NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

'The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average'
Global 'warming' at a glance (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm)
In other words, ancedotal evidence provided by so called environmentalists (who more often than not seem more interested in denying modernism to the third world and promoting socialism in the modern world) is bunk.

Here is more:

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/conclusions.html

"So, what can we really say with any certainty about all of this? There seem to be a lot of good reasons to question the theory of global warming, and I think I will just leave it at that. There are lots of reasons why we should still be concerned about the way we are treating our planet, but it's possible that a fear of global warming may not be one of them"

Sorry chicken little - the sky is not falling. You'll have to try something new to try to scare people with.

Maybe this? ------> http://www.iceagenow.com/

Ah, we finally see another thread by someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

Fine. Whatever. Don't think about the possibility. Don't care about the world. Base everything on this topic and thread and a few measly links.

Damn right I don't read the articles!

Ah, we finally see another thread by someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Of course you know better, oh great and wise one :rolleyes:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

'The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average'
Global 'warming' at a glance (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm)
In other words, ancedotal evidence provided by so called environmentalists (who more often than not seem more interested in denying modernism to the third world and promoting socialism in the modern world) is bunk.

Here is more:

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/conclusions.html

"So, what can we really say with any certainty about all of this? There seem to be a lot of good reasons to question the theory of global warming, and I think I will just leave it at that. There are lots of reasons why we should still be concerned about the way we are treating our planet, but it's possible that a fear of global warming may not be one of them"

Sorry chicken little - the sky is not falling. You'll have to try something new to try to scare people with.

Maybe this? ------> http://www.iceagenow.com/

Wasn't this debated and factored in and still found that we are fucking the world over anyway?

Of course you know better, oh great and wise one :rolleyes:
I didn't say that; I'm just saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. There is something happening with our climate; it's a Climate Change. We have to acknowledge that it exists.

In my opinion global warming is occuring, no doubt. But I seriously doubt that humanity is the cause, or even a major cause. There are too many other causes to really be that egotistical.

Well, I often, though this can be a mistake, judge people on how many times they have posted. 4? *Uncomfortable glance*....Even if the person who wrote these articales are right, the greenhouse effect has already been proven true (though many are confused, global warming and the greenhouse effect are two completely different things)...

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/conclusions.html

"So, what can we really say with any certainty about all of this? There seem to be a lot of good reasons to question the theory of global warming, and I think I will just leave it at that. There are lots of reasons why we should still be concerned about the way we are treating our planet, but it's possible that a fear of global warming may not be one of them"


This is debunking?? Reads more like typical scientific hedgebetting.
No we are not saying that the planet is or is not getting warmer, but we should take care of the planet anyway. It may not be getting warmer, but then it may. We have reasons to doubt the theory, but the theory has reasons upon which it is based. Duh. I dunno nutin.

Pollution is bad. anything that reduces pollution (without worse side effects) is worth doing.

Ah, we finally see another thread by someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Well, considering my thread is less than five minutes old I can presume that either you are an incredibly fast speed reader, or you didn't bother to read the information I provided via hyperlink. If you neglected to look up the information I provided (either out of lazy or avoiding threats to your own preconceptions) then it is you who has no factual base to stand on in your criticism of the content of the message. Therefore, in the context of this post, it is indeed you who has no idea what you are talking about.

Fine. Whatever. Don't think about the possibility. Don't care about the world. Base everything on this topic and thread and a few measly links.

Damn right I don't read the articles!

Who needs facts when you have opinions!

Who needs facts when you have opinions!
Who needs opinions when your the one with the bat?

Wasn't this debated and factored in and still found that we are fucking the world over anyway?
now there is a fine bit of insight. Why bother to consider facts on our own when people who tell us they are smarter than us already have and even told us what to think about them. You would make a good ditto-head.

Well, considering my thread is less than five minutes old I can presume that either you are an incredibly fast speed reader, or you didn't bother to read the information I provided via hyperlink. If you neglected to look up the information I provided (either out of lazy or avoiding threats to your own preconceptions) then it is you who has no factual base to stand on in your criticism of the content of the message. Therefore, in the context of this post, it is indeed you who has no idea what you are talking about.
I am a speed reader, and I can safely say that that was not a debunking; it was a summery of opinions. And your attempts at impressing me with the way you word your posts didn't work.

