NASA.. right click and see properties for the picture. =)

LOL so true but hey that wont stop em from trying :up:

Eh hasn't stopped me in the past though I do not try to go to nuts. ;)

You are right though, I don't think any of these debates have changed any minds really. Which suggests that its a total time waster, and I probably shouldn't bother so much. :yawn:

Good eye, that is a key reason why I don't like that graph, there is a scale shift (though not as dramatic as you are suggesting, the scale cuts by less then about 1/2). Graphs are great for presenting numbers, but very easily manipulated. For example changing the X scale would make the data seem more or less significant on what way I change the scale. I could make that graph look like massive peaks (or changes), or barely any change at all. One should always look at the numbers both in the graph, and behind them.

Anyhow here is the same graph again, with out that scale error, and a report with full citations too.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

It shows the same trend, but that is not surprising when the scale of the graph is in sub divided 50000 year segments. High levels of man made CO2 production only started in the last 150 years or so. They don't though say the zero point in this graph, though it is probably 0 BP (Before Present) or 1950.

They seem to be blending data sources in that graph however (not just different ice core data, but also are also including direct measurement), which might be problematic. I would have to look into the sources, and the science behind it to draw any conclusions as I am not sure if that is scientifically acceptable or not.

I admit it. By your standards I'm a filthy, dirty commie who has to be hunted down in the great fight to support capitalist "liberal" democracy and the free market, God bless its (his?) soul!

While I would like to see more wealth distributed to the poorest of countries, considering that we, the West are throwing out money by the truckloads with stupid, irational activities just to support the consumerist agenda. Hobsbawm wrote in his book The Age of Extremes that consumerism has replaced ideology. Unfortunately for us he was quite right, as we are now unable to look past ourselves and our children are picked up this more and more (See the future of anarcholiberalism thread I posted some time ago).

Yet this does not mean that I, as a (future) member of the academia am willing to degrade my science in the fulfilment of any political goals I may have. I wish prosperity for everyone and changing our lifestyles, which will spend and emit less, while keeping us prosper as newer before seen in the history of men, for this is his future, one I shall see built.

Remind me some time to write a short essay on my views on transhumanism and climate change.
__________________________
Looks like we won't have to convince America with a rational debate. We'll just throw god into the mix and he'll strait everything up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405108.stm

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

My apologies August. I meant how most Americans on this forums have been reacting to the whole climate change issue. While I admit I might had steeped over the line by using just one quote, yet I do have other things to do right now, so I haven't looked at every single sentence that has been written.

Quit being a filthy, dirty fascist drama queen August.

anyone got some popcorn ? this is looking to be quite a fight:rotfl2:

this is retarded.

1950..wasnt it around that time when The Aliens crashed at Roswell?

Maybe its their fault..or they left a CO2 bomb and its leaking! LOL :rotfl2:Sorry couldnt resist.

FYI to all: just because someone says something you don't agree with, is not a green light to hit the Report Bad Post button, many, many times.

@Respenus

I had noticed a double-bind in your article. On this one point, the author should have thought a-little more carefuly.

First he complains USA isn't doing enough to control emissions.
Then he goes on to say that USA needs to wean herself off Middle East oil.

USA could easily wean herself off Middle East oil if she returned to fully utilizing coal.
Oil imports would decline, and unfortunately emissions would rise.

That's why I think the author made a big mistake in coupling these two separate issues.

I guess this rule doesn't apply to Sailor Steve.

Yes, I have read about the core samples as great indicators for CO2. You're a smart cookie Neon!:up:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/1.gif