Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0

What does the equation 16 over 10 to the sixth power have to do with global warming?

With all due respect, if you don’t know the answer to that question, you don’t know the first thing (literally) about the man-made CO2 emissions theory of global warming and, accordingly, you couldn’t possibly have an informed opinion on the subject.

If you do know the answer, then you also know that it’s the only thing you really need to know about the great global warming scam.

Someone should print up a T-shirt with 16 over 10 to the sixth on the front and back and pass them out at eco-sheep rallies. Why? Once people know that number, they may continue to parrot from the Al Gore script but their hearts are no longer in it. Why? Because 16 parts per million is the total amount of man-made CO2  in the atmosphere.

What?!?!? Only 16 parts per million?!?!? That's it?!?!?

Once you get that number into the discussion, the “consensus of leading scientist say” argument is pretty much done, as is the credibility of the so-called academic community.

Now we could go into the fact that, when we were seeing some warming, surface temperature readings were increasing faster than their correspondent troposheric readings in direct contradiction to the man-made carbon emissions theory of global warming.

And we need to use the past tense because, as we could also note, since 1998 global mean temperatures have actually declined to the point where all of the supposed warming of the 20th century has been completely nullified.

We could point out that global temperatures also declined during the first four decades of the post-World War II industrial expansion and that three-fourths of the global warming measured in the 20th century occurred during the relatively low carbon emissions era of 1900 to 1940.

We could mention the fact that changes in solar activity not only correlate perfectly with observed climate changes on Earth but on the other planets of our solar system as well. Yes, Mars is indeed warming at an even faster rate than Earth and Virgin Atlantic has yet to land a single flight there.

We could comment on the fact that the ice core sample data presented by Al Gore in his propaganda piece actually show that CO2 content increased subsequent to (and not as a precursor of) the noted increases in temperature. Post hoc ergo propter hoc issues notwithstanding, you could correctly observe that Dr. Gore has his theoretical cause confused with his hypothetical effect.

We could even point out that the total amount of CO2 the atmosphere is only 0.054 percent (540 parts per million) of which over 97 percent is attributable to natural sources.

But most of these arguments are too complex for the average eco-zealot to understand.

So just lay up that 16 parts per million number and let it sink in.

Need something to help you put 16 parts per million into some sort of context?

The average chicken dinner contains between 33 and 43 parts per million of arsenic. That’s more than twice as much poison in your KFC as man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Al Gore theory of global warming is a scam to promote nuclear power, expand the scope of government, increase academic welfare, tax every bit of energy productive people use, derail third world development and create unearned fortunes via a government-mandated carbon credits market… all based on the bizarre notion that reducing man-made CO2 content from 16 parts per million down to say 12 parts per million is going to counteract the power of the sun.

Yes, P.T., there really is a sucker born every minute.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Wow, did you get that from ExxonMobil's website?  Maybe a more unbiased view would move you slightly away from the neocon fascist oil banking rich guy view to actal reality.

"Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have greatly increased the quantity of carbon dioxide found in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Atmospheric levels have increased by over 30%, from about 275 parts per million (ppm) in the early 1700s to just over 365 PPM today. Scientists estimate that future atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could reach an amount between 450 to 600 PPM by the year 2100. The major sources of this gas due to human activities include fossil fuel combustion and the modification of natural plant cover found in grassland, woodland, and forested ecosystems. Emissions from fossil fuel combustion account for about 65% of the additional carbon dioxide currently found in the Earth's atmosphere. The other 35% is derived from deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural systems. Researchers have shown that natural ecosystems can store between 20 to 100 times more carbon dioxide than agricultural land-use types." - this is an educational website with zero political leanings.

Are you going to next offer up some evidence that the earth is 5768 years old?


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


Typically the first sign of BS in any argument is the length of the list of the bad guys motivations. In this case the ones belonging to horrible Al Gore.

 Anyway the easy part is if total atmospheric CO2 is 54ppm, and manmade CO2 is 16ppm then your conclusion that 97% of atmospheric CO2 is natural needs to be recalculated. And if your numbers are correct (and I am not giving you that assumption) maybe you will jump over to the 'manmade global warming is real' side based on that evidence.

Just like stock prices spike up and down during a stocks 10 year climb from $28.00 up to $54.00, those temporary spikes do not change the trend of the share price. Neither does the downward spike since 1998 you are referring to change the upward trend of temperature. I believe it is already reversed and your claim is inherently false unless you choose to disregard collected data from after the bottom of that spike. Also it never reached low enough after 1998 to reverse all of the warming of the 20th century. Here is some relevant data.

