicting CO2 increases driving temperature up have been wrong for the last 7 years (against the first 10 year opredictions made)- well outside 90% confidence levels,perhaps it's not a mature science. Since the Artic Ice is presently at a 8 year high as measured by Satelites - maybe the cute little guy in the bow tie with the green bicycle tie pin is tilting at windmills.

In fact, if a man rides a bicycle at 30 miles per hour, his breathing rate of CO2 matches a normal car's at the same rate of speed, which is well short of a race horses output at the same speed...... Food for thought, let's drill here, drill now, reduce our reliance on other's oil and let the technology catch up to people's incorrect theories and imagination. We'll look silly trying to combat warming in another 5 years when all the Glaciers start growing (as an estimated 25% are now) due to solar inactivity and it becomes more obvious things are getting colder. If we hadn't been so busy teaching (brain washing) US school children, they could still tell us - the Sun keeps our planet warm.

Sorry Old Ducker - I didn't see your thread, when I posted mine. Your's is a bit more accurate, but isn't it funny how we can both make up such agreement from whole cloth and yet easily direct people to the sites where this public information is available. Anyways thanks, it looks like the thread has turned, but the lefties have probably tuned out...

Since the issue of Global Warming has become excessively political, it does seem to me that the Reactionary Right is being reactionary to the simple fact the Left has taken a position. They would oppose any position if it had the signature of the Left. It is irrelevant what that position is. It is a basic carnal instinct of the Right to attack the Left.

So what do we have? A warming planet that will impede organic health on Earth. The Right has created this paper tiger of financial interests on the Left that are driving the Left to advance their agenda. This is mythical money. No one is making much of it at this point, nor will they ever. But the oil companies? Well, we all know without any question how much money they have invested in this enterprise and we also know they could give a rat's ass how the environment is effected by their extraction or the resource, or the side-effects it produces. It is ONLY when the Left creates enough resistance that anything has ever been done to curb their inability to restrain themselves from getting their sh*t everywhere. Check out the oil pits of Ecuador if you think I'm being creative.

There is no question that thens of thousands of climatologists are concerned that man is causing global warming and a handful against it. The opponents are making real money for publicizing their opinions, openly subsidized by private interestsfor making those opinions, while the Left fights against them with no real stake, unless you suffer from the illusion that in 5-10 years those people will be rolling in the money. And the world will be cleaner if they succeed, those scoudrels!!! God, I know why the Right hates that.

Gregor,

Boy that's a big enough straw man that you can all hide behind it. What a whopper of a tall tale.

Global Warming has become excessively political because so many left wing causes are hitching a ride on the countless fabrications it has generated.

Your "Reactionary Right" straw man is just another total concoction. And very weak.

However, I'm glad some of you are finally acknowledging this as a left wing movement it is.

So what do we have? A campaign that pitches a dangerous human caused warming planet, demanding that billions be spent on a range of left wing supported causes to fight it.

"Paper tiger of financial interests on the Left"? As we blog right now, billions are being earmarked for massive government spending and profiteering from cap and trade schemes.

You call that "mythical money"?

What mythical is the U of O study that estimates doing nothing about global warming will cost Oregon families 2000.00/year. Along with many other fabrications. The oil companies have figured out a way to work the cap and trade system and line their pockets. Nice work alarmists.

Meanwhile those of us do give a rat's ass about the environment see the wasting of countless billions which could be making a difference.

There is no question that tens of thousands of scientist have raised serious red flags in condemning the AGW theory. The attempt to repel the contradicting science is already failing miserably.

Making even more things up as you go won't help a bit. Who are the opponents who are making real money for publicizing their opinions? The real AGW money flows to the AGW cabal.
The Left fights with academia, government agencies and massive funding all over the place. Here in Oregon is the perfect example. Essentially all of the funding money is feeding the AGW movement. From the Governor's office to various agencies to academia. Tax funded bureaucracies all over the state contribute and advocate left wing policies.

You are beyond duped to think spending billions fighting CO2 emissions will make the world cleaner?

You must have been impressed with Waxman saying the poles are evaporating.

"There is no question that tens of thousands of scientist have raised serious red flags in condemning the AGW theory."

Really? There is NO question! Tens of thousands??? Care to site your source? (and poets, dead people, and web designers don't count)

And this "AGW Cabel" you speak of - how is it that state government, federal government, lefties, U of O, left wing supported causes, tax funded bureaucracies, academia, along with all those poor foolish scientist at the IPCC have found the time to organization this vast left-wind driven conspiracy to raise hundreds of billions of dollars just to make you drive a Prius?

