Come on now, if (as our Greatest Prezimuhdent Ever Ronnie Reagan said) catsup is a vegetable, there’s gotta be all kinds of CO2z out there. It’s both scientifical and un-misunderestimateable too, and all teh librul outrage in the world won’t make it so. Why? Cuz I’m right, that’s why.

July 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

Your houseplants (who, by the way, are smarter than you) produce more oxygen than CO2, specially by day, so keep your plants. But I will not mind if you hide, promise.

There’s not much of a consensus among our climate experts, despite what Newsweek tells us. Ever heard of Lord Mockton and John Coleman <— (founder of the Weather Channel)?

Lord Monckton? You mean the infamous science denier who just got thoroughly punked by the American Physical Society? John Coleman is another comedian. Climate and weather are not the same thing, they just use the same tools. Asking a weatherman to comment on long-term climate science is like asking a tailor to reattach a severed limb just cause he knows how to use a needle and thread.

huissein toster: I’ll be sure to spend awhile reading the site you linked, http://www.skepticalscience.com . But at the moment, I’m still not convinced.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am

And you’ll never be convinced, cause you don’t want to be. Science deniers like yourself prefer to stay ignorant.

Science depends on a healthy skepticism of data and conclusions, but skepticism must be rooted in empirically derived evidence and applied to all competing hypotheses. While there are some scientists that are skeptical about AGCC, much of that centers around uncertainties regarding the degree of anthropogenic influence and poorly understood factors that may affect actual temperature change (e.g. clouds and global dimming). Continued research will provide answers. In the meantime, we are left with a choice; accept the current and growing evidence that AGCC is occurring and do something about it or do nothing and wait 50 years until solar activity changes and hope that is the real driver of temperature changes.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Of course Sun and climate are thigh connected, but this old GW denialist argument does very clearly show the difference between science and junk science.

Sientist:
look at the data that shows that the earth is heating up. They make the assumption that the sun is maybe responsible. They look at the data from space probes that measure sun radiation since the seventies. They find that the average Sun activity goes slightly back. They look for different reasons.

Junk Scientist:
make the conclutionthat the sun is responsible for GW. They look at the data from space probes that measure sun radiation since the seventies. They find that the average Sun activity goes slightly back. They look for other tables that can deceive others and publish there “findings”.

There’s not much of a consensus among our climate experts, despite what Newsweek tells us. Ever heard of Lord Mockton and John Coleman <— (founder of the Weather Channel)?

huissein toster: I’ll be sure to spend awhile reading the site you linked, http://www.skepticalscience.com . But at the moment, I’m still not convinced.

tbone Says:Sure, I guess that is possible, but one of the biggest criticisms of anthropogenic global climate change is a lack of data. Yet, you seem quite willing to consider this alternative to be “strong evidence”. Just out of curiosity, how many years of data do we have for these other planets? Is solar activity and temperature on earth as tightly correlated as temperature and CO2?
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 am

Touché. You’re right, other planets should not be used as a primary argument, there’s not enough data about them.
But you asked if solar activity and temperature on earth are as tightly correlated as temperature and CO2, and the answer is: yes, in fact they are even more correlated. Mankind has tracked solar activity since 1755, so there’s quite a few years of data on which to make this claim.

There’s a nice little chart on page 8 of this: http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf

How many personal letters outlining the difference (of which there is none) between corporate CO2 and residential CO2 do we have to write in order to get heard. Perhaps letters are too crude a form, but you get my point.

They won’t listen if we don’t say anything. I think it’s the least we can do.

Uh, which side is trying to make money by selling “carbon offsets”?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
______

You’re kidding, right? Are you really trying to spin carbon offsets as a “liberal” idea? Wow. You’re delusional.

Carbon offsets are a textbook example of free-market conservatism’s approach to climate change. Carbon offsets exist because big polluting industries looked at the science of climate change, saw that it was real, saw that they were contributing to it, and decided not to do anything about it directly, since reducing their own emissions would involve innovating and technology investment and changes to their business model. Instead, they said “tellya what – let’s just plant a couple trees in Brazil while we continue to pollute and we can pretend we’re doing something about the problem. Deal?”

There’s nothing “liberal” about carbon offsets.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
_______

Martian temperature change is driven by dust storms and heat reflectivity, and this temperature does fluctuate from year to year, but there is little to no evidence of actual long-term climate change on Mars.

Jupiter is a different animal altogether, since it has its own internal heat source. In fact, it puts out far more heat than it absorbs from the Sun.

The main point is that all planets have different drivers of climate change, and the Sun is not the common denominator. The Earth also has natural causes to climate change, but these are currently being far outpaced by human causes.

Of course this fact is inconvenient for the Bush-administration because its used by scientists to determine that the extra CO2 in Earths atmosphere comes from humans burning fossil fuels and not from natural sources.

See this link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

The experts have not only looked at temperatures and nothing else. They have looked at parts per million of CO2 in the Earth’s (not Mars) atmosphere for the past 400,000 years. They study ice cores from Greenland and Antartica that has ice miles deep. There is an exact correlation between the recent warming and CO2 in the atmosphere.

Warming can happen that is not man-made. The Earth has gone through many phases of warming and cooling throughout its 4 billion years (6000 for Daryll). But it has been scientifically-proven that we now have man-made warming. These are not contradictory.

Hey ease up on Tiberius — in Bushworld everything is backwards and upside down. In Bushworld we breathe C02 and emit oxygen, like my cat and my houseplants. Cows fart oxygen and airplanes emit Happy Air chemtrails. It’s all lovely and healthy.

Regardless, I love how in this clearly objective article the author is already anticipating the “I told you so” moment to be directed at the inevitable false claim of success by environmentalists in the future. That is quite rich considering that virtually nothing has been done to this point to actually combat CO2 increases!

Do more than call me names. I consider this to be one of the stronger evidences against global warming and I think it needs some attention. Please people, set me straight. :D

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming031307.htm

By the way, if carbonated beverages are ever taken away in the name of lessening CO2 emissions I’m going to be pissed.

Nevar Says:

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Nevar, I beat you to it, by a couple of years:

Briseadh na Faire Says:

While we’re looking into carbon dioxide emmissions, let us not forget our favorite beverages: soda pop and beer.

car·bon·at·ed water
n.
Effervescent water, usually containing salts, charged under pressure with purified carbon dioxide gas, used as a beverage or mixer.
http://www.answers.com/topic/carbonated-water

Does anyone know of any studies that show how much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere from sodas and beer? And, yes, I’m being serious here.

May 18th, 2006 at 12:13 am

(Ok, so I was burning the mid-night oil on that one….so to speak)