I think the "consensus of leading scientists" you mocked are more thoroughly versed on this subject than you are, and I am looking forward to someone with your ability to think clearly and interpret data to redraw your conclusion about the seriousness of manmade CO2 and join in the eco-zealot movement.

At this point I need some data source from you about Al Gores ice core propaganda piece because I am not inclined to go searching the Internet for something that probably does not exist.

While you are retreiving data could you also get me the info you have about the arsenic in my chicken? I like chicken but would prefer it without arsenic. I usually buy organic but I would like to know if that is somethig that occurs naturally or is injected as a preservative. Did you also know that intentionally adding arsenic to cigarettes was one of the things that cost the cigarette makers their lawsuit? Oh, and speaking of chicken did you know that factory raised chicken has upwards of twenty percent water injected into it effectivly costing you $3.99/lb for water? Purdue says people like that. 

I like to compare irrelevant data too. Did you also know that the CDC in 1983 considered anything over 1ppm of dioxin bad? 16 times that amount of CO2 would then obviously be much worse. Maybe you could step up and help me put an end to the manufacturing of that dioxin stuff?  

Other than the useless conclusion based on incorrect data, the sensless name calling and the worthless Gore-bashing you wrote a great piece. You sure did prove your point about the suckers though.

Here is some data about the chicken.

Here is some data from NZ about arsenic in cigarettes.

Anyway it has been fun chatting. I hope you understand that I do know exactly what 16ppm means, and I hope you now understand that while it may sound small, sometimes a little is alot.

Wishing the best for you and your children,

Your resident eco-zealot (one of many), Devoish.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

What is the temperature of Venus, and what would its temperature be minus any greenhouse effects?

With all due respect, if you don’t know the answer to that question, you don’t know the first thing (literally) about the man-made CO2 emissions theory of global warming and, accordingly, you couldn’t possibly have an informed opinion on the subject.


The Answer:

Venus has an average surface temperature in the neighborhood of about 475 C (or 890 F).  Why is it so hot?  Because it is so close to the Sun right?  WRONG. 

Minus any greenhouse gas effects, Venus would have an average surface temperature of just -33 C (-28 F).  The reason being its shiny clouds reflect a lot of sunlight.  Even if it had the reflectivity of Earth, it would only have a surface temperature of about 18 C (64 F).

 And Venus once was very similar to Earth in this regard.  Then the greenhouse effect kicked in.  The process has positive feedback, causing it to runaway.  Venus has since lost all of its water and become the choking inferno it is today.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

If you check the hard data, you will find that while there are measured values for the total carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, all of the values for the man-made component are estimates which rely on various underlying values and assumptions.

Most of the experts that I would deem credible put the man-made component at three percent.

However, if you want to search for the “official” numbers, they are published by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found at…

In my calculations, I used the high-end number most often cited by eco-zealots and true believers in the religion of global warming, i.e., 530 ppm; however, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, the most recent measured value for carbon dioxide concentration is only 377 ppm.

The DOE estimates the percentage of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as 14 percent. It should be noted however, that this figure is dependant upon estimates of the total amount of carbon dioxide transferred into the atmosphere as proposed by Houghton and Hackler. Some of this “data” concerns estimates of atmospheric carbon dioxide going back to 1850.

Given that there were no reliable methods of measuring the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere prior to the invention of the Dobson spectrophometor in 1925, I believe it might be safe to say that the data prior to 1925 is, at best, somewhat questionable. And as Houghton and Hackler is the “definitive authority” upon which the statistics relied upon by the IPCC and other government agencies pushing for carbon emission regulation are based, it’s not likely that these estimates are not going to err on the low end.

Nevertheless, if we use the DOE numbers, we still only get a grand total of 52 ppm of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, significantly more than my estimate of 16 parts per million, yes, but, in absolute terms, still insignificant.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The point of my last comment is that the Earth sits at an extremely delicate distance from the Sun.  Any small increase in the greenhouse effect could lead to a runaway effect similar to what happened on Venus.  And if you are right, great, nothing to worry about.  But if you are wrong, there is no easy way to undo any inbalance we create.  We can't simply stop emitting more greenhouse gases, the snowball will have already started rolling down the mountain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

They can check the content of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past 1,000 years or so through the ice core samples from the Greenland ice sheet.  CO2 will be desolved in the water before it crystalizes into snow.  Melting the water can release the CO2, which they can then measure through various methods.  Therefore, they can get reasonably accurate CO2 readings going back many years through this method.

