yep, the AGW issue can't get past a couple of posts without bringing out the nuts who insist that the science isn't settled because some finding from 20 years ago is off by 10%, which opens the floodgates for the people on both sides whose posts would be evidence for institutionalizing them, followed up by the usual "Nyah nyah you'll never catch me" posts of those who for some reason think they've won a victory if they can actually deny things which are happening before their eyes, because reality isn't conforming to their ideological demands.

Event Horizon: "Presenting 'science theory' as 'science fact' is just plain junk science and dishonest."

The irony here is astounding, as this statement is plain junk science and dishonest.

(Although in your case Event Horizon I suspect you are not being intentionally dishonest but are instead just completely ignorant in what you are talking about here.)

A "science theory" very often is "science fact". Ever hear of, say, the Theory of Relativity? Or, say, Atomic Theory? Or, say, the Theory of Evolution? These are all examples of "science theory" also being "science fact".

Event Horizon: "The complexities of 'global warming' would leave me to conclude at this time, that there are still 'grey areas' still to be resolved. And until they are, all the 'truths' of the issue still elude us."

Sure - just as is the case with all scientific theories (and scientific facts, for that matter), including the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Evolution. That doesn't mean that we can't use them to make reliable and valid inferences and predictions, however - to the contrary that's exactly what scientific theory is useful for.

Stephen Jay Gould addresses the point further in the context of debunking so-called "scientific creationism":

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? ...

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

http://stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

"this legislation barring us from evacuating our bodily wastes into the streets will mean an end to modern commerce, and the expenditures for disposing of these wastes in a fashion approved by the intrusive government will bankrupt our nation; while the heathen chinee and hindoo will still be free to indulge in his god-given right to move his bowels freely. all in the name of some high-faluting scientific theory regarding disease; well, diseases have always been part of mankind and the suggestion that humanity has the capacity to cause them or prevent them is absurd, as well as heretical. mark my words, these so-called sanitation laws are nothing more than a means of enriching the plumbing cartel and their toadies in the medical profession"

In all the discussion about climate change, I have never heard discussion about nuclear testing and the heat generated by the open air and ocean testing. The earth is not infinite in its ability to handle 10,000 degree heat blasts. I also remember reading about the discovery of thawing mammoths in Siberia when I was much younger. (late 60s) I cannot point to any research or connection to global warming but humans are heating the earth.

conservatives understand business.

rather than retool their phobias of *certain kinds of* science -- computer, aeronautics, farming, or internal-combustion apprently aren't among them (but dirt in the form of earth or sex is biblically referenceable), they must join us on the energy independence gravytrain.

already investors are scouring patents worldwide for cheap clean energy/cheap fuel cell technologies but have a limited time to develop existing and new ideas before corporations start killing competing innovations.

i think "climate change" replaced "global warming" because things are doing more than just warming. melting polar ice effects the jetstream/north atlantic drift, causing cooling but also instability.

and tell 'em hooty the owl is in job, or something.

breath in the balance

The Earth is quite dangerous,

the Universe too.

For many dangers

there’s nothing to do

(if there’s no God,

we’re simply screwed).

But with CO2,

it’s different indeed;

no burning of carbon

and please do not breathe.

An interesting - but false - argument:

"There is not significantly more carbon on the planet than there was say six billion years ago or so."

True. (Ignoring the typo of 6Gy for 4.6Gy.)

"There is a set ammount of carbon dioxide that was ever in the atmosphere, and there is a set ammount of carbond dioxide that can ever be released back into the atmosphere."

False. Your argument assumes that biological carbon (extant + fossil) all originated in carbon dioxide from the ancient atmosphere.

There is much more carbon in the crust of the Earth than has previously been in the atmosphere. Carbon is a common element in the cosmos - and a relatively common one on Earth. Google + arithmetic gives the mass of carbon in the Earth's crust as being about twice the mass of the entire atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (remember, only one of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases) makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Thus there is about 10,000 times as much carbon in the crust as currently in the atmosphere.

Much of the sequestered carbon was converted from minerals in ancient soils or oceans. We are engaged in releasing vast fossil holdings of carbon that were converted not only from ancient air, but from ancient minerals as well.

The sky isn't just falling, the Earth is rising to meet it.