Happy extinction!

Save the environment - stop eating white castle!

Eat more chiken!

Chickens don't fart?

Since global warming by co2 is a fraud, why should I worry about something 20-times more "potent" than nothing?

Since global warming by co2 is a fraud

According to you and whose data?

Fucking idiot.

Zombie, the data was "lost" by the fraud researchers at U.E.A. Fucking idiot.

Scientists have uncovered what appears to be a further dramatic increase in the leakage of methane gas that is seeping from the Arctic seabed.

So...the Earth is having a case of the "farts"?
Drop several thousand Metric Tons of Bean-o in the Arctic Ocean........

Tipping point.

Be Well.

So...the Earth is having a case of the "farts"?
Drop several thousand Metric Tons of Bean-o in the Arctic Ocean........

#8 | Posted by frankf55 at 2010-01-07 03:14 PM | Flag: Anti-flatulence industry shill

Club the seals and penguins, the little farting bastards are killing us all!

Kill all the polar bears so they stop farting.

And while we're at it, kill all the Canadians -- unless they produce oil or can help us re-import American-made drugs.

Since global warming by co2 is a fraud, why should I worry about something 20-times more "potent" than nothing?

#5 | Posted by Diablo

This'll mean the human % of CO2 emissions should drop below 2.5%.

Kill all the polar bears so they stop farting.

#12 | Posted by vernon

They're the problem---that population has been growing like rabbits.

otherwise known as palen gas

We should inject Beano deep into the Earth to end the planet's need to fart.

Perhaps the arctic needs to light a match?

Tipping Point. Another favorite phrase from the Left in the last 2 years

Since global warming by co2 is a fraud
According to you and whose data?
Fucking idiot.

#6 | POSTED BY ZOMBIEHUNTER

these guys DESERVE to go extinct.. stupid is as stupid does..

Run Forest Run!

"Perhaps the arctic needs to light a match?"

"Perhaps the arctic needs to light a match?"

"We should inject Beano deep into the Earth to end the planet's need to fart."

That's a good plan...did that one come from the administration? Don't they know that all the EPA has to do is come up with a regulation telling the Arctic to stop it immediately?

Quit pulling the Artics finger.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Since the recent discovery that the upper atmosphere is cooling, it might be logical to see if mankind can find a way to increase the release of methane, in order to maintain our clement environment(s); defeating Global Cooling (GC)?

It is scientifically obvious that it is the Sun's energy output, which is the major factor in GW or GC, next the albedo of the planet (cloud factor mainly), then the absorption of reflected energy by water vapor, then the minute amounts of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere are the last consideration.

Both CO2 and Ch4 are very *minor* factors of GW or GC ... only the pseudo-scientists selling man-made GW are claiming it to be the *major* cause ...

... and no matter what degrees they have as titles, they are PT Barnum pitch artists, not scientists, because "consensus" is anathema to the method, while you can fit any number of clowns into the circus car of consensus!

"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic)."

The difference between H2O and CO2, Methane, etc. is that the former is temperature dependent whereas the latter is not. This is why H2O is considered a feedback mechanism and not a forcing mechanism (CO2, Methane, albedo,etc) Bob.

Additionally, H2O has a limited life-cycle in the atmosphere, humidity increases until it reaches a precipitation point then the cycle repeats. CO2, Methane, etc., however have certain biological sinks (oceans, plants, etc.) that absorb them. These biological mechanisms are however limited. For example, the ocean is a CO2 sink...but it's capacity is influenced by temperature.

"It is scientifically obvious that it is the Sun's energy output, which is the major factor in GW or GC, next the albedo of the planet (cloud factor mainly), then the absorption of reflected energy by water vapor, then the minute amounts of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere are the last consideration."

Tad, do you have data to support your contention that the suns energy output has increased to account for the added heat?

Big Rex says, "CO2, Methane, etc., however have certain biological sinks (oceans, plants, etc.) that absorb them. These biological mechanisms are however limited. For example, the ocean is a CO2 sink...but it's capacity is influenced by temperature."

Here is one of the "pitchmen", now. I don't know if you have any educational titles, but your effort to belittle more than 2/3 of the entire planet, at all relevant temperatures, as "limited" is one of those clownish consensus claims that are nothing more than specious nonsense.

The other nonsense about water temperature being a "dependency" is inane, also.

BiggyRex wonders, "Tad, do you have data to support your contention that the suns energy output has increased to account for the added heat?"