There have been many spikes in atmospheric CO2 in the past, most often caused by volcanic eruptions.  (The source of a lot of the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere.)  I don't remember seeing any data that stated that the Earth warmed significantly afterwards, (though the data might be out there and I just haven't read it).  

The Earth has had a lot of warming and cooling trends in the past.  These trends are cyclical.  I have read reports off of some science websites, (sorry, I don't have the links as I read them over a year ago), that stated that we are currently in a warming trend based on solar activity, so even without the addition of man-made CO2, the Earth would be warming now.  How much human activity is increasing this warming trend, I don't have a clue and I don't think most scientists do either.  

Scientific models for the atmosphere are notoriously unreliable.  There are just too many variables for them to track.  This is the reason that they have such trouble forcasting hurricane frequency, tracking or strength.  If global warming was the be-all-end-all, then hurricanes should be increasing linearly in strength and frequency, and this past year was a fairly slow one as hurricanes go.  Also, the scientific models can't take into effect cloud cover, as there are no models for clouds, (again, too many variables).  If cloud cover increased significantly, (due to the warming planet increasing evaporation rates of the oceans), then the added reflectivity of the clouds could reflect a lot of the sun's energy back into space, slowing global warming if not reversing it.

I do believe that mankind is probably affecting world temperature by our CO2 production.  I just am not so sure that we are as much to blame for it as some of the green movement people suggest we are.  I think the sun is a bigger factor by probably an order of magnitude. 

That doesn't mean that I don't think we shouldn't undertake some activities that would help alleviate all the CO2 production that we are doing.   I think more efficient and lower emission cars are a good idea, both from a less gas and less CO2 standpoint.  Solar, wind and wave power are good ideas and should be pursued and implemented.  Also, planting extra trees to help absorb some of the CO2 I think is a very good idea and should be pursued more vigorously.  (I know that there is some company/organization that I read about last year that is selling carbon offsets.  For some set amount of money, they will plant so many trees somewhere in Eastern Europe to offset the CO2 production of a Western company.  I think that Google is a large user of this offset, if I remember the article correctly on who is using this offset method.)  

I try to do my part regarding the environment.  I turn off lights when not in use.  I recycle.  I drive a fairly fuel-efficient car and try not to make unnecessary trips, (doing multiple errands in one trip to save gas and time).  I have donated money to various environmental organizations.  I think if more people did this, then we could greatly reduce mankind's CO2 production and help out the planet in varous other ways.  As to whether or not this will prevent our planet from warming further from here, I still think that the sun cycle will propel our Earth to continue its warming trend.  We might slow that trend though, to give us more time to adjust to the new global realities.  I don't think that we all need to turn in our cars for bicycles though, as some greenies suggest.

Just my two cents.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


I am good with the numbers from the CIADC website for this discussion. Nice link by the way. According to those numbers the 2004 average is 377ppm.  

From footnote 6: "Recent CO2 concentration (377.3 ppm) is the average of the 2004 annual values at Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii, American Samoa, and the South Pole (one high-latitude and one low-latitude station from each hemisphere).

The 280ppm number from footnote 6:

The value given by IPCC 2001, page 185, is 280 ± 10 ppm. This is supported by measurements of CO2 in old, confined, and reasonably well-dated air. Such air is found in bubbles trapped in annual layers of ice in Antarctica>, in sealed brass buttons on old uniforms, airtight bottles of wine of known vintage, etc. Additional support comes from well-dated carbon-isotope signatures, for example, in annual treerings.

So basically CO2 has gone from 280ppm to 377ppm, a change of 97ppm, or an increase of 33%. If you want to use the 530ppm number you say is most commonly cited by eco-zealots then CO2 concentrations are almost double.

O.K so where are we now. Most of the name calling and insulting is gone, although you still want to refer to people who want to deal with global warming and consider it most likely manmade "religious zealots".

The title of your post is history, the only way you could wear a 16 over 10 to the 6th T-shirt is if it also included the phrase "this number has nothing to do with global warming so whoever tells you it does is incorrect".

