[Warren Pease]

Plastic Bags suck. So does bottled water.

Bottled Water: What a Waste : TreeHugger
yes, treehugger.com

[Uncle Skeleton]

Worst page opener yet. Just terrible.

Shouldn't plastics be considered carbon sequestration, since they're made of carbon, and the less biodegradable the longer the sequestration will last?

[Warren Pease]

No.

Sequestration means to take something in the open and hide it. Not sure how taking petroleum out of the ground (usually a hidden spot), using it for plastic products, spreading them around the world and then watching them break into even smaller pieces to be dispersed even farther is considered hiding.

Not taking into account all the hydrocarbon energy needed to pull the stuff out of the ground, get it to the factory, produce it, then ship it back out to the world.

Yeah, it's a sucky first post for the page. My apologies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

But considering oil as a commodity, the oil that's been pumped is either going into fuel or into plastics; the demand for plastics is not going to significantly affect the rate of drilling. Isn't it better for the climate change issue if it's in plastics than in fuel?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But considering oil as a commodity, the oil that's been pumped is either going into fuel or into plastics; the demand for plastics is not going to significantly affect the rate of drilling. Isn't it better for the climate change issue if it's in plastics than in fuel?

Plastic is certainly being used more effectively than fuel in my '02 Wrangler.

[Buckaroo]

Global Warming thread is here.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But considering oil as a commodity, the oil that's been pumped is either going into fuel or into plastics; the demand for plastics is not going to significantly affect the rate of drilling. Isn't it better for the climate change issue if it's in plastics than in fuel?

That doesn't make any sense. Let's simplify and say demand for oil = demand for plastic + demand for fuel. Therefore reducing demand for plastic reduces the demand for oil. I don't know where you get the idea that demand for petrochems apart from fuel does not influence drilling decisions.

[Chongo]

Let's not forget that China and India are now consuming as much, if not more that the US is, thus driving up demenad. You have a billion+ Chinese, and a billion + Indians now buying and driving cars that were riding bicycles before.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And that matters to his formula... how?



greg

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And that matters to his formula... how?



greg

The law of supply and demand for one. I have no idea if the emission controls in India and China are like they are in the US.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And that matters to his formula... how?



greg

Just as relevant now as ever!

The "law of supply and demand" doesn't change anything in peeb's simplified formula of "demand for oil = demand for plastic + demand for fuel."

Neither does the growth of India and/or China.

It just means there might be more of a demand for oil, that's all.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The law of supply and demand for one. and I have know idea if there are emission control in India and China like they have in the US.

In terms of vehicle emissions, China is actually more stringent I believe.

Industry emissions are totally another story. That's probably to be expected given their economic growth in the past 25 years. It looks like things are getting bad enough that movement is slowly being made on that as well.

greg

[tie]

Uncle Skeleton might be right in the very short term, but peeb is clearly right in the short, medium and long terms. I have no idea what "the law of supply and demand for one. and I have know idea if there are emission control in India and China" has to do with anything, but I'll mark it as an extra point in peeb's column.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by tie 

"I have no idea if the emission controls in India and China are like they are in the US.
" has to do with anything

Ever fly in to LA on a bad day?

keep in mind China is exempt from Kyoto
courtesy of:Maureen Fan
When I first arrived in Beijing in 2005, the view from my apartment window towards Pacific Century Place in Sanlitun, on an ordinary day, often looked like this:

That same view on a bad day looked like this:

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Typical response from a cult follower. I'll bet you also belong to Scientology and you use to belong to the Hare Krishna. What's wrong, you didn't get enough?

The fact is. THERE IS NO PROOF. It is 100% assumptions. EVERY SINGLE WORD by the fake scientists are assumptions. Nothing has been proven.

You're wrong again, and no doubt in a great feat of irony. You see, my convictions are based on evidence and direct observation; ergo, so is my stance regarding global climate change and how humans may (or possibly may not) have an effect on it.

Your problem is that you just simply don't understand how this whole process works, or more likely, refuse to try and understand. I'm not talking about global warming, I'm talking about why there's support for it.

You, like many others, also don't understand what is involved when these "assumptions" are made. Scientific theory requires testing and observation. Sometimes the theory turns out to be wrong, but that's precisely what makes a theory: if it is wrong, can it be shown as such through testing and observation? These aren't educated guesses, it requires testing, re-testing, analyzing, deduction, collating data, then making sense of the data. After all that hard work is done, everything has to be reviewed by peers, then the whole thing has to be reproduced again to make sure that it was done right the first time.