I didn't say that; I'm just saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. There is something happening with our climate; it's a Climate Change. We have to acknowledge that it exists.
Nobody is arguing that there is climate change, if you had bothered to read thi provided links you'd know that. Now, go back to your quiet ignorance if you don't want to consider all of the possibilities and actually read the data provided.

Goodness, I am so sick of this. I have explained it so many god-fecking times I can not be bothered to do this. I apologise for such hostility, but my reaction to people who say that global warming is a myth, this is my reaction: :upyours:

Well, I often, though this can be a mistake, judge people on how many times they have posted. 4? *Uncomfortable glance*....Even if the person who wrote these articales are right, the greenhouse effect has already been proven true (though many are confused, global warming and the greenhouse effect are two completely different things)...
You would be correct in presuming it a mistake to consider # of posts, particularly when the author is able to make valid points, use valid links and even HTML in their post. Maybe someone took a vacation and their nation died. Maybe someone got tired of their name. Or maybe you really DON'T get smarter with the number of posts you make. I think your post count will attest to that.

Nobody is arguing that there is climate change, if you had bothered to read thi provided links you'd know that. Now, go back to your quiet ignorance if you don't want to consider all of the possibilities and actually read the data provided.

Do you have any actual opinions of your own or do you just rely on other people to express your opinions for you? You haven't actually made any salient points; you've just posted a few links and then proceeded to call anyone who disagrees with those links a sheep.

You would be correct in presuming it a mistake to consider # of posts, particularly when the author is able to make valid points, use valid links and even HTML in their post. Maybe someone took a vacation and their nation died. Maybe someone got tired of their name. Or maybe you really DON'T get smarter with the number of posts you make. I think your post count will attest to that.
You know, even if you had an argument, your insults have shot it out from under you. No one will listen to what you have to say now.

Nobody is arguing that there is climate change, if you had bothered to read thi provided links you'd know that. Now, go back to your quiet ignorance if you don't want to consider all of the possibilities and actually read the data provided.

You trust data that clearly sets itself against the encyclopedia on the shelf next to me, the data on Britannica, and the data of the water rising due to the melting of the ice caps because of global warming?

No matter how much proof you throw at the EnviroNazis, they won't believe you. Hey, they used to talk about "Global Cooling". Now it's "Global Warming".

now there is a fine bit of insight. Why bother to consider facts on our own when people who tell us they are smarter than us already have and even told us what to think about them. You would make a good ditto-head.
Where'd these mysterious 'people who tell us they are smarter than us' come in? He said that we're destroying the environment whether or not global warming is occuring. Which seems to have little to do with being a "ditto-head"...

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm


Note that there is a directory in the URL entitled news. This would lead you to think that the content is at least recent, however the source is the Wall Street Journal from 1997, 8 years ago. Hardly news.

This is debunking?? Reads more like typical scientific hedgebetting.
No we are not saying that the planet is or is not getting warmer, but we should take care of the planet anyway. It may not be getting warmer, but then it may. We have reasons to doubt the theory, but the theory has reasons upon which it is based. Duh. I dunno nutin.

Pollution is bad. anything that reduces pollution (without worse side effects) is worth doing.
Well, you get points for trying at least. Next time try reading the whole article in context. You may find the supporting facts considerable.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would consider pollution a good thing. The question is at what point does cleanup reach the point of diminishing return. The claim that the entire earth environment hangs in the balance is fear mongering in a feeble attempt to camouflage the point of diminished return.

"SCHWARTZ: Look, we want to urgently slow down abrupt climate change. We need to develop--as rapidly as possible--options for clean fuels, in particular, hydrogen and nuclear." (PopSci pg.3)

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,638224,00.html

also

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,955496,00.html

I trust them more.

"SCHWARTZ: Look, we want to urgently slow down abrupt climate change. We need to develop--as rapidly as possible--options for clean fuels, in particular, hydrogen and nuclear." (PopSci pg.3)

yeah nuclear is so much better *dumps toxic wastes*

I am a speed reader, and I can safely say that that was not a debunking; it was a summery of opinions. And your attempts at impressing me with the way you word your posts didn't work.
If I wanted to impress you I'd tattoo Gore onto my arse and fart Fleetwood Mac tunes.