Bad misdirection, since the Sun's energy output IS axiomatically what determines the Earth's level of absorbtion.

Indeed, what there is no DATA for, is that mankind is causing Global Warming ... a claim which ignores the sun, the ocean's and land's absorbtion, the 99% of the absorbtion of reflected light into H2O, and all so that ONLY CO2 is given consideration!

Except when they can claim that even smaller amounts of methane are causing IT!

... but they still don't include it in their neo-god: The Model, which gets a new gilding every single day by the acolytes of the Church of Global Warming and Consensus Circus ...

Just another natural feedback loop. Considering that actual global temperatures are declining, it would be expected to find the natural processes that release warming gasses would increase. Otherwise out planet's ecosystem would not have survived these millions of years.

To put governments in the loop with frivolous and greedy taxes and laws is folly.

Once again, proof that global warming/cooling is a natural CYCLE.
It's okay though, just like everything else that goes against the status quoe, this will be ignored.
Our ignorance & inability to see through the crap fed to us will be our demise.

Dinsey says, "... it would be expected to find the natural processes that release warming gasses would increase."

You are correct. However, the process is one of water temperature, as BigRex indicated, but misdirected. Parts of the Antarctic are warming, while opposite parts of that continent are cooling in balance. That's the same sort of balance taking place with the other misdirection hoax about polar bears. Those bears are migrating, and their populations actually increasing, but they are leaving North Western Alaska/Canada for more Eastern areas.

Methane warms out of one area, while it freezes into another, bears migrate and the cycle goes on, despite whatever puny mankind can do. We can only help ourselves by cleaning up our waste output, and not affect the planet's well being either way ...

TAD: Here is one of the "pitchmen", now. I don't know if you have any educational titles, but your effort to belittle more than 2/3 of the entire planet, at all relevant temperatures, as "limited" is one of those clownish consensus claims that are nothing more than specious nonsense."

Wow, this coming from an anonymous internet poster who shows a consistent pattern of belittling posters who disagree with his supposed superior intellect.

TAD: The other nonsense about water temperature being a "dependency" is inane, also."

Yep, water temperature and gas concentrations is a liberal conspiracy...especially in the summer time.

TAD: BiggyRex wonders, "Tad, do you have data to support your contention that the suns energy output has increased to account for the added heat?"

Ahhh, I do love the "BiggyRex" shows real class...is that how you win the arguments toughguy??

TAD: Bad misdirection, since the Sun's energy output IS axiomatically what determines the Earth's level of absorbtion.

You claimed it was all due to the Sun's energy output - just asking for your evidence. Its ok, we know you don't have any.

TAD: Indeed, what there is no DATA for, is that mankind is causing Global Warming ... a claim which ignores the sun, the ocean's and land's absorbtion, the 99% of the absorbtion of reflected light into H2O, and all so that ONLY CO2 is given consideration!

YEP, all the climate scientists completely disregard all of that - except for the fact that they don't discount any of that. Ofcourse Im sure you know that being the intellectual giant you fashion yourself to be...

TAD: Except when they can claim that even smaller amounts of methane are causing IT!

Wait I though they discounted it...can you please keep your narrative straight.

TAD:... but they still don't include it in their neo-god: The Model, which gets a new gilding every single day by the acolytes of the Church of Global Warming and Consensus Circus ...

Actually they do...but hey why let facts get in the way of your CT narrative. Spoils the fun!

Holly shit batman!!! We need more environmental laws!!!

I have an idea. 80% of our labor force is in the service business. That is way too low. Lets plug some more smoke stacks with tougher lqaws and drive more manufacturing off shore. That will clean up the planet.

Now that AGW has been debunked we will see more of stories like this--you know--to minimize the loses for the enviros...

Measurable climate changes through-out the planets history shows that increases in temperature happens first then Co2 levels rose. Not the other way around. It's always been the case and will continue to be no matter what humans do. That's a fact. "The debate is over". (Indeed)

#36 | Posted by bobinspokane at 2010-01-08 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag: not real bright

The past 100,000 year cycles were driven by solar cycles and amplified by CO2.

Get at least a 5th grade education.

"Measurable climate changes through-out the planets history shows that increases in temperature happens first then Co2 levels rose. Not the other way around. It's always been the case and will continue to be no matter what humans do. That's a fact. "The debate is over". (Indeed)"

Temperature rises - which causes outgassing of CO2, which as a GHG traps more heat forcing the cycle to continue. No one has claimed otherwise...

