Written by a businessman who graduated with a degree in Electrical engineering.


Okay now my foot is screwed up.

Quick call the Dentist.:D

His f-ing premise even on point #1 is rubbish.

"Lie #1 - Carbon dioxide is a pollutant"

Totally missing the point. It could clean your dishes, bring your hair back and shove fifties into your wallet, and COO2 would still absorb infrared radiation.

not bothering with the rest.

You forgot to include that power plants account for more than 80% of what you are describing as a problem. Way to skip the details.

How is that point rubbish? Warming advocates have totally equated CO2 as a pollutant emission, even though it is what we exhale, and it occurs naturally from other varied sources. If it would be causing the problems they say, would it be a pollutant? That's for you to say. And we've already heard from the IPCC on the matter. Heck, Al Gore made a whole movie on it. And to Neon, I think this guy is just putting out common knowledge. Is it impossible for an Electrical Engineer to be able to see a flawed theory, and inconsistent results from a theory when its this obvious? I think so. What is your credentialing that gives you the foresight that any of the man-made science is correct, especially considering that climate predictions are looking to be so wrong? And CO2 levels are not looking like the driving factor in warming from the last decade.

Does CO2 come from the back of a car Tchocky? :D

Well, yes. The two are deeply interconnected. The average Chinese person contributes quite little, yet probably works in a heavily polluting industry that allows the West to lead heavily polluting lifestyles. The power plants that pollute so much have their direct genesis in Western lifestyles.

@ Sea Demon - It's rubbish because he focuses on how CO2 acts at our altitude. Which is not where the focus should be.

Wow! A survey by two A&M political scientists of 1,093 people. That really gives a feeling of accuracy. No wonder you get mixed up between between planets warming and earth cooling.
Dr. Baliunas serves as senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute. Well that sounds prestigious doesn't it. Lets look at the Marshall Institute. Oh look Exxon is a major contributor. Funny how the scientist's you quote and have been quoting belong to these institutes that seem to be funded by Exxon and other oil companies. Senior Scientist no less.
So you think because water vapor is higher than Co2 that negates it?
So you think it's been cooling for the last 100 years and my data is obsolete? How can a thirty percent loss of ice in the last seventeen years be cooling and obsolete data?
The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 is because of cooling? A 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf is from cooling? How in your face can that be. Man made gases are accelerating the warming. Man made gases are not the sole cause. I've said that I don't know how many times. You can't even find anything that claims CW is purely caused by man.

Absolute spin, and nonsense. If CO2 is emitted at "our altitude" then it's not a problem? Should he not focus on how weather acts at our altitude as well? Should we focus solely on what happens in the Ionosphere? Think carefully here.

No, I didn't say that, it's a different issue.
At our level CO2 is sometimes beneficial, but it's mostly further up in the atmosphere where the IR radiation is absorbed rather than emitted. Which is where climate change comes in, which is supposed to be the focus of his article.
Focusing only on one area is not a good idea, which is why his analysis is not worth reading.

And the scientists you quote don't know that weather variations are a natural and normal occurence. :lol: If I were Exxon, or other people delivering needed sources of energy to the nation to power the economy, I would fund those who show that those people who push fraudulent weather scare theories are frauds as well. In regards to the study which shows people are not concerned as they learn more, looks about accurate to me. I knew all along that if people would actuallyu get informed how meteorology works, atmospheric percentages, solar output, and a range of other things that relate, they would find these theories to be trash. The more people are learning, the worse it will get for you doomsayers.

Think carefully here, if it's possible for you. CO2 is only a small part of what drives temperature increase or decrease over time. There are so many other factors that drive weather, that this miniscule amount of CO2 we put in the air is negligible. You don't seem to know atmospheric percentages, and if you did, you don't have common sense. You obviously don't have any credentialing or experience in research of any kind. It hasn't been cooling for the last 100 years. It has been both warming and cooling, like it should be doing naturally. The problem is, you moonbats equate it to theories of man-made "global warming" hysterics.

For the sake of argument, how do you know that's not a cycle in arctic geography related to normal warming cycles. Do you think the ice shelf has always had the same amount of ice? I guess you didn't know that not only have we seen ice losses in the arctic, but we've also seen recent ice buildups.

No, your whole assertions are like Mr. Gore's and the IPCC. You used them in I don't even know how many posts. They and yourself have highlighted CO2 being the single, sole, largest contributor to warming from a decade ago and in atmospheric sciences in general. That assertion is bunk. And now, the world around you in actual weather patterns show you that. And now, even you have to pretend that it's not what you have been asserting all along.

Right, and have we seen more or less radiance from the sun in the last decade? And if CO2 at that altitude is such a problem, do you seriously think that less than 1% of the total in greeenhouse CO2 is ultimately the problem?

I think you don't like the analysis because what he's saying is upsetting to your belief in this stuff. The fact that we've seen different weather patterns than what we've been told it should be like with increased CO2 is already devastating enough.

"Tapper falsely suggested Bill Clinton proposed "slow[ing] down our economy" to fight climate change"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310009


Typical see what you want to see and if you dont make it up.

OK. I didn't see this. In fairness to Mr. Clinton, I concede this point. The guy who wrote this one obviously took Mr. Clinton's words out of context completely. Yes, it totally takes on a whole new meaning once you post his whole statement. :-? I'd still like to know how Mr. Clinton would intend to "get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics" though. When everything proposed so far has been nothing but slowing or punishing economic growth. Mr. Clinton does alot of vague speaking there.