In the words of Sgt. Hulka - lightin' up Francis.

Oh, and yeah, I really do think that burning less fossil fuel will result in a cleaner environment.

Does anyone care about the science?

Where is the proof that CO2 can really cause dangerous warming?

Where is the proof that it is man's single digit percentage of world CO2 emissions that is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2?

Where is a practical alternative to coal generated electricity? (Except nuclear)

Anyone care to stop the insults and irrelevant discussion and address the basics?

Thanks JK

THANK YOU BIllLLY, And please for the rest of you "gee, it must be true since it is repeated so often" folks, pls go find some source material and cite it for your argument. Please also identify the CO2 computer model that you are referring to as well. We could all DIE in Oregon and we wouldn't have the slightest effect on global anything. We are 98k sq miles out of 16.7 million, 3.7 million people out of 6.7 billion. For Sal, the question is, how much are you willing to pay to your global warming god? 3x energy costs? 2 x gas costs? 2 x property taxes? And we are all to feel good as our std of living goes down the shitter while someone is doing what with our money? Prove it before you take my money Sal, prove that whatever we do, could actually have an effect. Wouldn't and shouldn't that be the test BEFORE you pass legislation for this crap? Otherwise, vote in a tax on global warming believers if it so damn important.

Scott,

Thaty was another whopper. Vast left wing conspriracy"? Is that what I said?

Yeah sure.

AGW has turned out to be biggest con job in the history of the planet. And it's definetly a left wing con job.

At this stage of the con job little chumps like you are willing allies in the current agressive spreading taller tales in hopes of avoiding the imminent exposure of stupidity and dsihoesty that perpetrated this fraud.

But with examples such as Henry Waxman trying to help out that effort will fail miserably.

Henry Waxman. “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

Can you grasp how utterly ignorant and child-like that quote is?

Why is it that warming proponents can only use the consenus of scientists -- like that's an answer to a scientific question.

Why has Mars, Pluto and every other planet been warming over the same period? Don't know but the scietific consensus must have considered that and discarded it.

Why were CO2 levels 20X current levels during the Ice Age? Don't know but....

Apparantly science is a democracy -- everybody votes on what is valid. In fact, scientific consensus is a fluid commodity that shifts constantly. Plate tectonics is a good example, which were rendered immobile by scientific consensus until the late 60's.

There is absolutely NO PROOF that spending $ 650 billion on cap and trade (most of which will be wasted) is going to do anything at all to shift global temps up or down -- period. There is plenty of evidence it is going to set off an inflation bomb in our economy. If I'm wrong -- get someone from the consensus herd to actually answer the question!!!!

DDave, good on you, and here's another question for Sal.

If we were cooling right now, would you be telling us we need to burn trees, drive SUV's, and build carbon plants to warm this planet up, before we freeze to death? Because I gotta tell you, Pal. It SOUNDS CRAZY to me.

To sum it up:

1.29200 × 10-5

This figure is the percentage of CO2 as a result of man's activities to the percentage of CO2 (0.038%) that makes up the combined atmosphere.

Sure looks like a crisis to me.

Old Ducker (7:57:27 PM) and Dave D (9:28:46 AM),

Your statements about CO2 are true but are simply facts that don't do anything to disprove AGW.

First, CO2 is not toxic in any concentration we'll ever see in the atmosphere. I doubt you could find a reputable scientist who said it was. To bring it into discussion is just a diversion and waste of time.

Earth has had sustained CO2 concentrations of between 5-7% for millions of years - it's Inconvenient, but true. No, I think you misplaced a decimal point. Some reconstructions show a level of about 7000 ppm around 500 million years ago but that would only be 0.7%. It's probably been below 1000 ppm (or 0.1%) since before the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Mammals like us barely existed at the time.

You should know that without any greenhouse gases (GHG's) the average temperature of the surface of the Earth would be about 0 ºF instead of the current 57 ºF. And yet gases that make up less 0.5% (5000 ppm) of the atmosphere cause that 57 ºF difference. The principal GHG's are water vapor (36-70% of the greenhouse effect), CO2 (9-26%), methane (4-9%) and ozone (3-7%). So CO2 is responsible for somewhere between 5 and 15 ºF of the 57 ºF of greehouse effect. I would say that 0.038% of CO2 has a significant effect and the human caused rise of CO2 from 280 ppm in 1832 to over 380 ppm today (a 36% increase) is likely to significantly affect the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we follow business as usual the CO2 level will be over 500 ppm by 2060. One other thing to consider is that 57 ºF is about 516 ºF above absolute zero (the coldest possible temperature) so a 1% increase in temperature is equivalent to about 5 ºF.