So much for the current opinion of the council of the American Physical Society.

Earth farts....nobody light a match!!!

Rex says, "Wow, this coming from an anonymous internet poster who shows a consistent pattern of belittling posters who disagree with his supposed superior intellect."

I belittle slavish ignorance, and especially enjoy doing so to those with political cement-for-brains.

"Yep, water temperature and gas concentrations is a liberal conspiracy...especially in the summer time."

I said your effort to make a specious claim of "dependency" was a misdirection, and you go ballistic! That's too funny, Rex.

"You claimed it was all due to the Sun's energy output - just asking for your evidence. Its ok, we know you don't have any."

Global Warming or Global Cooling (same process) is dependent on the sun's energy output. If you have evidence to dispute this otherwise axiomatic understanding, please present it yourself! Don't pussyfoot around trying to make me prove the energy absorbed by your precious CO2 comes from there ...!?!

"YEP, all the climate scientists completely disregard all of that - except for the fact that they don't discount any of that."

They are disregarding the fact that Global Cooling has been taking place for the last ten years, plus!!!

Zat admits, "The past 100,000 year cycles were driven by solar cycles ..."

Finally!!!

The past 100,000 year cycles were driven by solar cycles and amplified by CO2.

#37 | Posted by Zatoichi

I am just amazed at how far back our solar cycle records and temp records go back.I guess thoes monkeys back in Africa 100,000 years ago had great records of that kind of stuff.

The recent eruption of the Mayon volcano released massive amounts of CO2, but which will NOT be included in any "data" referenced by the GW consensus. Why?

Because that CO2 will be absorbed "naturally" as it was produced "naturally" and as part of the weather-water-cycle. Only man-made CO2 levels will become "real data" which shows that mankind is actually responsible ... not the sun, or our water planet's water, but only man.

The liars of science join in consensus and that's how you will know that they are actually clowns coming out of a circus car ... in droves ...

Yep Tad...you're on to me and my 'ilk'

Tad, BigRex, et.al. it's Friday, lets get back to the polar bear fart jokes and resume all seriousness on Monday.

I realy like the one about the earth farting. Where was the 'blue flame' club?

Rex says, "Yep Tad...you're on to me and my 'ilk'"

Of course! Everyone knows that raising these issues on a political blog is a matter of politics!

It takes a dunderhead to think that that observation wouldn't be made - with Democrats slavishly supporting manmade GW, ala Al Gore.

You sure appear to be one of those, treating this issue as political.

Ironrey fo ...

If we "legislate" CO2 out of the atmosphere, what will plants use for photosynthesis? Food stamps?

Hey, my girlfriends dog farts a lot, is he going to have to "cap and trade"? Or just "cork" it?

Snidely asks, "If we "legislate" CO2 out of the atmosphere, what will plants use for photosynthesis? Food stamps?"

There is plenty of "natural" CO2 in the atmosphere; about 90% of all CO2. It is part of the "natural" weather/water cycle and is reabsorbed into rocks and the ocean; minute by minute, ad infinitum.

Only our 10% of all natural CO2, which itself is only about 3% of the entire atmosphere, is "unnatural" and is consequently not reabsorbed by the weather/water cycle ... or that is what one might suppose from all the blame being layed at the feet of manmade CO2 (0.003% of all the CO2 which is only 0.03% of the entire atmosphere) ...

So, of course since it involves redistribution of wealth on a worldwide scale of socialism, the Democrats slavishly support the idea that we all will die if they can't spend trillions of dollars to "solve" the "problem" ...

... running yellow dogs of hoped for future world communism ... where none of them will have to work ...

If my dog has to "cork" it, should he use natural corks or the new synthetics? Either way, we're going to have a problem with flying corks. Buildup of methane has to go somewhere. Gosh imagine if he was a large bovine, or even an elephant. Those big fellas would have to use an entire cork tree. Flying trees are much more scary than flying corks

I'm well aware of the political hype surrounding the issue. Reality sits here

#53 | Posted by snideley1 at 2010-01-08 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Lunatic

Laugh all you want but spud nailed it. Tipping point.

The release of methane is suspected in other mass extinctions in the past. It's a negative feedback loop once it get started. Mother nature doesn't care if you understand it or not. It has been estimated buy scientists that have drilled the Antarctic ice, that methane gas is much more concentrated there then what is trapped beneath the melting tundra of the northern latitudes. Happy extinction!