If you are such a wonderous speedreader then you'd know what 'heat-island effect' describes.

I'll give you a while to answer that while you 'speed read' the answer.

yeah nuclear is so much better *dumps toxic wastes*
Fusion, I believe it meant, not fission. And Hydrogen would refer to fuel cells.

If I wanted to impress you I'd tattoo Gore onto my arse and fart Fleetwood Mac tunes.

If you are such a wonderous speedreader then you'd know what 'heat-island effect' describes.

I'll give you a while to answer that while you 'speed read' the answer.
Frankly, you're wasting my time. I'm not going to convince you, and I'm not going to bother. *slams the I.G.N.O.R.E. button*

No matter how much proof you throw at the EnviroNazis, they won't believe you. Hey, they used to talk about "Global Cooling". Now it's "Global Warming".
Ooh, so now we turn to slander! Yippee!

I would believe that it would be a good idea to be respectful if you wish your opinions to be heard and your nation to stay in existence. As I believe the forum rules state...

Goodness, I am so sick of this. I have explained it so many god-fecking times I can not be bothered to do this. I apologise for such hostility, but my reaction to people who say that global warming is a myth, this is my reaction: :upyours:
And my reation to people who would rather stick blindly to their opinions without considering facts that could demonstrate them incorrect is this:

:rolleyes:

Okay, here's what bothers me with the cats that think that mere humans cannot effect the enviroment. L.A.. They have clean air warnings, days where it's not all that safe to breath the fucking air.

But, of course, since you can site that at another point in history where the weather has fluctuated we can continue piling into our H2s unabated.

Try this if you live in an urban area. Look up. That ain't right. Surely you can see that if nothing else.

Do you have any actual opinions of your own or do you just rely on other people to express your opinions for you? You haven't actually made any salient points; you've just posted a few links and then proceeded to call anyone who disagrees with those links a sheep.
I've expressed my opinion and provided links to fact to back it up. If you are unfamiliar with the use of facts that is your problem, no mine.

I've expressed my opinion and provided links to fact to back it up. If you are unfamiliar with the use of facts that is your problem, no mine.
Although, the sheep-calling has certainly been happening...

You know, even if you had an argument, your insults have shot it out from under you. No one will listen to what you have to say now.
I really don't have a desire to communicate with people unwilling to consider research from reliable sources and have a meaningful discussion about its ramifications. If someone is more interested in discussing my post count here instead of the topic at hand then they apparently lack the capacity for a discussion of this depth. I would not consider the forfeit of their attention a bad thing.

I didn't know "global warming" had to do with the sky .... somehow - and I may be mistaken - I got the impression it had more to do with oceanic salinity/temperature.

Why are the articles all about atmospheric temps?

Facts, are generally accepted peices of evidence. THese are not generally accepted, therefore your arguement is nill. It's total non-sense. Why dont' you go dump your refrigerator somewhere, I mean, it won't do anything, it's only CFCs!

I really don't have a desire to communicate with people unwilling to consider research from reliable sources and have a meaningful discussion about its ramifications. If someone is more interested in discussing my post count here instead of the topic at hand then they apparently lack the capacity for a discussion of this depth. I would not consider the forfeit of their attention a bad thing.
I believe what PIcaRMDPCia was saying is this:
"Don't flame people or nobody will listen to you".

You trust data that clearly sets itself against the encyclopedia on the shelf next to me, the data on Britannica, and the data of the water rising due to the melting of the ice caps because of global warming?
I provided links to credible fact and all you can do is ignore it then tell me that you read about it somewhere' so I must be wrong?
Gee, soo glad you could contribute.

No matter how much proof you throw at the EnviroNazis, they won't believe you. Hey, they used to talk about "Global Cooling". Now it's "Global Warming".
No name calling here. If we are to have a thoughtful discussion here there is no room for myopia of any kind. Just because the contect of the post backs your own political predisposition does not validate your overall opinion. Try to contribute something meaningful rather than insult people who may have different conclusions. So far there is not enough data to proove either opinion correct. The true ignorance is to draw a conclusion (of either sort) before the facts are known.