You bury your head in the sand, or stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the top of your lungs whenever direct evidence is provided; most likely because the evidence -- no matter how abundant and/or clear -- is at ends with your moral, religious, and/or political beliefs.

Despite the evidence, I have no problems with people disagreeing, asking questions, and getting answers provided they support their claims with reasonable evidence and sources. You have not done that. No one who is claiming to the contrary has done that. There are zero, and I'll repeat myself as I do so damn often, zero peer review studies to the contrary. None.

You are arguing nothing. You are only repeating what other religious and political hounds have been barking. You are asking the same questions that have been asked a hundred times before in this forum, all of which have been answered empirically.

[Buckaroo]

I know exactly why there is support for it. It's a cult, and you are a main supporter of it.

[BadKosh]

Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin leads the pack in this year’s contest for biased climate journalism.

Eilperin’s March 10 article entitled "Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say" has the same sort of journalistic objectivity one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.

With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that "suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."

And "Using advanced computer models to factor deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide, the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further."

But none of the models in the studies — nor for that matter any other mathematical model of global climate — has proven to be particularly useful. No model has been validated against historical climate data.

So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy? As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.

Such model failure should come as no surprise since they have many built-in biases, including the unproven assumption that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global climate. But all the available real-life data — including 20th century records and ice-core samples stretching back 650,000 years — fail to support such a cause-and-effect relationship.

The ice core samples show, in fact, an opposite relationship. Eilperin, who has long reported on climate for the Washington Post, must know about the models’ problems, but she apparently chooses not to report it. In her March 4 Post article, Eilperin mentioned a report by a number of climate experts from around the world entitled "Nature Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate." She even interviewed one of the experts for her story.

A section of that report, entitled "Climate Models Are Not Reliable" discusses in plain language how climate models don’t consider solar dimming and brightening, don’t accurately control for clouds, don’t simulate the potential feedback effects of water vapor, don’t explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate, and don’t produce reliable predictions of regional (let alone global) climate change.

At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as Playstation® Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its Playstation games are, in fact, what they purport to be — just games.

Not content with ignoring viewpoints she doesn’t like, Eilperin goes on to diminish, if not ridicule, critics of her apparent point of view. Eilperin’s March 4 article featured four ad hominem attacks from three environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming orthodoxy as members of a "flat Earth society" and participants in the "climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand."

If Eilperin wants to poke fun at those who disagree with her on public policy issues, she ought to write an opinion, rather than a news column. Another disturbing aspect of Eilperin’s article was the accompanying photo of downtown Beijing. The photo was captioned, "A heavy haze could be seen in Beijing in August 2007. Two recent reports call for a heightened global effort to reduce carbon emissions."

The juxtaposition of the article and photo clearly implied that unless we cut carbon dioxide emissions, U.S. cities would soon look like Beijing. But as virtually anyone who breathes knows, carbon dioxide is an invisible gas. Not only can you not see it, there’s no possible way for carbon dioxide emissions to cause smog, haze or whatever was fouling Beijing’s air in the photo.

The irrelevant and misleading nature of the photo has been pointed out to Eilperin, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and the paper’s editors. As of the writing of this column, none have responded and it remains to be seen whether the Washington Post has the journalistic integrity to remove the photo from its Web site and publish a correction in its print edition.

It’s quite possible that if Eilperin and the many other members of the mainstream media who so far have been in the tank for global warming started reporting on the very real debate about climate model validity rather than simply regurgitating what the agenda-driven modelers tell them, then we could avert the looming national economic disaster that Congress is preparing for the next president to sign into law.


===========================
Telling us, based on a few decades of sloppy data, that we MUST DO SOMETHING, is just plain stupid. Weather is NOT CLIMATE, and the amount of time to verify CLIMATE change and not WEATHER changes has not occured. Come back and tell us what you KNOW, AFTER you have done your research, not before. I give you 3000 years to verify climate change. Of course you'll want that funding too, right??

[Uncle Skeleton]

source?

[Buckaroo]

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

FOXNews.com - Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

[Buckaroo]

COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat

COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat�-�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.



However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

[Buckaroo]

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
March 13, 2008





NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

[olePigeon]

You're doing it again.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
March 13, 2008

Umm I see a pretty even correlation of normal, above average and below average on this map.

You fail, again.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Umm I see a pretty even correlation of normal, above average and below average on this map.

You fail, again.

