rabble rabble rabble

http://online.wsj.com/...l?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

how dare we increase CO2 emission through childbirth!

http://climate.nasa.gov/...n=ShowNews&NewsID=668

But no... There is no correlation between Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. Not on Earth. And there certainly isn't an example of the effects of excess CO2 in an atmosphere (Venus).

The fact that plants do better in higher CO2 environments than currently exist on Earth is beside the point... Plants also do better in jungles, than arctic tundra; That doesn't mean that expanding the tropics to higher and higher latitudes is good for the species Homo Sapiens. The point is that what is while we live in a symbiotic cycle with the vegetation on our planet, shifting the balance in one direction or the other is not necessarily beneficial to our current means of sustaining life.

And really, fourth paragraph, "Climategate"? Just because conservative media (and yes, WSJ is conservative media) declares it a scandal, attaches a -gate suffix to it, and provides one sentence quotes to totally 100% prove that the actual scandalous materials say what they are made out to say, does not mean that it is a valid scientific argument. In fact, its inclusion should be an automatic flag to take the opinion with a grain of salt. But that's just my opinion....

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

On a more serious note, no climate science skeptic has ever been able to explain how Global Warming is more than an American political invention. Usually what I get is that Global Warming was invented by Al Gore and the Democrats as a means to siphon money from the American Taxpayer to the liberal socialist factories we call Universities.

Seriously. Some people will believe every conspiracy theory Glenn Beck and Orly Taitz will tell them, and then doubt the very scientific method that brought us things like Genetics, Antibiotics, Atomic Theory, and manned space exploration....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...hames-freezing-again.html

We need to have a debate as to whether or not we should pump more CO2 or other materials that can simulate the greenhouse effect into the atmosphere in order to warm the globe. The coming ice-age would be devastating to world food supplies.

That article is somewhat deceptive. Actual global temperatures have increased but not at the rate projected. The ten year marginal lull in increased temps could be due to any number of causes but one likely reason is a dormant period in sun spot activity.

"The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."

What is really much more important than this side-tracked argument over temperature increase is the obvious desertification that has occurred world wide due to industry.

http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/...s/map_fao_soildegrade.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/...e:Desertification_map.png

The article is not deceptive. It does not deny that the temperatures increased. It strongly questions whether the warming is caused by human activities or not. It also questions the reasons behind the preachings of the Church of Global Warming followers. Solyndra, for example.

Aponic, they also covered your subject, here:

how many scientists does it take to opt for a peace prize instead of a nobel for science?
SAVE THE BABY CO2s!

I thought this was all solved back in the 70,s when the ice age was comming.

i think we can all agree that manbearpig is much more of a threat to the human race than globular warming. lets keep our priorities straight and hunt down the manbearpig. im super cereal