On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:58:08 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:38:39 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:33:51 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course,
picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the
majority of the models show the average increase in temperature
following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor
of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that
will bring.

None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X
as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years
are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now.

The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever
has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts

From the authoritative site you provide for us:

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent,
grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades
of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and
to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always
have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"

Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate
change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the
site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by
someone who actually knows something about this issue.

There is nothing like slinging mud, calling names and changing the subject
when it comes to responding to an argument you can't deal with.

I went to the site you referenced. Read it extensively. Quoted it's
mandate. The "experts" are not. If that's mud-slinging and name-calling
in your neck of the woods, I can't help you. The empirical evidence has
been collected since the 50's. Current empirical evidence, such as the
world-wide recession of glaciers, melting of Antarctic and Greenland
ice-shelves, loss of Arctic sea ice etc. is there for all to see. The
rise in atmospheric CO2 -far beyond historical levels- parallels the
expansion of human industrial activity since the mid-1800's. This isn't
rocket science. It isn't about retarded American political animosities.
It's about us clever tool-making monkeys, ****ting, ****ing and farting
in own beds and food bowls. Pull your head out of your arse. Now why
don't you and Karen cozy up and have a nice conversation about the lack of
curvature in the earth's surface.

The subject is CO2 levels, not the behaviour of glaciers. We seem to
have have 180 years of atmospheric analysis which is being ignored.
Your polemics will not change that fact.



Eric Stevens