Your manmade CO2 value of 3% is clearly imaginary and you replaced it with the phrase "The DOE estimates the percentage of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as 14 percent" and then supply a link to an excellent CDIAC website that does not make that claim. Instead it supplies us with measurements that indicate that atmospheric CO2 has increased 30% since 1750. I would have considered 14% significant, and 30% is twice that. So your conclusions are still wrong based on the data that you are supplying.

You then argue that you doubt the accuracy of the 1750 measurement because you believe that the data is estimated and therefore could not be accurately measured by the "Dobson spectrophometor" (is that thang turbocharged?) because it did not exist in 1750. We then learn that you did not read the footnotes to the data you supplied because footnote 6 points out: 'The value given by IPCC 2001, page 185, is 280 ± 10 ppm. This is supported by measurements of CO2 in old, confined, and reasonably well-dated air. Such air is found in bubbles trapped in annual layers of ice in Antarctica>, in sealed brass buttons on old uniforms, airtight bottles of wine of known vintage, etc. Additional support comes from well-dated carbon-isotope signatures, for example, in annual treerings' . So it could easily have been measured by Dobson's finest in spite of your contention otherwise. It is much better than questionable as footnote 6 (I am going to make you actually read your link this time) indicates that estimates actually match these actual measurements.

You then repeat the incorrect and unsupported statement that "we still only get a grand total of 52ppm of manmade CO2 and try to pawn off the idea that a 15% increase would be insignificant even though the actual increase is at minimum  97ppm or 33%. Keeping in mind that todays measurements were taken from the middle of the Pacific Ocean and the south pole, not exactly the epicenter of industry and likely on the low side.

You also failed to even attempt to support any of your other arguments.

Now it certainly appears to me that you have been the "sheep", the "zealot" a "parrot" and unable to understand "complex arguments". So prove you aren't. Acknowledge that your arguments are weak, your data was false and the "greenies" are well informed. Then come on over to the green side and get yourself a big old group tree hug!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

The link that gives the 14 percent number is provided in the footnotes to the data that was available from the first link I gave you.

Here is the direct link to that reference...


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Your statement The DOE estimates the percentage of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as 14 percent is not accurate. Then you go on to say that you believe that number is low do to questionable estimates which you now know are measurements.

What the footnote actually says is the percentage of all CO2, manmade and natural due to the burning of fossil fuels is 14%. The manmade percentage of all CO2 in the atmosphere is higher (probably about 22%). Also that is based on the amount of CO2 as of the year 2000. The numbers we were using show the problem had gotten worse as of 2004, and this is now 2008, and even the right wing suggests CO2 production is increasing due to the USA having increased CO2 production and the Chinese and Indians contributing an even greater increase.

Interestingly it also estimates that the increase in atmospheric CO2 only represents 40% of total manmade CO2 as the other 60% is being absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. Hopefully the oceans can handle it.

So basically you have had to misrepresent every piece of "evidence" you supplied in order to make your case that manmade global warming is a hoax brought on by the religious followers of the Rev Al Gore in "a scam to promote nuclear power, expand the scope of government, increase academic welfare, tax every bit of energy productive people use, derail third world development and create unearned fortunes via a government-mandated carbon credits market"...

So what is your motivation for spreading these pernicious lies? And after this discussion, and all your evidence refuted, do you reconsider your opinion of global warming and whether or not it is manmade?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Big Green LieThe Hope and the Hypeby Auden SchendlerPublished in the March/April 2008 issue of Orion magazine

Someone asked me recently, “I know green is popular now. But what’s next?”

I said: “Honesty.”

Consultants tell you that green business is profitable. Stories of businesses successfully implementing green programs are all over the media. Former EPA chief William Reilly touts a new green business book as “a compelling blueprint for how companies can address critical environmental problems, from climate change to water, and improve their performance, gain competitive advantage, make money, and win friends.” It sounds so tidy. But it’s not. Implementing sustainable business practices is closer to trench warfare than surgery.

I work at a business—Aspen Skiing Company—that is remarkably supportive of environmental projects. Yet we find that it’s very difficult to do what matters most from an environmental perspective: cut carbon dioxide emissions. We’ve eliminated millions of pounds of CO2 through retrofits, green construction, on-site renewable energy, and widespread efficiency measures, but our emissions are creeping upward. At the same time, scientists say we must achieve 80 or 90 percent reductions to slow climate change.