What? I fail to prove that there is NO global warming. As you just agreed with me in your statement above, it's pretty even.

I'm glad you finally agree. Global Warming is a scam.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If I see one more article that proves someone else's opinion is the same as yours, I'll be convinced. Especially if that person makes money writing articles like that, but isn't accountable for their accuracy. Those are especially convincing to me. Keep up the good work, Buckaroo

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If I see one more article that proves someone else's opinion is the same as yours, I'll be convinced. Especially if that person makes money writing articles like that, but isn't accountable for their accuracy. Those are especially convincing to me. Keep up the good work, Buckaroo

Your comments are unfounded. His data was presented by the NOAA, a scientific organization. It clearly shows that there were an almost even number of states whose temperatures were both higher and lower than their winter average. Thus, the winter of 2008 in the United States was not warmer than average.

Global warming is a scam by socialists. You're part of the problem.

greg

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What? I fail to prove that there is NO global warming. As you just agreed with me in your statement above, it's pretty even.

I'm glad you finally agree. Global Warming is a scam.

You proved that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. In fact, you do that in just about every post, keep the streak alive!

P.S. Technically, Global warming can cause the coldest winters we've ever experienced. I know you don't understand this, and that is why you fail.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ever fly in to LA on a bad day?

keep in mind China is exempt from Kyoto

You are right. LA has scarily dirty air. Skies aren't meant to be brown, but it is perfectly legal to buy and drive Hummers on public roads nonetheless. To be fair, a lot of the pollution also comes from the ports. And it is clearly easier to reduce emissions on the ships than on millions of cars, but that would require national initiatives and the Bush administration is opposed.

And yet, China's air is worse. You show pictures of Beijing. Go to some of the industrial towns in inland China; they make Beijing look good. The pollution comes from industry and cars. In fact, though, they do have stricter regulations on car emissions than we do in the US.

Kyoto doesn't apply to the US either. Right now, China is trying to increase its emissions so that when a Democratic US president comes in and the US starts negotiating international agreements, China's baseline emission levels will be higher. In other words, the US will have to sacrifice its own emissions and its own economy because Bush refused to do anything. The sooner we act, the easier it will be to force lower limits on China.

(Still, although this is an interesting area to discuss, it doesn't have anything to do with what peeb was saying.)

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If I see one more article that proves someone else's opinion is the same as yours, I'll be convinced. Especially if that person makes money writing articles like that, but isn't accountable for their accuracy. Those are especially convincing to me. Keep up the good work, Buckaroo

How about the fact that every single person that rights that humans are causing Global Warming are after Billions of dollars from the government in research grants. Every single one of them are after big bucks. They are scamming for money.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by sek929 

You proved that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. In fact, you do that in just about every post, keep the streak alive!

P.S. Technically, Global warming can cause the coldest winters we've ever experienced. I know you don't understand this, and that is why you fail.

You have been sucked into the cult of followers that have been brainwashed into believing these scammers who are after Billions of dollars in government money to justify their wasted life.

[sek929]

Actually I don't believe what Al Gore has to say at all. Of course you would assume so because you've been brainwashed by the scammers who tell you anyone concerned about the environment is a whacko after money. I don't, however, stick my head into the sand when it comes to the issue of us poisoning our environment and changing the climate we live in. It will happen, it's only a matter of time.

Again, you don't understand climate change at all if you attribute 'global warming' with the earth only getting warmer everywhere. Time and time again you make yourself look foolish in a scientific debate by saying 'science is based on assumptions' lol, I guess you would rather live in the Dark Ages wiping your ass with your left hand and being scared of your own shadow.

To reiterate... No I don't buy into Al Gore's 'we are doomed in x-amount of years' But nice attempt at instantly discrediting me with a stereotype. Nice work again, keep that streak up!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

How about the fact that every single person that rights that humans are causing Global Warming are after Billions of dollars from the government in research grants. Every single one of them are after big bucks. They are scamming for money.

Silly, silly argument.

From what I understand, the US Federal government spent about $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004. Total.

To use your argument right back at you: how many of the people opposing calls for emissions reduction are after "big bucks" and "scamming for money?" And yet, you keep posting articles by scientists paid by some of the largest emissions-producers in the world.

Sometimes your lack of logic is astounding.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

How about the fact that every single person that rights that humans are causing Global Warming are after Billions of dollars from the government in research grants. Every single one of them are after big bucks. They are scamming for money.

