Awright.

1 - Argh.
2 - Grrr.
3 - Read my previous post, in which I state "The planet has warmed and cooled for the last few billion years, with no major trouble."

4 - Enough with the straw men already

In other words their total outputs are the same, and therefore as China continues it's headlong rush into modernization (read less people living like 14th century peasants) they will soon outstrip (iirc they already have) the US, making the problem far worse.

Funny, China's citizens contribute far less pollution than US citizens (high auto ownership etc), but the Chinese government & industry contribute more than America's (coal-fired plants, lax enviro legislation, etc). Different societies, same result.

On per capita levels.

Oh it's cold today! Must mean GW is bull! Give me a break! Try and be a little more scientific then that. I wouldn't call part of the ice-shelf breaking off last month as part of a freeze. All the data I've found on 2007 temps show a withdrawal of ice not a growth. I'd like to see this data you say shows growth.

"Trends in Arctic temperature, 1880-2006. A history of Arctic land temperature anomalies from 1880 through 2006 is shown in this figure. The zero line represents the average temperature for 1961–1990. In the late 1800s the Arctic was relatively cold, although there is some uncertainty around these early temperature estimates. The Arctic warmed by about 0.7ºC over the 20th century. There was a warm period in the 1920s to 1940s and cold periods in the early 1900s and in the 1960s. Over the last decade the temperatures were about 1.0ºC above the 20th century average."

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/t...-1880-2006.jpg
http://maps.grida.no/library/files/a...d-observed.jpg
"Arctic temperatures in the 20th century, modeled and observed. Observed Arctic winter land temperatures and IPCC model recreations for the 20th century. Note that although these model runs are able to capture the range of Arctic warm and cold periods, the timing of the peaks varies, suggesting that the early 20th century warming was due to random causes, while the increases at the end of the century shown by all the models supports CO2 as an external forcing of the Arctic climate system.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...34_400x284.JPG

Look, try this. Yes the universe could very well be warming but man is accelerating the change in temperatures on earth. I don't think there is anyone who says global warming is only man made. I think thats wishful thinking on your part. I haven't seen any growing "skepticism building" I see more accepting the data however. What is growing is the interest in the subject which is good pro or anti as it widens the debate. One Bush site that says there is no global warming doesn't make a growing skepticism.
What is a little humorous is that you say the earth is cooling then turn around and say the universe is warming. You are so wrapped into rejecting GW that you are tripping over yourself. So much for your actual scientific data. If you do some actual research instead of trying to find a page on the internet that says what you want it to say you could learn something.

Universe warming??:hmm: That's funny. Gee I wonder if we're responsible for that too. :lol: :roll: Take a look at this recent article:

http://www.physorg.com/news125845912.html

The more people know, the less they care or feel responsible for it. The funniest part is that the author and people who made the study can't figure out why. Could it be that the more people understand the issue, the more they understand it's a fraud? Yes, skepticism is building everywhere. This past winter has shown many that the theories of increased CO2 levels does not drive atmospheric conditions like what the global warming hysterics assert. The theory is fraudulent, and many people see it for what it is.

I think you're one of the last brainwashed people who still don't understand that warming and cooling are natural, and normal. And there are many factors that determine it. CO2 is but one small part of it. Yes, solar output is another:

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20...WS08/802130360

And there are more factors as well. Do you know what they are? I don't think you do. Do you know how much CO2 we actually produce? I know you don't know. And I think you probably believe natural emissions are a static figure as well. Mr. Gore seems to. So does the IPCC. Do you know what the largest contributor to greenhouse effect is? A clue is, it's not CO2. I've come to the conclusion that if you're a warming proponent you have to ignore CO2 totals from all sources, atmospheric warming on other planets in the solar system that coincides with ours, knowledge of atmospheric percentages, increased solar activity during the last decade, decreasing solar activity in conjunction with decreasing temperatures (cooling), weather patterns of the last 100 years, and more. You're so wrapped and invested into believing in man-made warming, that you cannot see the flaws in it that are staring you straight in the face. You're data above is obsolete now. You're sources need to go back to the drawing board and redo their theories. They will not do it though. Maybe it's because they're afraid of losing their funding.

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.