Explain to me how CO2 can trap heat. I do not believe it possible and need proof.

It sort of is the same story: People rejecting science because its findings are troubling

I completely agree with TomB666! I have been following this lunacy since taking science classes at a college years ago and discussing the just beginning trend to call it global warming. The dept. head did not buy the hype. I continued to follow the writing of Tom DeWeese who went to the same high school I did. Then I began reading Dr. Ileana Paugh, and how even Romania, her former home, was beginning set back by Agenda 21.I can't believe anyone still listens to journalism major Gore on anything! It is so clear the science of the alarmists was skewed for the purpose of getting grant money by pleasing the one world globalists. It is all about getting control of every aspect of our lives via the environment. It is not about saving anyone, except the power and fortunes of the elite.

So you are taking the same position most lay people took around 1,400 regarding heliocentricism. Maybe you should change your signto "CatholicGuy".

No. I am not a climate scientist. I am only aware of what climate science knows. If there is a massive conspiracy within science, I will be misled. This is why science, by its nature, invites new evidence and new theories. It's why we accept scientific theories but don't believe them as religious people believe.

The massive conspiracy view reminds me of people with a grave disease who do research on their own and conclude big pharma has engineered a conspiracy surrounding their illness and it actually can be treated with homeopathic remedies. "Show me the evidence that Western (they mean science-based) medicine is correct. Show me abstracts from peer-reviewed oncology journals." I don't know what to tell them. If there's a conspiracy that can be found out easily by a dilettante reading the abstracts, then everything I know is wrong. Maybe there's a massive conspiracy, and they've figured it out.

We have had this discussion before. You assert a), but do not defend it. Statistics shows an anthropogenic component, but I assert you can not show science. Show me.

I love scientific breakthroughs and it would be doubly great if a breakthrough showed something hugely desirable to humankind, in this case that carbon emissions do not have a costly impact on the environment. I actually think something like that could happen, as in the case of discovery of evidence butter is more healthful than margarine. It will not happen in the form of discovery scientists are a bunch of whores. That's childish. It will come from anomalies adding up, and someone finding a theory that explains them. As Asimov said it's less "eureka" and more "that's funny..."

An argument for what claim? My only claim is a) the science shows a significant anthropogenic component to global warming and b) making up a non-existent "controversy" is a way of avoiding the facts.

TomB666, I completely agree with you

Me too. Bwahahaha!

Guys never worked an honest day in his life! Even in Vietnam as an enlisted man, he had his own personal bodyguard because of his powerful old man! Not the brightest bulb on the tree either, just knows how to play the Rubes for the fools they are!

Very good! like the imagery......

I wouldn't have my eye on just the clown but the pathetically gullible also.
We definitely have a gene pool problem to be addressed atop Aztec and Mayan pyramids.

He would recognized telling other people what to think. That's the only work he knows--
--besides leaving a carbon trail while a pilot works at flying his royal butt around in a private jet.

The models used that predict global warming are not reliable. Study chaos theory and you will see why. Milankovitch cycles approximate past temperature changes over thousands of years. The Cranbrook Institute of Science in Bloomfield, Michigan provides an interactive model that illustrates this. Enjoy.

Spot on! There has been way too much hype with very little "real" empirical data (anything that does not support the "preferred" side is totally disregarded and not factored into any of the protocols that would constitute "good" science.

What empirical data are you using for your argument?

I assume that includes the fact that The French and Russian scientists who discovered that an ice coring going back over 10,000 years (or was the coring the deepest coring going down 10,000ft?) showing the instances of global warming (cyclic) and the happenstance of CO2 increases?

If you are familiar with this recent report, you will now know that the rise in CO2 only came AFTER the rise in the earth's temperature.

This does stand what the "Man-made" Global Warming/Climate Change have been asserting. I guess now these Science "whores" (sorry, did not intend to demean a profession that actually produces something for a profit) will have to "defend" their (pardon the expression - "Junk" science) with a better empirical approach.

I can't wait to see a real debate on this issue!

How about some clown making millions (if not billions) on selling "Carbon Tax Credits" to the pathetically gullible?......

Based on all the bogus claims made about so-called global warming, you might just as well flip a coin to determine global temperatures. Or stick a wet finger in the air. Or stick it somewhere else.

You still have produced facts or an argument.

He's a rich looter thus a rich for a huge inconvenient sacrifice from a lib point of view.
The angry with polluting humans sun god would be deemed thoroughly pleased for appeased.
Otherwise for everyone else, his sacrifice would just be good riddance to foul oral emissions.
As if the sun could care.

Would Algore recognize work?

Would Al Gore work ??

Fivedollargold's electric bill was $23 last month due to unusually rainy weather.