That human emissions are less than 5% of the total CO2 emitted each year is a bogus argument. If you know anything about the Carbon Cycle you know that natural sinks of carbon such as growing plants, ocean absorption and some geologic processes balance the natural emissions. The increase in CO2 level in the atmosphere is less than 2/3 of the human emissions each year so that's where the rise is coming from.

Another bogus argument is that humans exhale CO2. That CO2 is from carbon that's already in the carbon cycle (from the food you eat unless you're eating coal) and doesn't affect the overall balance of it.

The globe has not seen significant cooling in he past 7 years* (looks pretty flat to me) and it's meaningless to AGW even if it has. If you look at the past record there are a number of periods where there was 5-10 years of cooling but the long term trend is still upwards. If it's still cooling in 2020 then maybe you have an argument. Well see.

The global warming skeptics (to use the term loosely) are getting desperate and trying to shout down the science because we now have an administration that's trying to do something (inadequate as it will be) about the problem.

But who's going to read on to the third page of comments on this post unless they're a die hard. No sense replying, we'll just pick it up on the next AGW related post.

Dave W

*From GISS data the global January-December average temperature anomaly from 2002 - 2008 is respectively 0.56, 0.55, 0.48, 0.62, 0.54, 0.56 & 0.44. That's in degrees C above the 1967 baseline. (0.55 ºC = 1 ºF).

Wow, there sure are a lot of oil and energy lobbyists monitoring this site! Amazing - prove this, prove that. As someone with a science background (Ph.D.), I am not sure if science can ever prove one way or another, given the complexity of the issue. But I do know that when I visited China, I was very glad that I could return home to the U.S. where I could breath a lot better. I don't need a study to tell me that we human can do some serious damage to the environment.

...(R-Crazyland)

I didn't know the US had "at large" delegates!

Good questions Brook. You show that the prob. with Americans is purely lack of education and not motivation. Would love to sit down and help with some of the basics that might firm up those sci-fi images of the planets, but, alas, I doubt you'd find it as much fun as fighting with the boyz on the playground.

Anyone that tells you how Pluto's (or 99% of the other mass in the solar system) average temp has varied is selling. They ain't doin' science! Or maybe we are just butt ignorant. Can't decide if it's a planet, but we know just what the temps have been doing.

I just watched an episode of Dr. Who from 1966 and there was a scene that really said it all. Aliens were trying to initiate an ice age on the earth, and there was debate about every conceivable fact and how it should be interpreted. Couldn't agree on anything, except the central, undisputed fact that the debate revolved around, which was the effect of CO2 on climate. The Martians were going to turn the earth into a deep freeze by removing the atmospheric CO2. Boy, sci-fi was stupid back then!

Think about the sociology of it. That was never disputed, until it became economically consequential. Sure, old ideas get changed overnight. After there's a lot of new evidence, then it becomes a hot research area. Did that ever happen between the time that we all "knew" this and the current, intractable, debate?

What is really, really scary is that you all would debate science and make this a public issue to resolved, instead of going with scientists and collegiality. The logic used in 99% of these posts is scientifically specious. Not that the scientists know it all. There's a certain philosophical perspective needed as well. My god, do you know how many people commenting are naive realists?

Let me put it this way, billy boy and TP, Dick, et al. Shut the fuck up about what you think you know about the scientific method until you can prove to me- I want references, peer reviewed- that water boils at 100 C. It is induction, and hence, not cause and effect. In fact, if you can't prove it, I might just decide that water is good for life, and dump a pot of scalding HOH right on your thick skull. Yes. Science would be MUCH FARTHER along, if we had a thermodynamic model that was accurate enough to model all the molecules in a quantity of water and prove that it must become a gas at 212F. The fact that it hasn't been done does not mean that we don't know the effects that boiling water has, its uses, or take the principle as bedrock every day, EVEN THOUGH IT RESTS ON NO DEDUCTIVE LOGIC!!!

There was only one solution for the likes of JK in 1850 and there's only one solution now. As then, the Dems will dither until most the country is at each others' throats.