Happy extinction!

Every human civilization, large enough to form cities, has destroyed its immediate surrounding environment before it collapsed. Egypt, Italy, Easter Island, Aztecs, Incas........
What's different in this case, is we're doing the whole fucking sphere in.

Lets plug some more smoke stacks with tougher lqaws and drive more manufacturing off shore. That will clean up the planet.

Snippy, environmental laws are a minor consideration in moving offshore-cheaper labor, government aid and lax safety laws prevail. That's why even Mexico is losing jobs to China and Viet Nam. Why do you think free trade with Colombia is wanted-it's the only country in the western hemisphere where labor grievances are handled by death squads.

Free trade rules!

One of the political Chicken Littles says, "The release of methane is suspected in other mass extinctions in the past."

BS - and since the most plentiful geological data seems to indicate those extinctions were caused by large meteors or small asteroids; at least large 'impact' craters are found associated with those geological ages. No geological evidence is available showing CO2, or CH4 release as a serious theory for mass extinction(s). Or else, you'll be able to show this data used to "suspect" it as a fact.

"It's a negative feedback loop once it get started."

BS - neither CO2 or CH4 have the ability to transfer heat, radiatively, to be the cause of any dramatic or slow climate change! We'd all be gagging to death before enough methane could enter the atmosphere to be as effective at holding and transfering the sun's heat as water vapor (H2O) does. The more heat in the atmosphere creates more clouds in the same, thereby reducing the sun's effect by increasing reflective albedo.

More CO2, more clouds, more methane, more albedo effect ... the cycle is closed with the CO2 and CH4 additions as minor as their percentages in the atmosphere; including manmade CO2 and, or CH4.

"It has been estimated buy scientists that have drilled the Antarctic ice, that methane gas is much more concentrated there then what is trapped beneath the melting tundra of the northern latitudes. Happy extinction!"

More vegetable matter and animal life existed in the much larger area of the Antarctic, than ever existed in the Arctic. You don't actually say anything pertinent, but it sounds good, right?

The fear of GW is an even bigger effort at idiocy than the hoi polloi political partisans think, because the alternative is GC, which would destroy much more of humanity and its artifacts than warming could. Indeed, GW is good for the majority of humanity who will farm and husband larger tracks of the environement freed from the ice of ages ...

Tadowe, CO2 is now at 380 ppm and rising. Fro the past half million years it's been between 180-280 ppm.

Yet you say our contribution is only a tiny fraction? It's 30% or more.

You're changing the numbers to come up with the conclusion you want.

possible rain on the parade ~ snoofus?

CARBON FODDER

If the dinos could live with such high CO2 levels for millions of years, please explain to me, why should WE worry? The only impact the CO2 levels had, is that the plants were huge, because they had more food. CO2 is food for plants, you know. Can you imagine wheat as tall as a family house?

Save the plants! Support more CO2 emissions! Maybe instead the 350.org campaign we should start some 3500.org campaign.

The fossil fuels are a real sweetheart. Not only they fuel the industrial revolution which brought to mankind more food than anytime in history. They also help to restore the carbon levels back to comfortable - feeding our malnutritioned vegetation.

What is happening now is just restoration of the CO2 levels we already once had.

Life is based on carbon. Declaring carbon as a "pollutant" is the greatest insanity in history. It is like declaring life a pollutant.

Call it what you want tadowe, but your past posts indicate you are as lost as the rest of the righties when it comes to science.

Read these articles if it's not beyond the scope of you abilities:

Actually albedo isn't a big word, its only got 6 char(s).

Cocksuckermotherfuckersunofabi tch is a big word

:P

Ring says, "It's reflected heat that is the issue, not radiated or transferred heat. You don't know what you are writing."

That is, heat reflected from the ground and oceans/water, and which both CO2 and CH4 have limits in absorbtion, at which point they radiate the excess back into the atmosphere; some of which reaches outer space, while other portions of that energy are reabsorbed by ground oceans or atmosphere.

Both parts of the process are discussed, mathematically, in the reference I posted, above ... and where CO2 is found inadequate to explain temperature changes measured according to the "model(s)" ...

Snoofy says, "Tadowe, CO2 is now at 380 ppm and rising. Fro the past half million years it's been between 180-280 ppm."

Unreal!?! Does 380 ppm sound like some 'big' number to you? How about 0.038 ppm. How 'big' is that number? That's humanity's contribution to the 380 ppm you quote ... a fraction of all CO2, and where CO2, itself, is less than 0.035 percent of the total atmosphere!