What billions? Research grants are lucky to be over 1 million. This isn't particle physics or astronomy, the budgets are nowhere near what you're implying.

Besides that, if you're going to accuse any researcher of outright lying just because they're funded by grants, you're a lost cause. Researchers do not lead glamorous lives. The only motivation to go into or stay in the field of research is the motivation to pursue truth. If they were going to lie every day to secure a paycheck, scientific research is one of the worst ways to go about it. The risks are high, the rewards are low, and the methods are anathema to the reason you'd otherwise be in that career.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Just to be a homer:

More Evidence of Rapid Glacier Melt up to 2006: Severe Shrinkage

Last year was one of the warmest winters on record... maybe we should start a betting pool on whether this "cold 2008" winter will reverse the trend...?



greg

[tie]

Bad Drivers Rant (car crash, red light, brake, trucks)

I almost got side-swiped by a fat woman on the beltline yesterday. When I looked over I saw her, get this and this is not a lie, on a cell phone being held by her shoulder pushing it to her ear, a stupid white dog on her lap peering back at me, her left hand barely holding on to the steering wheel, a cupcake in her right hand, and a McDonald's drink in the cup holder! Yes, she was eating a freaking cupcake while talking on a cellphone! Heaven forbid she actually drive. And about the dog, people who ride around with your little fluff dog on your lap; it's not cute, it's stupid! You look like an idiot and if you get into a crash which is very likely since you have a huge distraction on your lap, if the wreck doesn't kill the dog then most likely the airbag will. I can't believe some animal rights activist hasn't put a stop to this trend yet.
You have one job to do while you drive and that's to
PAY ATTENTION!!
I have yet to hear of a situation that can convince me otherwise that a car crash is just an "accident". There is no such thing as a car "accident". They should be called car wrecks because if both drivers were doing what they should have been doing then the wreck would never had occurred.

Also, gas is way too expensive to be careless with it. It's bad enough that we are our own worst enemy and have allowed ourselves to be way too dependent on our cars and that is why gas is as expensive as it is. If we would cut fuel demand the prices will drop. But we can't cut demand. Why? We have too many people that complain about the prices of gas but yet to do something about it.
When you see that the stoplight ahead in the distance that just turned red, there is no reason to "race" to it. Go ahead and take your foot off the gas and coast to it. The savings will add up.
What's worse is when someone is already sitting at a red stoplight and they see the one 300 yards ahead turn red and they floor it from their stoplight just to get back on the brakes hard to stop for the next light. "Jackrabbit" starts are a complete waste of gas. Pretend that there's an egg underneath the gas pedal and you'll see the savings add up.
One last thing, I can't stand it when somebody complains to me about the price of gas and how "it's Bush's fault" or complain about global warming then they go sit in a drive-thru whether at the bank or some fast-food restaurant. Complete waste of gas.

Google is good at turning up this kind of story. I plan on posting lots more to see if I can't keep up with Buckaroo.

[olePigeon]

The dog on the lap has become the new fashion here. I hate it with a passion, cops need to pull those dumbasses over.

Sounds like a good Mythbusters, see just how far an airbag can launch a rat-dog.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Thickest, oldest Arctic ice melting, NASA finds

So it seems all these articles about how the Arctic ice is returning... might be ignoring the fact that they're just temporary replacements for the rapidly shrinking perennial ice?

Whoops

greg

[peeb]

Why don't we just stop feeding this one, eh?
He's either mad, or pretending to be mad. Either way, there's not much point talking to him any longer. He's been discredited, and won't listen. Doing it again won't help.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Thickest, oldest Arctic ice melting, NASA finds

So it seems all these articles about how the Arctic ice is returning... might be ignoring the fact that they're just temporary replacements for the rapidly shrinking perennial ice?

I can rebut that:

Newfoundlanders dig out of third heavy snowstorm in less than a week
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — The third intense snowstorm to hit Newfoundland in less than a week had winter-weary residents digging out again Tuesday and wondering if spring will ever come.
"It's certainly quite a mess," said Danny Howlett, 27, as he shovelled outside his home. "There's a common phrase around Newfoundland: no one appreciates a summer like a Newfoundlander, and definitely this winter has made me feel like that."
...
"There is another system that's coming for Friday," he warned."It doesn't look to be a major system, but it still could be a nuisance."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by tie 

I can rebut that:

Hyuck! That's my home province (although I'm from the other side of the island). I've got a lot of friends sending me great pictures of them digging out of that storm.