We struggle with barriers that are seemingly universal in the business world. For example: this year our various departments submitted $40 million in requests for capital spending (new roofs, retiling a leaky hotel swimming pool), but the company only has $9 million budgeted. The important green projects—a solar electric installation or energy-saving repairs to a heating system—might be out-competed by that roof leaking onto a guest’s bed. Necessities may trump even profitable green projects, especially if those projects aren’t profitable enough.

Other companies struggle too. Wal-Mart is spending $500 million annually on green programs. But last November the company released its first sustainability report, which showed CO2 emissions climbing an average of 8.6 percent from 2005 to 2006. What’s going on?

Cutting CO2 emissions is difficult, even for a motivated company. That’s because energy is cheap; there’s limited incentive to conserve it. Businesses will cherry-pick projects that save the most energy at the lowest cost but decline to make the deeper, less profitable (or even costly) emissions cuts necessary to solve the climate problem.

Meanwhile, making money means creating more carbon emissions, often through growth. The reality that finding emissions reductions isn’t like hitting the jackpot over and over again may come as a surprise. After all, the story we tend to hear is that such actions are cost-effective, smart, and relatively easy to pull off. Governments want their typically lame, voluntary “technical assistance” programs to appear successful. Nonprofits and consultants make their case, or their money, by selling the “green is green” story. And corporations are often pitching profitable environmental progress to customers as well as shareholders.

Where does hope end, and hype begin? It is not that businesses can’t cut emissions profitably (to a point), or that existing efforts are pointless and futile. It’s that at current energy prices, even ragingly successful emissions reductions will only cut your emissions by a third, at best, because it isn’t profitable enough to do more. But we must do much better than that, and soon.

Instead of being Pollyannas crowing about a climate-solutions cakewalk, let’s be realistic about the scale of change needed. The most important corporate climate action might not take place in the factory or the boiler room, but in Congress, in the streets, and on the barricades. 

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Keep in mind that the DOE’s 14 percent figure is derived in part from a calculation which relies entirely upon getting the initial “pre-1750” levels correct. But just how reliable is that estimate?

Actually, the oft-cited baseline of 280 ppm has never been accurately established by either direct measurement or ice core sample extrapolations.

Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century range from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm with an average value of 335 ppm.

Ice core-based CO2 estimates generally range from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm.

Governments have settled in on the 280 ppm number because it fits their tax and regulate agenda but that number is, at best, nothing more than a guess.

For more on the limitations of ice core samples see the testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.,3566,188176,00.html

And for more on what is really happening with the climate, see…

Africa: Low Yields 'Due to Wary Farmers, Not Climate Change'

Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

America's Self-Imposed Energy Shortage,2933,157432,00.html

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”


Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?

Climate change hits Mars

Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere,3566,249598,00.html

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Climate of Fear

Climate scientists feeling the heat

Con job at The Weather Channel

Cooling Down The Climate Scare

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

Don't fight, adapt

Energy, A Potent Political Weapon,2933,180783,00.html

Environmentalism as Religion by Michael Crichton...

ERAU professor seeks balance in global warming debate

Experts question theory on global warming,0008.htm

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Global Warming Blues,3566,177380,00.html

Global warming boost to glaciers

Global warming debunked*

Global Warming Doubt Dispelled? Not Really,2933,166150,00.html

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary Global
Warming Is Not a Crisis

Global Warming on the Cover of Rolling Stone,2933,175241,00.html

Global Warming Snowjob

Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis,2933,334682,00.html

Global Warming? It's the Coldest Winter in Decades

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming's Senseless Consensus,2933,309919,00.html

Gore gets a cold shoulder

Gore's prize: A fraud on the people's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd

'Green' Politicians Add to Gas Price Woes,2933,193487,00.html

Greens Are the Real Energy Problem,2933,158456,00.html

Happiness Is a Warm Planet

NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity

Rush for biofuels threatens starvation on a global scale

Has global warming stopped?

Hot Air Hysteria,3566,188176,00.html

Hurricane predictions miss the mark

HYSTERIA - Exposing the secret agenda behind
today's obsession with global warming

Inconvenient Truths

Junk Science: Earth-Friendly Greens Camouflaging the Poor's Plight,2933,276692,00.html

Junk Science: Global Warming’s Trillion-Dollar Turkey,2933,299419,00.html

Junk Science: Green Gas-Lighting?,2933,269886,00.html

Katrina Kicks Up Storm of Global Warming Debate,3566,168247,00.html

Kyoto's Quiet Anniversary,2933,185171,00.html

Limited role for C02

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed,2933,323645,00.html

Mark Steyn: Eco-chondriacs crank up the hysteria

Market-Based Environmentalism Is An Oxymoron,2933,176649,00.html

Must-See Global Warming TV,2933,258993,00.html

My Nobel Moment

Myths of Global Warming

Necessary background material for all Global Warming Zealots...