While Global Warming may be a myth, using CAPS LOCK in the title isn't that supportive.

However, you do realize why pollution is bad right? Or do you think that it is a coincidence that people in Toronto in Summertime have to have smog warnings and have people having serious problems with asthema in, areas with lots of factories that pumping smoke into the air?

I provided links to credible fact and all you can do is ignore it then tell me that you read about it somewhere' so I must be wrong?
Gee, soo glad you could contribute.
Wait, wait, hold up a sec.

He said that the Encyclopaedia Britannica and his personal encyclopaedia have evidence otherwise. Where's the alleged ignoring?

Oh, and last time I checked, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica wasn't just "somewhere".

Where'd these mysterious 'people who tell us they are smarter than us' come in? He said that we're destroying the environment whether or not global warming is occuring. Which seems to have little to do with being a "ditto-head"...
let me give you a push start here - finish the sentence then ask "according to whom" and you'll find those people. You will find it is likely someone who heard it from someone who read about it in the encyclopedia. Surrendering your opinion to other people without considering checking the facts for yourself (or intentionally avoiding facts that may proove contrary to your belief system) is something that ditto-heads do.

Look guys, this is becomming flame bait, if a war dosnt start out soon, mellow out.
Yelling at people isnt a way to effectively argue...

let me give you a push start here - finish the sentence then ask "according to whom" and you'll find those people. You will find it is likely someone who heard it from someone who read about it in the encyclopedia. Surrendering your opinion to other people without considering checking the facts for yourself (or intentionally avoiding facts that may proove contrary to your belief system) is something that ditto-heads do.
I would say that we definately aren't improving the environment much, either way. Which is what I believe the post you are responding to said as well.

Let me get this straight, are you saying by the response to it that the environment is not being damaged by humans, or just saying "check your facts"?

Facts, are generally accepted peices of evidence. THese are not generally accepted, therefore your arguement is nill. It's total non-sense. Why dont' you go dump your refrigerator somewhere, I mean, it won't do anything, it's only CFCs!
So then, at what point in history do you think the world actually became round? It must have been so since it was not widely accepted at first.

BZZZT! Try again. Facts don't need acceptance. They are facts.

I believe what PIcaRMDPCia was saying is this:
"Don't flame people or nobody will listen to you".
If you consider that a flame then we need to get this forum some reality pills. Insisting on sticking to the topic at hand is hardly a flame. Maybe disparaging someone’s credibility based on their post count is, but then, that wasn’t me now, was it.

I don't understand why people dismiss global warming, implying that emmission controls are pointless.

These gases effect your health DIRECTLY anyway. Asthma cases exploded since the 50's all because of air quality. Buildings are rotting faster. The shit is corrosive!

The health reasons alone are justification enough for limiting 'greenhouse gases'. If the effect on the planet is too sketchy for you to grasp or accept than how about realizing that the stuff is affecting your life right now and supporting emmission reduction is in your own self-interest.

If you consider that a flame then we need to get this forum some reality pills. Insisting on sticking to the topic at hand is hardly a flame. Maybe disparaging someone’s credibility based on their post count is, but then, that wasn’t me now, was it.
I think we can, at this point, disparage based on post count, bulk of post content, and saying your nations name outloud.

Given those factors all together we can, with confidence, determine you are a flaming troll. You started with a legitimate thread topic and then started circling the bowl. Nice job.

look, guys! credible fact! (http://www.esquilax.com/elvis/index.shtml)

Other facts you might be interested in:

CARCINOGENITY OF TOBACCO IS AN ABSURD LIBERAL MYTH!

and also

HOLOCAUST DEBUNKED - IN ACTUALITY THE JEWS COMMITTED SUICIDE!

An oil mafia setting the U.S. policy and official truth on emission controls - talk about a goat guarding the cabbage patch...

really? i never knew that about the jews. too bad you don't have credible fact! (http://www.crazynews.net/dp/1-48.htm)

also:
:rolleyes: :sniper:

really? i never knew that about the jews. too bad you don't have credible fact! (http://www.crazynews.net/dp/1-48.htm)

also:
:rolleyes: :sniper:
I'm going to take a flying guess and say the post you responded to was a joke.

