I have already outlined two different plans to control CO2 with far more effectiveness. Wildfires have risen at a tremendous rate much like that chart above, dumping billions of tons of carbon into the air.

Managing wildfires and intensive reforestation efforts would yield a far greater impact on CO2 levels than taxing fossil fuel to discourage use. Or alternately, globally eliminate Air Conditioning, one company sold 62 million A/C units in 2006 alone, eliminating all but the absolutely necessary ones would cut electricity use by untold amounts as well as the fossil fuel use to generate it. A/C started into widespread usage in the 1950's.

Instead they came up with the plan to create a global commodities market to sell thin air to cut CO2 levels. If the world was in serious danger, one of the aforementioned courses of action would be far more prudent. The bottom line is it's not about the CO2, it's about the Money. Every business mans dream. Selling a product that has no manufacturing cost, needs no storage, few employees and no need to purchase any raw materials, simply charge $30 to $50 a ton for it's very existence. So when you see folks running around squealing like piglets in a 4-H catch the greased pig contest, you know it's because they likely have invested a pile of money in carbon trading stocks and see it slipping away. The biggest target for fleecing, the United States, hasn't signed up for the shaft...yet. Please urge everyone you know to contact their Congressmen and yell at them no WAY to Kyoto! Target the largest carbon producer, wildfires or eliminate all but absolutely necessary Air Conditioning.

31 percent less electricity means 31 % less fossil fuel burned to make it. That's meaningful change, cap and trade is just a money grab.

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

And whilst you are conducting your intensive research program you can maybe tell us all how the following temperature measurements and CO2 concentrations were determined by scientists for the earth over the past 450,000 years.

You have outlined very little - even though your posts are bulky and diversional.

Who do you work for?

Already did, Already know why it doesn't mean much.

My point that you keep blatantly ignoring is the fact that 1998 has been cited over and over again as proof of AGW, so why does your camp use it when it's convenient, but when the tables are turned, its a fluke?

Seriously, read other people's posts, then respond.

spuedo?!

You are yet to provide any proof that any (let alone all) science against your side of the argument is bought off or influenced by oil corporations.

Mose of the studies I have seen are either the one by GreenPeace or quote the study by GreenPeace. The really clever AGW alarmists find articles that are clearly quoting the GreenPeace study, but don't say they are. That way the source almost looks credible.

Foolosophy has postd a graph of the relationship between CO2 and temperture. So I don't know how you reach the conclusion that we "have no way to actually separate out natural heating and heating caused by CO2".
Sorry I've never claimed that "everything against your side is funded by ExxonMobil".
Usually I point out that because you made the initial claim it is up to you to provide evidence. But because this will lead to several pages of "you first", I'll take the high road and provide the first link.
George C Marshall Institute,EM funded researchI've provided an anti-AGW organization funded by ExxonMobil and Anti-AGW research funded by ExxonMobil. Your turn. Please provide a pro-AGW organization funded by Gore and pro-AGW research funded by Gore.




Alarmists are not scientists. 1998 alone is not "proof" of AGW. However, Foolosophy has already posted the graph of the recent increased temperature trend.
You cannot pick the highest point in a trend and declare that "the trend is negative". That is dishonest.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

What would you do to control it?

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

You just managed to tie a noose around your neck and tighten the knot.

the point is to look at GENERAL statitsically significant TREND LINES.

NOT compare individual data points in a data scatter with other individual dtat points - that is meangingless.

Look at the data for the year 1998 and the years either side of it - ie 1997 and 1999 - OR ARE YOU AFRAID.

What has the general trend line been doing for the past 40 years?

DO YOU even understand WHY the fossil fuel spin doctoring industry chose 1998 as their refernce year to perform their psuedo-science and try to delude the public that the earth is cooling?

Cite a refereed journal article that uses the fraudulant 1998 reference year.

Go on - we are waiting.

If you still cannot see what the problem is with using the 1998 data point as a reference year to conclude global cooling for the past decade, then YOU are either employed by the fossil fuel industry or other lobby groups OR dont understand how science or mathematical analysis works. (or both)

Now which is it?

Enough said on this crap - cant waste time on those who obviously dont wish to accept a simple fact and continue to embarrass themselves in public by pushing an argument they know very little about.

cheers

Not a bad correlation between the earth's average surface temperature and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past half a million years.

Now, notice the CURRENT levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Never been higher over this half million year period.

No wonder EXXON is worried about where they are going to invest their capital in the near future.

THings like Solar panels, and renewable energy I would imagine


PEABODY - where are you? Come out of the closet and declare your interests? So that everybody in here can understand WHY you post the propaganda that you do.

Now for your assertion to be correct, the levels of CO2 to reflect the temp would have to equate to the temp over the rest of the graft.

Look at the higher temps to the CO2.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

as in skin graft you mean???

Do these two variables (ie CO2 conc. and global temperature) correlate well over the past half a million years or so???

the situation is made even worse because we are now entering a peak phase in global temperature/CO2 conc. levels. As you can see from the graph we are not in a troph but nearer a peak.

Are you certain that the world wants to continue pushing the CO2 concentraion in the atmosphere whilst approaching a PEAK phase in natural variation?

What do you think will happen to the earth's climate, sea levels, ecosystem, and ice cover etc, if the CO2 levels exceed 600 ppmv?