Been out of commission for a few days, sorry for the delay.

"Instead of assuming climate scientists are stupid and trying to pull the wool over our eyes by changing the name from global warming to climate change, why don't you just ask why they are using a different term? There might be a reason for it."

Because the real world facts end up not supporting their theory, so they change it in whatever direction they need to.

"Gravy train? Where's this gravy train? Do you have tax statements of climate scientists to show that they are all millionaires?"

They are getting lots and lots of grant money for their work. What happens if it's admitted that the theory isn't true? Their work ceases to have the same perceived importance.

"Legally binding" is the key phrase. The issue here, as with health-care legislation, is government control. Whether global warming is true or not (and I still don't believe that it is), the issue is government control over every aspect of people's lives.

In other words you can say things to all of us that we can't say to you. Interesting take on the Golden Rule I guess.

You and your facts!

I'll refer you to the comment from Anothernonymous above: 12/14/2009 05:59 PM.

Buckeye,

So what you concluded from the leaked CRU emails is that the researchers are human? Wow, not sure how to reply to that. I think we may have surmissed that without the emails. :)

thanks i thought so just checking.

for interest the majority of my answer come from this site as well as other research: http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParr...

I was talking about the info 'fundamentalist' posted, some of which he said came from Wikipedia.

I liked your answers.

i don't know if you were talking about mine or 'fundamentalists' post but i didn't get my info from wikipedia...

WIkipedia is such a great source of wisdom, ain't it?

There's a reason I don't allow my students to cite from Wikipedia. The citations above are a good example why that is so. Anyone can post anything on Wikipedia, regardless of their credentials and regardless of the information's accuracy, and it stays there until someone else makes corrections.

1: The assertion that because something is small in quantity means that it has little effect seems as an error in logic. Whilst it is true humans levels are low in terms of total carbon, ice cores have shown that for the past half million yrs carbon has remained between levels of 180 and 300ppm. Yet since the early stages of industrial revolution approx 1750 carbon in the atmosphere has risen 39% (280ppm-380ppm). This seems to support that our small levels have in fact had a great impact upon the total. Also the relation between increase in carbon is negated by the climate which is taken out of the atmosphere, this however has been upset by the Industrial Revolution and massive deforestation. We produce around 6 gigatonnes of carbon, yet we do not follow the natural process by taking carbon out.

2. Again yes you are right water vapour is the most predominant greenhouse gas which humans have little effect over. The water vapour is a feedback response and is not climate 'forcing'. When there are large amounts in the air it rains low amounts it is replaced through evaparation, having little effect on overall temperature change. This contrasts with the effect of CO2 which is climate forcing, so if CO2 was suddenly removed from the air, temps would decrease causing rain leading to further temp decrease. It also works the other way the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less it rains leading to warmer temps ice camp melts and more evaporation equalling more greenhouse gas.

3. Yes CO2 has risen and fallen many times b4 the IR but as I argued before the rise has never been so great, fluctuating between 180 and 300ppm.

4. Yes historically temperature has moved first. This demonstrates that historically carbon was not the instigator of warming, it does however contribute greatly to further increases in warming (eg my earlier discussion of feedback loops and water). Climate forcing is believed to be the main contributer to the eventual levels of warming and CO2 is a forcer. During past periods of warming i agree CO2 never caused however full extent of the warming is never explained without discussion of CO2 levels...The historical argument also ommits the crucial point that carbon levels due to human activity have never been so high, so there will be some dissonance between now and the past.

5. It is true ways of measuring climate are imperfect, they are man made. However the work of Hansen in the 80s which predicted a global temp rise with a possible short period of cooling was proven correct. Even earlier climate scientists (Arrhenius 1896) have been proved correct in that the past century would show an increase in temperature due to human CO2, his estimates fell short in that he did not account for the huge level of emmissions we have made, predicting a more gradual rise. The fact is if current predictions are correct we do not have the time to wait and see if they are correct. Scientists will keep improving their modelling.

Facts irritating aye

=)

Does Jesus say anything about caring for the poor? Those of us trying to "save the planet" are doing so in part because we see the people who are most affected by environmental degradation are the poor.

OK, so please explain why I, a Western liberal, should take seriously anything that appears on a website that is headed by a quotation stating that "wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you were Jewish, and I suggested that you check out a website that leads off with a quotation stating that "wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western Jew to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy." Would you bother to read the rest of the site?

And I see nothing about posting on blogs either.

"The fact is, many of us who are trying to save the planet believe that doing so in the name of Christ is, among other things, an extremely effective way of making disciples."

I don't doubt that you believe this. However, when I read Matthew 28:18-20, I see nothing about saving the planet.

tried to delete a comment didn't work...

I don't trust a lot of what is going on with this issue. Check this
out http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/1...

Oh, for heaven's sake, John. He said the same thing to you that you said to all the rest of us. Word for word. If he was attacking you, then you were attacking all of us.

The fact is, many of us who are trying to save the planet believe that doing so in the name of Christ is, among other things, an extremely effective way of making disciples.

It was simply offensive. You attacked me personally.