Actually, I think DBursey might be in St. John's? Or from St. John's and now living elsewhere, I'm not sure....

greg

[Buckaroo]

Scientist explains 'global warming stopped a decade ago'...

Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

[Warren Pease]

"if you take 1998 as your point of reference"

Okay, Bob Carter... lol

[Buckaroo]

The biggest Liar, polluter and Hypocrite is at it again. Pushing the GW CULT.

Right up there with Scientology.

Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics on 60 Minutes

Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News

[peeb]

You'd be very funny if you weren't so obviously unhinged. I feel a bit sorry for you.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You'd be very funny if you weren't so obviously unhinged. I feel a bit sorry for you.

Typical response from a cult follower. Do you belong to other cults like Scientology like Tom Cruse?

The Earth's atmosphere consists of only .035% of CO2.

78% Nitrogen, and 21% Oxygen.

Not 35%, but .035% it's a small fraction of the atmosphere.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The Earth's atmosphere consists of only .035% of CO2.

78% Nitrogen, and 21% Oxygen.

Not 35%, but .035% it's a small fraction of the atmosphere.

So? Do you even know what this means?

[Buckaroo]

As I have always said, everything changes. For something that amounts to .035% of our atmosphere, it was never an issue.

Only the cult followers will not believe the truth.


Global temperatures 'to decrease'

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Global temperatures 'to decrease'

[Warren Pease]

If 0.035% of our atmosphere accounts for the 33 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature, I think we might need to worry a little about a small increase in those gases. (If you want to call a 20% increase in the past 50 years 'small')

The article says that the last decade has been the warmest in the past 11 (decades), but two words in the headline - 'to decrease', presumably referring only to this year, a La Niña year, clearly defined and referenced in the article - somehow negates this fact?

This thread is getting weird. Next buckaroo is going to be quoting RealClimate to support his views.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

As I have always said, everything changes. For something that amounts to .035% of our atmosphere, it was never an issue.

Stupid, stupid comment.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows that "ingredients" can have an effect far beyond their proportion of the whole.

The only arguments I
have with them is that a little more is actually known about the affects and roll our atmosphere
plays than you're stating.

Not sure what this means. We know a significant bit, but there are numerous (and sometimes enormous) holes that any climate scientist will admit. You can spend a month reading this thread to find out about a few. Any climate scientist I've ever talked to has readily admitted that many assumptions are made – and this is only concerning what we know we don't know, let alone what we just don't know. The point is, people are working on these areas, and to this point nothing has come to light which significantly changes the theory at the broadest level – that human activities are having a fairly significant impact on the Earth's climate.

And we do indeed monitor the temperature of other planets and their
moons. Just like I can monitor the temperature of any line-of-sight body either on this planet or
across space. At the speed of light too. So our readings are only delayed by a few seconds. We've
been doing that for about a hundred years - or very close to it - just that >I< know of.

So while I understand where you're coming from a few of your assumptions are in error.

Disingenuous, and precisely the point I was making.

You're talking about measuring temperatures with a telescope. I'm talking about a 0.74C increase in Earth's temperature in over the last century – and even that figure is somewhat in doubt. There's very little comparison. Would we have even recognized a similar increase on Mars for example? Telescope measurements give us an extremely general proxy, but tell us exactly zero about any other factors on those planets – like how their atmosphere responds to solar energy for example, or how their orbital cycles affect their global temperatures, or any reconstructive history of potential climate cycles which we may not recognize. Even with more-sensitive instruments that we have today, we don't get the benefit of this hands-on evidence. (For example, I've been curious as to whether they'll ever try and get an "ice core" from Mars, even though I suspect it would be useless if they ever managed to get it home.)

The point remains that your statement "there is no argument" is a blatant, misinformed lie. There are thousands of arguments.

greg

[Buckaroo]

World Bank accused of climate change "hijack"

World Bank accused of climate change hijack | Environment | Reuters

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Developing countries and environmental groups accused the World Bank on Friday of trying to seize control of the billions of dollars of aid that will be used to tackle climate change in the next four decades.

"The World Bank's foray into climate change has gone down like a lead balloon," Friends of the Earth campaigner Tom Picken said at the end of a major climate change conference in the Thai capital.

Lloyd's warns of a lack of natural disasters

Lloyd's of London warned yesterday that an absence last year of natural disasters or man-made accidents was putting pressure on firms to reduce premiums in 2008.

Lloyd's warns of a lack of natural disasters | Business | The Guardian