Reply to comment

A one sided presentation which is argued either way . Like gun control arguments the numbers can be presented to support either side. Or the cycle of hurricanes versus GW making them worst.

Professor Robert Carter of Australia states, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” Professor Carter works at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia. Climatology as it relates to the oceans is one of his disciplines. He knows whereof he speaks and yet, you will not find his remarks concerning Al Gore’s movie carried by the MSM. (Mainstream Media) Professor Carter is one of hundreds of meteorological and climatological scientists who are not part of a government group, or lobby group, or industrial group who might have a “vested interest” in seeing any agenda pushed forward. In addition, all of these non-vested scientists are highly qualified in their respected fields. In fact, these unquoted and ignored scientists are experts in climate change and they contest the hypothesis that humans are responsible for climate change through the increase of CO2 emissions that have been made by humans.

Dr. Timothy Ball, formerly a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg asserts, “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change. They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.” For example, a biologist might study everything from insects to animals and the focus of their study might be how climate changes affect them, he has no or limited knowledge of what produced those climatic changes.

In the 1800’s a small volcanic island near Sumatra literally exploded. When Krakatoa blew, geologists believe the energy force of that explosion was equivalent to 1,300 Hiroshima bombs going off at one time. The column of ash and gases rose an astounding 40 miles before gravity pulled the heavier pieces back down to earth. Three years following the explosion of the volcano, sunsets around the earth were seen through the filter of the hydrocarbon cloud for a period of three years. The effects were felt around the earth; temperatures dropped in temperate zones approximately three to ten degrees on average, growing seasons were shortened and winter was lengthened for a few years. Further, every minute that Krakatoa was erupting prior to the final blast that blew away 80% of the island, one million metric tons of ash, gases, and pumice were thrown into the atmosphere. Is it Al Gore and his cadre of unspecialized scientists that man has done more to “pollute” the earth than the earth itself? How many volcanoes have gone off since Krakatoa? How many metric tons of debris and CO2 as well as other gases have been ejected from these volcanoes into our atmosphere? Have there been no climatic changes as a result?

Dr. Timothy Patterson of Carleton University, recently testified that, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this (current geologic) time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?” Dr. Patterson concluded his testimony before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development what his research and the research of “hundreds of other scientists” have discovered, “on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.”
Others:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/solar-link-global-warming-ruled-out-13708...
http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/als_warm...
ETC

I have to agree with reading: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as far back as 2000. Even though they admit a 35% uncertainty. They are done by crediable people and point out both sides (to some extent) very clearly. I also recommend reading on joint ventures such as Canada's and China's CO2 capture project.
Also : http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2001/tl_arc_sequestration.html

These are real solutions, no matter which side you are on, and they are reasonable.

The problem which most of the ideas in the political world is they look/sound good but don't produce the desired result. For example: law passed to curb the profit on immunizations. Thus lowering the cost for the poor. Looks/sounds good? But it drove most american companies out of the market and lowered the availability. Then supply and demand kicks in.
Also you must read and entire bill before it is voted into law. Most of the titles are very decieving and sometimes the opposite result will occur.

DJ