You are not the first person to fall victim to bad info in a blog. Take at look at what happened to this guy. ;)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133039

Post 5

In reference to Bill being vague, You have a limited time when speaking to get your point across without losing the audience. So, in a way, I would have to agree he was vague. Maybe when giving a speech, you should reference yourself by providing seperate detailed info in printed form for the audience to look at later.

All the notable scientist and notable organizations are wrong and you are right?
Forgive me while I fall on the floor laughing. Not even a nice try. Try someone who knows something or at isn't paid for by big oil.
This from someone who thinks a one degree shift is no big deal. Whats the difference between freeze and thaw? Whats been happening to the ice? You've shown your area of expertise in credentialing or experience in research. I'll take the word of actual scientists not a wannabe.
I'll tell you what pull out a temperature graph from anywhere and see if there is a steadily growing spike in temperature above normal deviations.
For the sake of argument earth does not work that fast. Simple as that. Nowhere that I've read mentions that much of a temperature difference in such a short amount of time. Mother Nature works in fractions over long term. Take the ice melt over 17 years. Thats not even an eye blink. Lets look at respiratory disease for example. It can't be argued that respiratory disease has skyrocketed due to carbon monoxide levels being the main cause. You claim man made Co2 is not at high levels when matched with natural Co2 yet that small amount is having a major affect on our respiratory system. If it's doing that to us what makes you think it's not affecting GW. To think it does not affect the earth is so ................... These examples show what unnatural small amounts can do. One degree can cause ice shelves to melt and a little man made Co2/carbon monoxide is causing harm to living creatures. Of course it's going to affect the planet and any fool can see that by adding two and two together.
Dude, I've not changed one thing in any of my positions from day one. You are the only one on this board that supposedly knows what Gore says because you are the only person that brings him up. I will say this however it could be called Co2, man made gases, laughing gas or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't change a thing. Man is causing unnatural change.

Oh, it's not just me. I'm not alone in seeing how fraudulent these so called "scientists" are. There are alot of credible scientists out there who disagree with these nuts. I guess you forgot about that US Senate report. I'm not even sure that all these people you trust so much are credible scientists at all. Especially how they treat their own data, and the innacuracies of their predictions. It's not that they're just wrong in their predictions, it's that they never seem to correct themselves when their results differ from their premises. Anybody who has done any research can see these people don't operate like scientists. More like paid politicians. I also find it funny and a disservice to their own names that they make it a routine to eliminate anybody within their ranks that disagree with them. That's the only way they could get their so called "consensus" we kept hearing about last year from them.

Yeah, except that when your're at 40 below zero, 1 degree isn't even noticeable. I guess you think it hovers around 32-33 degrees up in the arctic ice? I notice you can't even answer the questions about whether or not any ice loss or gains may be natural and normal. As far as who's word you take, you seek internet articles to feed your beliefs, and do no thinking on your part. You can't even see how mathematically challenged some of these theories are. Like I said, I question some of these people whoi claim to be "scientists". If they are scientists, they're either lazy, or they simply expound theories without mathematics. As far as your temperature graph, at what point will the curve trend down? Right now, the indicators show cooling, despite CO2 levels increasing steadily. Your like a cultist because you haven't even noticed the recent cooling. We've just had one of the coldest winters when your organizations were telling us to prepare for a warm winter. They were completely wrong. They don't have a clue. In other words, what you're saying here is junk.

Well, you get one thing right here. It takes a while to see things happen in climate patterns. In that regard, your assuredness that global warming in general is a certainty cannot be so readily ascertained. Seeing that, I guess you don't realize that throughout Earth's history, it has warmed, cooled, warmed again, cooled again, ad nauseum. If CO2 was that harmful to the balance of the planet, Earth would have BBQ'd long ago. Well that is unless you believe that natural CO2 levels are static and unchanging decade after decade. There have also been periods of increased solar radiation that have been contributing factors in atmospheric warming. And the main thing you will not discuss is the warming we have seen in the solar system on other planets including the melting on the martian ice cap that happened around the same time as Earth's period of warming. Gee, facts are stubborn things, aren't they? ;)


Wrong again. The argument has always been that the CO2 coming out of the back end of your car, factories, and people exhaling is killing the planet. You have supported that in three major threads. It's the whole reason the argument exists. Don't try to backpeddle because now you understand just how little humanity outputs compared to the whole. It does matter what the gas in this argument is. It's what warming advocates have been talking about for the past few years as the gas of doom. Man simply doesn't produce enough to affect that much change. The current cooling proves it. If the assertions of man-made warming advocates, and "scientists" were correct, we'd be cooking. And we're not. These people who get funding got lots of splainin' to do.

lol

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

This is what has happened to the global warming movement. What are they so afraid of? :

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

One of bradclark's scientists. :lol:

Mr. Suzuki said that politicians should be held legally accountable for ignoring the science. In fact, he went as far to say that it is an "intergenerational crime." And then the back pedaling began. A spokesman has now said that the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally. Uh huh. Yeah, right. Ya know, the same could be said about their nuttiness over global warming. Here's the exact quote. from Suzuki,

Basically, if you look into this nonsense, you'll see that the whole global warming scam is all about pushing junk science to weaken Western capitalist economies and slow free enterprise. That seems to be the way the so called "fixes" are set up as. These are major contributors to this fraud. You know something smells rotten when you want to arrest people for not believing in your causes. When your arguments can stand on their merits, and your theories can stand on the evidence, there's no need for such insanity. This is what the warming movement has become...desperate.

@joegrundman-----Funny

Well it's not the first time I've had to retract either. I will always happily retract when incorrect. I should have sourced that article a little better. They totally minced Clinton's word unfairly. It was after all from a personal blog. Nice catch. Oops. :oops: