BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:00 PM

bruce...did you read:
"From: Bill D - PM
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM"?

IF the situation is as Gore says, populations WILL try to move...and weak attempts will be made to try to control the process. And conservatives will stomp their feet and say "there goes the government again, trying to tell us what to do!"

If you think immigration is awkward now, just wait until all of Mexico & Central America and half the US decides to move north.

I don't see you advocating the reduction in population necessary to allow EITHER moving OR staying put and coping.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:42 PM

"Let's investigate them further, shall we?"

They are in fact being investigated further. Quite a lot of effort goes into this.

However, the popular press and infotainers report on every anti-climate change person or paper, and sometimes (sometimes) provide equal time for the opposition. If the representation were proportional to the division of opinion within the scientific community world-wide, there should be 10,000 provided with equal time.

Now, don't get me wrong - the "anti" people need to do their work and publish it, and it needs to be read and criticized and tested. As do all testable assertions This is exactly how science works. And, there would be no scientific progress - ever - if people did not upset the current consensus. We would (e.g.) still be bled and leeched by physicians.

BUT, the unbalance in the popular press creates an impression of a giant controversy where none actually exists. Thus, we have politicians making decisions about the future of the planet based not on science, but on re-election strategizing which is itself based on ill- and mis-informed public opinion.

And here we are.

The proof is likely to be in future events. I probably won't see them (although I have watched - literally - the death of 70% of the world's coral reefs in my lifetime). My kids will live through the coming events, and I fear for their future. Everyone needs to honestly ask themselves "what is the risk of future cataclysmic climate change?" Let's say you think it is only 1:10000. Would you feed your kids food that had a 1:1000 chance of poisoning them? Of course not. Remember all the E. coli scares, tylenol, tainted formula?

So there is a huge disconnect. Driven exactly by politics and political talking heads who have no knowledge of the process and proper reading and use of science. If we wait until Global Climate Change is "100% proven", well.... that will never happen. It never, ever does in science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM

Ans Al Gore is telling us that if we don't kick and get overheated everything will be ok.

I do not have a problem with reducing pollution- but I do object to doing NOTHING to deal with the *** effects *** of climate change ( which IMO will happen regardless). By working so hard to reduce emmissions, we are taking effort away from moving those populations tha will have to be moved regardless. The implied point of Gore et al is that we will stop the warming, and there will be no need to make any changes in where we live, or the crops we grow, etc.

Has no-one here ever read about the Viking Greenland colony? Up until the mid 1100s, , it was a viable farming and grazing community, settled from Iceland. Guess what happened? There was a little ice age, ( from 1100 to now) and the colony basically died out. So now the climate has returned to what it was before 1000- and King Al is berating the tide for coming in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:08 PM

"...we won't know till we get there."

You mean like the frog in the kettle of water where we raise the heat gradually?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

I find all these various views and theories quite interesting, Amos...not necessarily "extreme"...just interesting. Let's investigate them further, shall we? What's the danger? Are you that worried that you might be proven wrong? If not, let's investigate further.

Regardless of what you or I think about global warming OR cooling, what's gonna happen is gonna happen anyway. And eventually we'll know. ;-) If we're still here, that is.

My angle on this debate is not driven by any dislike of Al Gore, by the way. I like Al Gore, and I always have liked him. I was very impressed on my first viewing of his film "An Inconvenient Truth". I have since begun to feel that some of his assumptions about global warming may be incorrect, although I think he's quite sincere in those assumptions.

In time we will all know...if, as I say, we're still here. Anyway, whoever is here will know. We can argue about it all we want in the meantime, but we won't know till we get there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

clicky thing

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

The only link you need to see the sunspot data (pro and con) is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:32 PM

LH:

That won't serve, man. A thing makes sense or it does not. If it does not, it is because the data is distorted, partial, misevaluated or false or incomplete.

Posting the assertions of the extreme views on either side is not likely to lead to understanding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:03 PM

This reminds me--the course of the thread and the various arguments about global warming--of a comment I heard many years back. Two 'hippies' were discussing war, etc. One said to the other, "Why do you like peace so much?" The reply was "Because it's peaceful."

Some things really ARE no brainers. A cleaner environment is better for our children than a dirty environment. Fewer auto emissions are better than more. Stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:55 PM

to quote ME:

'We MUST assume that it is possible to both limit warming AND reduce populations...the benefits will be great even **IF** warming is not serious...'

NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUTH, we will be better off if we act as if climate change is happening and try to reduce our part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:24 PM

I'm not here to argue about it, Amos. ;-) I'll leave that to the rest of you, cos I ain't stupid. (well, not this time anyway) I know better than to question Holy Writ when I'm standing in the rotunda of the Vatican, as it were. Hell, that can lead to torture and execution, dontcha know? Or even excommunication!

Nope, I'm just here to post some interesting links to some other science articles that some of you might not have taken into account, and I'll let the rest of you fight over it for the next 20,000 posts if you want to. No skin off my back. You'll probably all just keep believing whatever you want to regardless...and I know it.

I'll post more links later maybe. Enjoy!

(By the way, I AM in favour of reducing our industrial and auto emissions. Why? Well, because I like clean air, that's why.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:44 PM

QUOTE
"I don't believe this fire was caused by arsonists, it was started by a lightning strike. So don't let us do anything about trying to put it out."
UNQUOTE

... so wouldn't it be fun to throw on a 1000 gallons of aviation fuel and see what fun things happen....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:41 PM

Kendall summed it up for me. Thirty... twenty years ago, no birds around here looked like a canary. And some that used to winter here back then are gone.   gone

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM

I suppose your dwindling sunspots and planetary cooling claims also manage somehow to account for the thawing of the tundra and the melting of the ice-caps, Little Hawk?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:09 PM

And yet more....

Decline in sun activity means global cooling

It all makes for some fascinating reading.

I might mention that we have had the coldest and longest delayed spring and latest summer this year that I can remember in Canada. Really remarkable. It's been great for the lawn...still green and lush. I don't think it's been so great for the wild birds and the farmers, though.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched just because you already have a past opinion that you're fond of. Consider alternative information that's coming in now and give it some serious thought. Any past assumptions about climate change which you have taken for granted might just be wrong, partly wrong, or even entirely wrong.

We've always had climate change in the past, and it's been cyclical. The Earth warms up for awhile, then it cools down for awhile. Those changing cycles normally fall in line with the activities of the Sun...the one single biggest player in the ongoing fortunes of life on Planet Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:02 PM

As someone pointed out a few posts back 'there is a big difference between "climate" and "weather" ' - and the sunspot cycle is essentially a matter of solar weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM

And yet more...

Declining sunspots

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:56 PM

And....

More info on sunspots

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM

sunspot activity

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM

I agree that we should do whatever we reasonably can to prevent polluting our environment. That being said there are limits to what we can do to alter the forces of nature. Climate changes,it always has and always will. While the effect may be catostrophic there is probably little that can be done to create any great change. Far better for us to properly prepare for change, than follow a fools mission to contain nature. To use McGraths example, we should fight the fire if there is a hope of putting it out. If not it is best to gather our belongings and flee to a safer place.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:11 PM

I get puzzled by why some people seem to think that if there are signs that there are factors outside human control that are contributing to global warming, that is somehow a reason to give up on trying to do what we can to avoid making things worse.

It's a bit like saying "I don't believe this fire was caused by arsonists, it was started by a lightning strike. So don't let us do anything about trying to put it out."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 07:11 PM

Only what Rush and Sean tell him, clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 06:38 PM

Doug:

Do you know nothing at all about weather systems?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

Peace: For shame, for shame!

Foolstroupe: So the name change sounds a bit like CYA. Climate change could indicate that the problem is either that the earth is getting warmer, or, like in the 70's, fear that the earth is getting cooler.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 11:06 PM

It's been said before - "Global Warming" is an obsolete term, driven into derision by the ignorant/uneducated/bigoted.

The Correct Scientific term is Now "Climate Change".

The original use of the term was caused by the scientific concept that as a system warms, the energy increases, and turbulence increases.

However, those with a drum to beast, as well as uneducated laypeople, misunderstood the name.

As turbulence increases in the atmosphere, there WILL be areas or greater depths of both hotter AND COOLER observed temperature, as big volumes of warmer air swirl to the pole, causing big volumes of cooler air to swirl away from teh poles.

Have all the fun you want making fun of the term, just don't ask ME for help when you find out that your bigotedness/lack of understanding has cause you like the grasshopper, to ignore the warnings of the ants to make sensible preparations for the future... you will have killed us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM

There are geo-forming solutions which would address the solar aspect as well as the carbon. methane aspect, but they are huge efforts which, if they had unintended consequences, could really screw things up.

Bruce, although you raise good points, I am not clear on the reason for your hostility. The correlation with temperature versus human carbon injection is pretty close, and even though that does not prove we are a major contributing factor, it certainly suggests you should not throw the possibility out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 08:42 PM

"computer models"

Doug, behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 08:34 PM

Frost warnings tonight for parts of Atlantic Canada. Damn global warming.............................

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM

TIA...obviously, great minds DO think alike... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

"...move populations to where they will not be flooded out...."

Have you done THAT calculation? Where would you suggest Bangladesh go? The Himalayas?

And Florida? and New Orleans... and Singapore?

Would you like the job of sorting that out?

Well, the 'move' will be gradual, but even that will require **reduction** in population...and telling any groups they must limit their families is..... tricky.

We MUST assume that it is possible to both limit warming AND reduce populations...the benefits will be great even **IF** warming is not serious...(but don't bet on the basis of local fluctuations in Arizona)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Key word - leverage

Methane may be a more effective greenhouse gas, but if increasing atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature a little, which causes permafrost melting, which generates methane, which raises the temperature a *lot*. Where is the point in that chain where humans have (or maybe *had*) leverage on the whole phenomenon?

Due only partly to politically-motivated nay-saying, we may be well past the point where that leverage can do anything.

And wholesale moving of populations? Wow, talk about expensive and disruptive. Shall we move all of the Southeast Asians to your neighborhood?

I will take the Pacific Islanders.

Any volunteers for the Southern Europeans (yes Europe) where the climate may no longer be able to support even subsistence agriculture?

Oh yes, and Africa?.....

All maybe not in my lifetime, but surely in my kids'.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:19 PM

My point has been that the problem is to adapt to the global warming, and move populations to where they will not be flooded out, as opposed to the Gore method of standing there saying it should be stopped, so we should not adjust to it- rather we should destroy the world's economy to make a futile effort to stop what will happen regardless.

But I don't expect those here that are on the bandwagon to consider that...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:16 PM

"The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions."

So, you do not have full faith and allegiance in the Gospal according to Gore???


I pointed out that carbon ( dioxcide ) is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses, and efforts to eliminate global warming by dealing only, or even primarily with it would fail.

Water vapor and methane are far more significant as greehouse gasses, and all the efforts have been ignoring them.


Now, tell me again about why the polar ice cap on Mars is shrinking, and the atmosphere of Jupiter is changing significantly over a short time scale- Perhaps the sun really is the variable star that astrophysicists have said it was, and all of King Gore's orders will not keep the tide of global warming from rolling in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:08 PM

From New Scientist, March 09:

" AM shocked, truly shocked," says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them."
The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them

Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. "Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It's unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing."
No summer ice

The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.

Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of catastrophic.

Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that wasn't bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.
Runaway warming

The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost...."

---

That seems to answer the question, doesn't it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

DougR - there is a big difference between "climate" and "weather", and I think you are mixing the two in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM

Yes, Amos, I read the newspapers too.

Arizona had the coolest June since 1913. Our first 115 degree day is expected this coming weekend. There are other publicized reports that the earth has been cooling, not warming for past few years.

Have you "believers" ever considered the consequences that would result from the proponents of man caused global warming being wrong? Most of us won't know whether they are or not of course because they are projecting climate 30, 40, 50 years into the future. Meanwhile governments are forcing changes upon businesses and individuals that are very costly and might not be necessary.

When scientist can guarantee that six months from now, on any certain day, the temperature will be ___, the humidity will be ____ and it will, or will not rain, I'll be a bit more accepting of the current guesses. And that's all they are, guesses from computer models (of course computers are never wrong ...right?)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 11:34 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arctic sea ice has thinned dramatically since 2004, with the older, thicker ice giving way to a younger, thinner kind that melts in the northern summer, NASA scientists reported on Tuesday.

Researchers have known for years that ice covering in the Arctic Sea has been shrinking in area, but new satellite data that measure the thickness of ice show that the volume of sea ice is declining as well.

That is important because thicker ice is more resilient and can last from summer to summer. Without ice cover, the Arctic Sea's dark waters absorb the sun's heat more readily instead of reflecting it as the light-colored ice does, accelerating the heating effect.

Using NASA's ICESat spacecraft, scientists figured that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 7 inches a year since 2004, for a total of 2.2 feet over four winters. Their findings were reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The total area covered by thicker, older ice that has survived at least one summer shrank by 42 percent.