The problem is Gore and the "consensus PHD's" have used to many variable markers to make their case. Artic ice dwindling proved with satellite images -- makes their case.

Okay, so when those images go against them -- they're not going to change the rules of the game on us and say a cooling period "doesn't mean anything in the long-term". Artic ice building and Antarctic ice building means they're flat wrong -- especially with predictions of summer ice being gone by 2013. These are the markers they used -- they started the whole world watching sea ice, and the world is going to judge them accordingly.

When this happens (2 years in my estimation) this whole house of cards is coming down. Gore is going to be playing Jumper in a 3rd Eye Blind video.

QQQ makes my case

"I'm not sure if science can ever prove one way or another" Thank You for being refreshingly honest.

This is why cap and trade is going to hang the Democrats. They're leaving no room for doubt, and they're telling us cap and trade is the only way to move our economy away from fossil fuels. This is sheer nonsense. There are plenty of ways to make the transition with a smart plan that doesn't involve a massive tax hike on the American people that is going to wreck our economy.

John Brown,

Does it take a PhD to be so smart as to tell people to shut the f up and then talk about boiling water because you have nothiing to offer about the AGW science or movement?

If you're suggesting that you've concluded the AGW theory is as reliable as as water boiling at 100 C or 212F yo may want to shut the f up yourself and go back to school.
Because that's one of the more asinine comparisons I've seen. And there's been many by the warmers.

I get a kick out of you more animated and lofty types who elevate yourselves to a higher level of understanding while demonstrating such ignorance. You don't know where the AGW science is or where it is going. My impression is that you may be one who is too lazy to adequately follow the issue. Chosing instead to simply imagine that you have done so.

Riverrat writes:

"That human emissions are less than 5% of the total CO2 emitted each year is a bogus argument. If you know anything about the Carbon Cycle you know that natural sinks of carbon such as growing plants, ocean absorption and some geologic processes balance the natural emissions. The increase in CO2 level in the atmosphere is less than 2/3 of the human emissions each year so that's where the rise is coming from."

I'm not sure I follow you here. You seem to be marginalizing natural sources of CO2 relative to the mere 3.4% of the annual net rate of global CO2 production due to human activities because you are assuming a static model. In other words, without that 3.4% there would have been no increase over the past century. Is this correct? If so, I refer you back to LeChetelier's principle...

OD,

I'm saying that without that human contribution of 3.4% the level of CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't have risen from 280 ppm in 1820 to the current level of 380 ppm. Of course 3.4% is the current level, it's been a gradually increasing curve since we started seriously using fossil fuels.

I had to look up Le Chatelier's principle. It basically says if you change a system at equilibrium the equilibrium shifts to counteract the change. Or you could say a system that is disturbed finds a new balance point. To me that describes AGW perfectly. Scientists don't expect a runaway change, just new equilibrium once we stop pouring GHG's into the atmosphere. That new equilibrium will mean higher average temperature on the surface, higher ocean temperature and acidity and will affect a myriad of other things dependent on the old equilibriums, causing them to adjust to a new equilibrium as well. We probably won't like the new equilibriums much because we're used to the old ones.

I'm not assuming a static model at all.

CO2 levels have an annual fluctuation of 3-9 ppm because of the carbon cycle. It roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere growing season because most of the land area and plant biomass is there. It reaches the top of the fluctuation in May. From May to October CO2 will be absorbed by growing plants and the atmospheric level will drop. From October back to May the natural processes that release CO2 will dominate. Those include the fungi and other microorganisms and animals such as us eating plants and exhaling CO2. Other non-seasonal natural processes exist that either absorb or release CO2 throughout the year. That process, in the absence of human emissions is roughly in balance and the level of CO2 was pretty steady.

We know over long periods of time the CO2 level gradually changes as well from natural processes. By direct measurements from ice cores we know that the CO2 levels have been between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for the past 800,000 years (and probably for millions of years before that). During the height of glaciations (ice ages) the level was typically in the 180-200 ppm range and in the interglacials (now) typically in the 260-300 ppm range. For the past 10,000 years (the whole of human civilization) it's been 260-280 ppm until about 1832 when human emissions started raising it.

The other part of it that's concerning is the rate that the CO2 level is rising. We're causing CO2 rises that would have taken thousands of years under natural processes to occur in a few hundred years. That makes it difficult for natural systems adjustments to the new equilibrium to keep up with the change and stresses them. The includes human civilization.

DaveW

<hr/>