Your values make good sense to me, but I have some questions, one very irreverent (Why do you live with those guys?) and others more on topic. Is it the warming itself that you seriously question, or rather just the cause? If you question the warming, are you aware of how much work has gone into these measurements, and how consistent the results are? As for the cause, I can understand doubt about climate models. But the basic greenhouse mechanism is well understood, as are the major feedback mechanisms. Even if this is not completely satisfying, does this not make it very likely that anthropomorphic CO2 is responsible?

Sorry for cutting in to your exchange with Falhaar, who wrote: “And I don't know where you're getting your ‘global temperature remains flat’ data from, but I'd be curious to see your source.”

The source, Falhaar, are all those pesky thermometers out there, even the ones next to asphalt parking lots and AC exhausts.

The four temperature records all show a flat to slight cooling trend from 1998 to today (or from 2001, if you don’t want to start the trend with the all-time record ENSO year 1998).

I’ll link the four records separately, so they don’t get hung up in the spam filter of this site.

Read ‘em and weep (or rejoice).

Plateau – Hadley

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c_b.jpg

Plateau – GISS

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2590412265_d7f734577c_b.jpg

Plateau – RSS

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2591268046_fa0d4057e9_b.jpg

Plateau – UAH

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2590437485_805bc7a960_b.jpg

I mean, this is utterly lame.

You claim to have the capability to control the weather and I’m the one that should be wearing a tin hat?

Nobody, least of all me, has claimed to be able to control the weather. What scientists say is human activity is changing the climate of the planet in potentially catastrophic ways.

If they're right - and they're not saying this because they got a vision while they were taking drugs in a temple at night - then we can either do nothing, and just hope they're either wrong or it won't be too bad; or we can try to take steps to change the factors involved. Taking action may not work, but doing nothing means we will continue to change the climate - in fact, change it faster.

I know, denial is much easier: saves you all the trouble of thinking, and all the problems of a solution. So I can see why you've pulled that tin hat down as far as it can go and are reduced to blithering noises about weather control. Head for the showers, I think you're done for the day.

OK, I see your point -- humans release CO2. CO2 is connected to global warming, ergo, humans are connected to global warming.

This logic you use here is called transitive logic, and it is not a good logical style, and here's why.

A is the Father of B

B is the Father of C

Therefore A is the Father of C

This is clearly not a true conclusion.

In truth A is C's grandfather. In this case A is humans, B is CO2 and C is the evil stepchild. The logic does not hold, but keep trying.

Also, you could replace Humans in your argument with Trees and conclude that trees cause global warming too. that would not be a conclusion that environmentalists would want as a consequence of their argument.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

No, the two sets of statements that you claim are the same type of logic are certainly not.

You might want to learn some more about what trees do.

What ever happened to the the discussion in the 60s about population control and the enviroment. With global warming and resources diminishing we need a worldwide discussion and action on controlling population growth. Problem is the right wing religious fanatics of all religions keep fighting it. We need to ignore them.

OK, I see your point -- humans release CO2. CO2 is connected to global warming, ergo, humans are connected to global warming.

This logic you use here is called transitive logic, and it is not a good logical style, and here's why.

A is the Father of B

B is the Father of C

Therefore A is the Father of C

This is clearly not a true conclusion.

"Is a father of" is not a transitive relationship. "Causes" is.

Mike's statements are of the form

Significantly increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a higher equilibrium temperature.

Human activity is causing significant increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Therefore human activity is causing a higher equilibrium temperature.

Hi Brute,

Looks like you’ve got one of those “we gotta do something” guys on the line with stet.

“Taking action may not work, but doing nothing means we will continue to change the climate - in fact, change it faster.”

This is a silly statement.

First of all, “we will continue to change the climate” implies that we really are changing the climate. Sure, some “scientists” and computer nerds are telling us this, but it is just based on a hypothesis, some agenda-driven “science” and a bunch of GIGO computer studies, no facts. The only period where temperature and CO2 rose simultaneously is 1976-1998; otherwise the CO2/temperature correlation is weak. And correlation does not provide any evidence of causation. There are just way too many unknowns.

“Change it faster?” Stet should check the latest temperature record. It is not only not “changing faster”, it has stopped changing at all. Even the IPCC’s Dr. Pachauri recognizes the current temperature “plateau”, saying he will try to find out what is causing it and adding that he hopes it will not make people think that AGW is “hogwash”.

“Taking action may not work”. What kind of “action”? Start taxing carbon (as Hansen would like us to do)? This definitely will not work. It is just a boondoggle that will cost a lot of money and achieve nothing.

Energy conservation, elimination of waste and real pollution (not CO2, which is not a pollutant), reduction of dependency on oil imported from unstable regions, increasing domestic oil production (Alaska, offshore, oil shale, tar sands, etc.), increased use of nuclear energy and “clean coal”, automotive biofuels, more efficient electrical automobiles, using solar and other renewable energy sources where this makes economic sense. These are all “actions” that make sense (not for “reducing carbon footprint”, but for more practical reasons).

If these are the “actions” that stet supports, I’m all on the same side.

But a carbon tax or cap and trade boondoggle costing hundreds of billions of dollars and affecting those at the bottom of the economic pyramid the most, no way. This is an “action” that will definitely “not work”.

Regards,

Max