"Yet you say our contribution is only a tiny fraction? It's 30% or more."

The highest estimates are that we may contribute as much as 10 percent of all CO2 in our atmosphere. I'd like to see one that shows it to be 0.3 percent of all CO2.

You won't do so because you can't find one with that 'estimate' ...

All my figures compare with those on Wikipedia ... you can check that out for yourself, as can anyone who may doubt your claims ...

Of course, no yellow dog democrat will doubt you, and since Bush caused GW by increasing CO2, even though ice ages with higher levels of CO2 than now are apparent in the geological record ...

#66 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-01-08 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag: liar

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

2009
Many experts warn that global warming is arriving at a faster and more dangerous pace than anticipated just a few years earlier. =>International

Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 385 ppm.

Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 14.5C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.

More of Tardowe's bullshit lies exposed:

Are we blaming this on Reagan?

Want to try for 24 percent, you ignorant, lying sack of shit?

Posted by Zatoichi

not this is the self retort of the day?

How about reducing that number, Snoof?

We could say that all CO2 is 38 parts out of 100,000, or 3.8 parts per 10,000.

So, that looks like *all* CO2 is a very, very small part of all the atmosphere, and with our part being only 1/3 of that, even if your hysterical claim of 30 percent isn't just another stupid lie.

That means that humankind's contribution is, at most, 1.26 parts in 10,000 ...

... and your claim is that our 1.26 parts is causing GW?

Scientific consensus is a demonstration of stupidity ....

#67 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-01-08 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Lost his gubmint cheese!

Zat posts 15 million year claim.

Wow, Zat!?! A whole 15 million years out of 4.5 billion?

Can you consensus scientists get any more of an expanded vision than a mere 15 million years, or are all of you limited in understanding to such miniscule periods in relation to the geologic records ...?

Whatever the case, I'm glad you finally admitted that the sun's cycles are the driving force of the GW/GC processes.

Does that mean that the LHC findings are leaning more towards plasma and large scale, intergalactic Birkeland currents as a reality, as well ...?

So, that looks like *all* CO2 is a very, very small part of all the atmosphere, and with our part being only 1/3 of that.
And you, weighing about 100,000 grams, can trip balls on 0.000025 grams of LSD. I guess that shouldn't be possible.

even if your hysterical claim of 30 percent isn't just another stupid lie
Again, when you make up your own numbers, it sure is easy to prove global warming is a crock.

You're the liar here, Tadowe.

All of you are fucking idiots...

1000 years from now, none of us will be here and give a flying fuck about GW...

It's too late anyway. Our opportunity to do anything to prevent it was back in the ice age.

Snoofy gets small, "And you, weighing about 100,000 grams, can trip balls on 0.000025 grams of LSD. I guess that shouldn't be possible."

It takes a Democrat to know about "trip balls" and how that conflates with atmosphere parts per million. As my reference indicates, the effect of CO2 on heat absorption and transfer, isn't anything, even in comparison to LSD effects on an individual ... like the loons of yellow dogism who want you to eat such vomitus on faith.

However, I am happy to see that the comparison has piqued your understanding of just how minute is CO2 effects, in comparison to worldwide GW ...

... you may actually break through that self-induced party brainwashing ...

... not ...

It takes a Democrat to know about "trip balls" and how that conflates with atmosphere parts per million.
I guess I'm not a democrat, then, because I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

As my reference indicates, the effect of CO2 on heat absorption and transfer, isn't anything

78 | POSTED BY TADOWE = Lying sack of ignorant shit

I'm not sure what you feel the figures you've posted say, Snoofy?

You have to extrapolate with them; e.g., since carbon dioxide is a 9-26% contribution, that means that humankind's contribution to the "effect" is from 0.9-2.6% ... right?

I'm glad you're getting the idea of how minute our "effect" happens to be ... finally ...

All of these consensus folk should be hanging their heads in shame. Or paying their electric bills the way I pay my electric bill (work that is actually beneficial to someone other than myself)..... it's up half again what it was last year, and not because of a rate increase. That comes after cap and trade.

Silly man, so arrogant he thinks he can control the weather. Some of them, anyway.

Silly man, so arrogant he thinks he can control the weather. Some of them, anyway.

#82 | Posted by Washboard at 2010-01-08 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

We had better learn to control it or we die. Those are the options. It seems your choice is to give up and die---or at least condemn your great grandchildren to an early death. Good thinking.