These gases effect your health DIRECTLY anyway. Asthma cases exploded since the 50's all because of air quality. Buildings are rotting faster. The shit is corrosive!

Uhhh... speaking of 'corrosive'... you do realise oxygen is highly corrosive too, right? Corrosive-ness doesn't automatically = 'evil omg kill it'
Just something that came to mind while reading your post (probably not worth replying to, since it's obvious that by corrosive you meant 'bad for humans')

Asthma cases might have 'exploded' because either it became easier to diagnose, or a more effective medicine was found which prompted people to bother getting diagnosed... or that population increased... whatever.

Remember kids: statistics can support anything you like if you ignore the context and compounding variables effecting the data!

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

'The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average'
Global 'warming' at a glance (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm)
In other words, ancedotal evidence provided by so called environmentalists (who more often than not seem more interested in denying modernism to the third world and promoting socialism in the modern world) is bunk.

Here is more:

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/conclusions.html

"So, what can we really say with any certainty about all of this? There seem to be a lot of good reasons to question the theory of global warming, and I think I will just leave it at that. There are lots of reasons why we should still be concerned about the way we are treating our planet, but it's possible that a fear of global warming may not be one of them"

Sorry chicken little - the sky is not falling. You'll have to try something new to try to scare people with.

Maybe this? ------> http://www.iceagenow.com/

Oh my God...Bush's stupidity is catching!!! :eek:

Just read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. His data is usually accurate.

Oh my God...Bush's stupidity is catching!!! :eek:
John Hopkins University and the University of Alabama: the epitome of total retardation......

Well, I often, though this can be a mistake, judge people on how many times they have posted. 4? *Uncomfortable glance*....

Excellent, well I have more posts than you, so I can safely ignore your post ;) :D

OK, all kidding and blantant ignorance aside, lets look at the facts.
:headbang:
Like it or not facts do NOT have to be agreed with to be in fact FACTUAL.
(no pun intended)

Let's start by debunking/dismissing some of the data.

Obviously Ice Age Now (http://www.iceagenow.com/) was intended as crap. The author kept talking about the precession of the equinoxes being the time scale for the global calamity, but coulded keep the numbers straight on how long this was.(none of the numbers was correct)

The Ice Core Temp (http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/images/vostok_data.jpg) data was kinda of obvious really when you think about it. Doesn't your soda lose fizz, aka carbon dioxide, as it gets warmer?

So this leaves us with two links left, incidentally both are from the same site.
Some raw data (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm)
and the Conlusions (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)

The data was interesting. It does show in more detail than mainstream news how much flux there is, but even here you can see the upward trend.

As several people here have stated, statistics can be manipulated. Just look at our President Bush, who thinks that things are still going good in Iraq. Sure if the stats your looking at are Corporate Profits. You can find facts to support any conclusion you want. These guys set out to find what they needed to "prove" global warming wrong. But there pasty thin documentation is less conclusive than most conspiracy theories.

example "Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives."

Where the hell did that come from?! Their temperature data suddenly gave them insight into geo-politics, health, and social behavior? They're CHEMISTS for crying out loud.

"So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects."

I would say after the Tsunami... we need to worry about environmental calamities. And would someone please tell me the name of that wonderful scientist who was nice enough to take the global mean temperature 3000 years ago. And where can I buy an ancient weather balloon?

Come on, this report was even paid for by Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
So, the people who OWN the Dow Jones Industrial Stock Board have conveniently compiled the science to prove that it is OK to burn fossil fuels. Interesting to note where all the OIL COMPANIES list their stock isn't it?

Excellent, well I have more posts than you, so I can safely ignore your post ;) :D

Now you know why I usually ignore yours :D

Now you know why I usually ignore yours :D Here I was thinking that you just thought my opinions were stupid ;)

Here I was thinking that you just thought my opinions were stupid ;)

haha I told my sister about how libertarians want us to be able to carry around tasers and stuff and she said 'Man, imagine all the libertarians I could taser. We could make the first week of march open-season..'

haha I told my sister about how libertarians want us to be able to carry around tasers and stuff and she said 'Man, imagine all the libertarians I could taser. We could make the first week of march open-season..'