Beyond that, the new satellite data showed that the proportion of tough old ice is decreasing at the same time as the amount of young fragile ice is increasing, information that was hard to discern from earlier data.

LOSING THE OLD ICE

In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic's total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice and 38 percent in first-year seasonal ice. By last year, 68 percent was first-year ice and 32 percent the tougher multi-year ice.

The research team blamed these changes on recent warming and anomalies in sea ice circulation.

"We're losing a lot more of the old ice, and that's significant," said Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "Basically we knew how much the area (of ice) was shrinking, but we didn't know how thick it was."

To find the volume of ice, NASA's ICESat spacecraft measured how high the ice rose above sea level in the Arctic, Kwok said in a telephone interview.

"If we know how much is floating on top, we can use that to compute the rest of the ice thickness," Kwok said in a telephone interview. About nine-tenths of the ice is beneath the water, he said.

The ICESat measurements cover virtually the entire Arctic, and they tally with ice volume measurements made by submarines, which cover only a few passes across the area.

Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level last year, rising slightly from its all-time low in 2007, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic ice is a factor in global climate and weather patterns, because the difference between the cool air at the poles and the warm air around the Equator drives air and water currents, including the jet stream. (Scientific AMerican)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Art Thieme
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:06 PM

It went back to get more heat!

(A pparaphrase of Kendall's answer to the question, "So, where is the glacier now?" Answer: "It went back for more rocks!!"

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

"chili today and hot tomale"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:59 PM

OK. You got my attention. Y'eat it hot? As in HOT? Or just hot as in warm or mild?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

"You make REAL chili?"

Well, "yes" if you include the kind with beans.

Starts with...
          1 lb    dry red kidney beans (Wal*Mart, cheap)
          1 lb.    finely diced chuck steak (all fat removed)
          28 oz can of Hunt's diced stewed tomatoes
          some   Gebhardt's chili powder

After that, it varies.

Actually, Q is probably the top chili man on Mudcat, but did come from New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:40 PM

Indeed, McGrath,,, you can find a 'scientist' who will affirm that humans lived beside dinosaurs if you look a bit....



300!!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:30 PM

It seems that there are many other reputable scientists who also question the evidence too.

Well, by definition all scientists are committed to question evidence - that's what evidence is for, and that's what scientists do.

But the suggestion that, having questioned the evidence, "many reputable scientists" think that the case is not proved that there is already substantial climatic change with worse to come, and that human activity is contributing dangerously to this - well, it just is not true. It really isn't.

Remember how for years there were efforts to claim that smoking didn't cause cancer? There were always a few "reputable scientists" ready to back up that fallacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Zen
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM

Lecturing the knowledegeable folks in the science community is as silly as truck driver lecturing judge Stevens about constitutional law.

So why are you doing the same to some of us scientists pdq?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:12 PM

You make REAL chili?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

Right now, my stove has a pot of chili.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

I figure the global is warming on the stove.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

Alice: I googled the same site that you did. There were over 14,000 sites related to that subject. I'm a bit puzzled about why you chose the American Bar Association's website information. What am I missing? I saw nothing there that related to the information from the Wall Street Journal that I posted.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM

To make it more clear, 360 PPM (parts per million) means that "for each molecule of CO₂ there are 27 molecules of something else" in Earth's atmosphere.

Assume that we (people) are resposible for half the CO₂ (not really proven), then about 55 out of 56 molecules in Earth's atmosphere are not our responsibility.

If we cut CO₂ emissions by 10%, that would reduce anthropogenic CO₂ by "one molecule out of every 550". Of no concequence at all, except for the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:01 PM

...from the article Alice in Montana cited:


"If anyone is keeping a scorecard of the winners and losers in this case, without a doubt, the climatologists who have been trying to warn the general public and policymakers for years about the seriousness of global warming must feel vindicated. They are the big winners, as we all are. One can almost see Justice Stevens giving an approving nod to James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, when he begins the opinion:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a 'greenhouse gas.'"


John Paul Stevens is an 89 year old senile lawyer who has no background in this subject. Lecturing the knowledegeable folks in the science community is as silly as truck driver lecturing judge Stevens about constitutional law.

BTW, CO2 is about 370 parts per million in the atmosphere and is therefore of little consequence compared to H2O, another "greenhouse gas".

So, BAN WATER Mr. Stevens, as long as you are being so silly. Or at least declare it "pollution" it and be consistent.