Not So Hot

Our Fake Drilling Debate

Polar scientists on thin ice

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax

Read the Sunspots

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

Second Global Warming Treaty Makes Less Sense Than First,2933,150786,00.html

Statistics needed

Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling The
Global Warming Scam

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Greenhouse Myth,2933,192544,00.html

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science

The limits of predictability

The 'Old' Consensus?

The original denier: into the cold

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

The sun moves climate change

The Sun Also Sets

The Truth About Global Warming - It's The Sun That's To Blame

They call this a consensus?

Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007,2933,318686,00.html

We are set on a course of 'planet saving' madness

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

What Arctic Warming?,2933,172188,00.html

Warming is real - and has benefits

Will the sun cool us?

World's First Global Thermometer,2933,157097,00.html

And these websites dedicated to Climate Debate…

Climate Debate Daily

CO2 Science

Junk Science

Global Warming

Friends of Science 

Science and Public Policy

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


I no longer am willing to try to believe you want to understand global warming.

But let us continue. I did not investigate Jarorowski's ice core sample, finding the rest of your material wrong enough to convince me that you had no good arguments and nothing new to add. But since I can now put all this material in one place, lets investigate J-ski:

His hypothesis that pressure affects the CO2 results  of ice core measurements downward is pretty solidly refuted by the fact that the measurements taken from inside brass buttons/wine bottles etc. match the results from the core samples. Nice idea, but likely incorrect. The 280ppm CO2 number for before the industrial revolution is better than anything you can invent from data you say you do not believe.

The rest of those links appear to be news coverage of the same arguments you cannot defend. Plus an attempt to imagine how much better a hot planet will be for us. Like Sam Kinnison said "We have deserts in America, we just don't live in them".

 If there is anything different in there let me know which one, one at a time and I will investigate it. So far you are 0-fer everything. Good luck with your next misguided rant.

I almost missed your sunspot argument. Here is someone elses response.

On 5th July 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study that disproved one of the key planks of The Great Global Warming Swindle's argument—namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years. [21]

In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that...You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like".       

                                                                                            Pauvrepapillon; At this point I have no reason to believe you. So I will believe Lockwood.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rule the Climate

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

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

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Your first link comes to us from The Heartland Institute. They attempt to present themselves as an unbiased source of global warming "skeptics" and then indulge in a little namecalling as they refer to global warming scientists as "fearmongers".

And then they have the nerve to whine that "advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of skeptics,  'namecalling', and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism."

Your first post was the finest example of such "desperation" I have seen in days. Welcome to climate realism.

And then you swing again.

Your man Coleman on foxnews (which is really not a very good source of information) thinks Al is wrong based on the same incorrect information you should at this point be embarrassed to refer to.

Strike two.

Then you go with a statistician. Ed Wegman. He complains that the IPGG report cannot be relied upon because it failed to supply accurate temperature statistics. He also suggests that accurate temperature statistics are unavailable because many weather stations are now surrounded by heat trapping islands of buildings and parking lots.

I reread the 22 page summary of the report. There was a very convincing map of average surface temperature increases ranging from .2 to 3.5 degrees (3.5 in alaska... not exactly a hotbed of heat trapping islands) and a long blurb below it describing the 29,000 data series that was a subset of the 80,000 data series gathered from 577 different studies used to create the map. That seems like a lot of most likely accurate data to me.

strike three.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Junk Science: The Global Warming Bubble,2933,339831,00.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From Climate Facts To Warm To…

“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.",25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Great Global Warming Race

Can global warming’s vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam?,2933,353844,00.html


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

"Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined."

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat

 "Al Gore likes to say tht mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas - water vapor - into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amout every day. While this does not prove that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds." 

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Global Warming’s New “Consensus” 

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.",2933,357201,00.html

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No smoking hot spot

”We know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.”,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Thirty Years of Warmer Temperatures Go Poof

“Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, ‘It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling,’ as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an ‘almost exact correlation’ between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost ‘no correlation at all with CO2.’”


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top