"Temperature rises - which causes outgassing of CO2, which as a GHG traps more heat forcing the cycle to continue. No one has claimed otherwise..."

Take a good look at the big graph Al Gore used in his
false - a - mentry. He says it's a pattern but he wont mention the graph actually shows carbon levels rising after temperature? When 20/20 asked about it he refused to talk to them.

Take back his awards! He ought to be thrown in jail along with Madoff. I don't see any difference in there crimes.

The release of methane from the sea and ground is a POSITIVE feedback loop,Same thing with ocean warming and holding less CO2.

You have to extrapolate with them; e.g., since carbon dioxide is a 9-26% contribution, that means that humankind's contribution to the "effect" is from 0.9-2.6% ... right?

380 represents how much percentage increase over 280 and 180? (The answer isn't 10%.)

Not that you can "extrapolate with them," but you should at least shore up your basic math skills before you begin your comical and nonsensical "extrapolation."

Take a good look at the big graph Al Gore used in his
false - a - mentry. He says it's a pattern but he wont mention the graph actually shows carbon levels rising after temperature?

Everyone knows the rise in CO2 is attributible to Diet Cokes.

C.I.A. Is Sharing Data With Climate Scientists

"We tortured a selection of prisoners kidnapped from around the world, and they admit that the Earth is getting warmer, and people are to blame for it!" -- Cocaine Importation Agency

C.I.A. Is Sharing Data With Climate Scientists.

Oh yeah?

*click*

FTA: The nation's top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government's intelligence assets including spy satellites and other classified sensors to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change. They seek insights from natural phenomena like clouds and glaciers, deserts and tropical forests.

Sounds like a damn good idear.

Why haven't they been doing this all along?

FTA: The collaboration restarts an effort the Bush administration shut down and has the strong backing of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Ah.

Quelle suprize.

Be Well.

After reading tadowe's BS I can see why Americans are so dumbed down. He actually doesn't know the difference between a peer reviewed site and a AWG blog. No problem tadowe, you want to go through life getting your climate science buy actively searching for "global warming skeptics" go ahead. I'm sure not buying any of it. I look at both sides of the issue.

Snoofy says, Not that you can "extrapolate with them," but you should at least shore up your basic math skills before you begin your comical and nonsensical "extrapolation."

I don't post for my ego, Snoofy. I try to explain my opinion(s). However, it seems to me that you are making excuses for your own.

I'm sure you can readily understand that mankind's contribution to worldwide levels is a fraction of a fraction, and couldn't have begun Global Warming, because that began approximately 18,000 years ago.

You can readily understand that the Mayon volcano just put out more CO2 than the USA did last year ... none of which is counted as being the cause of any increase in overall levels ... as well as all the venting which has taken place since GW became a poltical issue.

Yet, here you are trying to make me look small due to math skills?

I think I've been mistaking you for a mensch ... my mistake ...

Some excuses for Gore, "In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film."

See? This is partisan politics, not science. Here is the real explanation presented to justify why CO2 levels follow warming:

Ring rants, "...He actually doesn't know the difference between a peer reviewed site and a AWG blog."

I know that the sun is the driving force of GW/GC, and as even Zat recognizes.

I know that the next most important greenhouse 'gas' is water vapor, responsible for approx. 70% of all GW/GC.

I know that CO2 is only a very small portion of the entire atmosphere, at 0.034 perecent of the total - that is less than 4% of our entire ocean of air.

I know that mankind's amount of that less than 4%, is approximately 0.04 percent - 0.0016 percent, less than one percent of the entire atmosphere ...

I know that small amount is NOT causing GW/GC ... only stupid, Democrat party dupes, and other socialists think so ... along with the stooges of consensus science ...

It's all to redistribute wealth and get-their-share ... PT Barnum liars and party proselyters after your increased taxes ...

I want GW to continue, so that more of humankind can use that arable land to survive. If some businesses and people have to move because their property is too close to water ... then they can move to help mankind to survive and grow.

Global Cooling will kill millions and remove land from the arable category. We all will suffer IF 'we' stop GW, or otherwise try and manipulate such an intricate process using the F'ING STUPID MODELS USED TO JUSTIFY WHY MAN IS EVIL ... AND VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS!

correction: I know that mankind's amount of that less than 4%, is approximately 10 percent - making our CO2 as approx. 0.0004 percent, less than one half of one percent of the entire atmosphere ...