We'd be too damn hard to find, considering how few of us there are :)

I just won't tell you where the meetings are :D

P.S No tazering smiley :mad:

Look guys, this is becomming flame bait, if a war dosnt start out soon, mellow out.
Yelling at people isnt a way to effectively argue...

I don't think this person reads these boards very often....

Who needs facts when you have opinions!

Neither fact on your side nor opinion on theirs, theory.

Yes a lot of the original research done on global climate change was a bit shoddy, but as luck sometimes has it they were actually on to something. Yes a good deal of climate change can come from fluctuations in solar energy and mass out put, and even the minor variations in the earths orbit.

With all things taken into consideration, it is the considered opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community that we are screwing ourselves. In fact we are screwing ourselves so fast that Queen Elizabeth (heavily invested in fossil fuels) and President Bush (owned by the oil industry) have finally admitted that Global warming is a problem just late last year.

Of course there is some debate still regarding the possibility of this triggering an Ice Age due to the break down of the Gulf Stream from the melting North Polar Ice Cap. Regardless of the many scenarios for global warming it's going to be disruptive and it's going to be bad.

I would say that we definately aren't improving the environment much, either way. Which is what I believe the post you are responding to said as well.

Let me get this straight, are you saying by the response to it that the environment is not being damaged by humans, or just saying "check your facts"?
you are correct on count number two.

The government has shown their disapproval of "global warming". We must not fall prey to the lies of the traitors.

OK, all kidding and blantant ignorance aside, lets look at the facts.
:headbang:
Like it or not facts do NOT have to be agreed with to be in fact FACTUAL.
(no pun intended)

Let's start by debunking/dismissing some of the data.

Obviously Ice Age Now (http://www.iceagenow.com/) was intended as crap. The author kept talking about the precession of the equinoxes being the time scale for the global calamity, but coulded keep the numbers straight on how long this was.(none of the numbers was correct)

The Ice Core Temp (http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/images/vostok_data.jpg) data was kinda of obvious really when you think about it. Doesn't your soda lose fizz, aka carbon dioxide, as it gets warmer?

So this leaves us with two links left, incidentally both are from the same site.
Some raw data (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm)
and the Conlusions (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)

The data was interesting. It does show in more detail than mainstream news how much flux there is, but even here you can see the upward trend.

As several people here have stated, statistics can be manipulated. Just look at our President Bush, who thinks that things are still going good in Iraq. Sure if the stats your looking at are Corporate Profits. You can find facts to support any conclusion you want. These guys set out to find what they needed to "prove" global warming wrong. But there pasty thin documentation is less conclusive than most conspiracy theories.

example "Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives."

Where the hell did that come from?! Their temperature data suddenly gave them insight into geo-politics, health, and social behavior? They're CHEMISTS for crying out loud.

"So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects."

I would say after the Tsunami... we need to worry about environmental calamities. And would someone please tell me the name of that wonderful scientist who was nice enough to take the global mean temperature 3000 years ago. And where can I buy an ancient weather balloon?

Come on, this report was even paid for by Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
So, the people who OWN the Dow Jones Industrial Stock Board have conveniently compiled the science to prove that it is OK to burn fossil fuels. Interesting to note where all the OIL COMPANIES list their stock isn't it?
Finally, someone capable of reading and speaking intelligently about the topic at hand. Rather than point out the shortcomings of your analysis I am instead going to thank you for being the first person in five pages with a post that is worthy of reading and response. Pleae, buy yourself a drink and pretend it is from me. You have restored my hope that a stimulating discussion could be found here.

Thank you.

you are correct on count number two.
Ah, I understand now.
Thank you.

Uhhh... speaking of 'corrosive'... you do realise oxygen is highly corrosive too, right? Corrosive-ness doesn't automatically = 'evil omg kill it'
Just something that came to mind while reading your post (probably not worth replying to, since it's obvious that by corrosive you meant 'bad for humans')

Asthma cases might have 'exploded' because either it became easier to diagnose, or a more effective medicine was found which prompted people to bother getting diagnosed... or that population increased... whatever.

Remember kids: statistics can support anything you like if you ignore the context and compounding variables effecting the data!

Let us not forget acid rain :D

100% true documented fact that acid rain exists.