Wow anyone who makes the point that Co2 isnt toxic and occurs naturally in our atmosphere is missing the point entirely. The point is that the more Co2 in any atmosphere will increase the temperature. Throughout the history of the universe the more Co2 in a atmosphere the hotter that planet will be because of it. Or we could just ignore science completely. In which case the earth is still flat and the sun is revolving around us.

Just a few things here. First of all, CO2 is not pollution. In fact, it really isn't toxic at all. It is found in our air in concentrations between 0.036% and 0.039%. It causes loss of consciousness when levels reach 8% after five to ten minutes of exposure (this part is actually from the wiki page on CO2, which I found in the works cited of one of the pro global warming pages linked in the conversation). Now at one level it is very hard to me to really get behind somebody who claims that the government is evil and wants to tax us and is spitting out false data in a situation like this. It may be true, but how do we know that they aren't being bribed by "BIG OIL". Their same logic could just be flipped around and used on themselves. I'm not saying that this is the case, all I'm saying is that it just doesn't sound quite right to me. The most important thing you have to keep in mind when getting all excited about global warming is the cost/benefit ratio that comes along with fixing this so called problem. Let us assume for a moment that global warming is real and the worst case scenario takes place. Massive flooding, hurricanes, world wide drought, and whatever else you want to throw on there. Now in this circumstance you would have to think that taking measures to stop global warming is a must! However, you must also look at how effective our efforts will be. From what I know to stop warming you would have to stop the increase in CO2 emissions, which, with our 3rd world countries quickly industrializing, is an almost imposable task. This, remember, doesn't even make a dent in the current CO2 output. Faced with this, the effectiveness of any money we put to fight global warming combined with its economic costs looks far more effective when put towards things like helping the billion people who don't have enough food or the 884 million people who don't have a steady supply of water. This is assuming that global warming will be a bad thing. I know it sounds strange, but think about it for a second. Higher temperatures means more evaporation from the Oceans, which means more rain fall. It would also increase the area of land that can be farmed throughout the world. This isn't science, and there is probably some factor I don't know about that will prove me wrong, but it still makes sense.

A little common sense math to all you global warming cultists out there:

Approximately 6000 "scientists", all which are on government subsidized payrolls (universities, NASA, NOAA, etc.), many members of left wing globalist government organizations, all using questionable models and tactics to make their claims, say there is global warming caused by man, specifically the burning of fossil fuels. All of which say "the debate is over" when no such debate was ever had (a typical requirement for something to be "science"). All of which have very powerful friends in government and the media, which gladly attempt to destroy naysayers by dirty politics rather than science and the scientific method of publishing results to allow others to scrutinize and reproduce the findings. Nope, they just destroy or "alter" the evidence, according to their own email communications.

Now the scientists the say mankind caused global warming is a hoax and a scam number approximately 30,000 with 9000 being PHDs and experts in their fields, most for many decades. Some are former supporters but after seeing the scam and falsified data for what it is, have decided to risk everything to expose the truth. Oddly enough, none of them are on any energy producer's payroll, nor are they associated in any way (even Kevin Bacon style) to any major energy corporations.

If mankind caused Global Warming is so "irrefutable", then why is it every associated organization and political body makes every effort to destroy anyone attempting to expose the hoax instead of letting the "evidence" stand for itself? How does 6000 so-so scientists become the world experts and the end-all-be-all of scientific debate when 30,000 other scientists, most with better reputations than the scammers, and 9000 being PHDs not know what they are doing? How come when a scientific debate is asked for, these 6000 quacks refuse and always spout "the debate is over"? Science is debate and evidence, something the global warming cultists severely lack in. Ask any Paleontologist or Geologist (or any other real scientist) and they will say there is no such thing as "settled science". Something always shows up changing what was once thought to be the "scientific truth".

Something smells.

Oh by the way, it's snowing in the south of France, on the beach! That's like it snowing in San Diego or Miami! In fact, it's at record cold temperatures in many areas of the globe, including Copenhagen!

So get off your little "the oil companies are paying these scientists" crap. They aren't, the scientists are sick of quacks ruining science and turning it into a political religion. Science demands a scientific debate and colleague scrutiny. That's how science works. So far, the global warming "science" has failed numerous scientific tests and has shown to be manufactured or manipulated data. That's not science, it's fanaticism.

I saw something hilarious on the Discovery Channel. Mythbusters had a children's episode and one "experiment" was used to demonstrate the warming effects of CO2. They had a "control" chamber with normal air in it. They also had others with various gases in each chamber, one being CO2. These chambers had an ice sculpture in them and the chamber was made of clear plexiglass. All had a bright light shining in one them. What do you know, the one with CO2 was a whopping 6 degrees warmer!! AHA! It must be true! What I was laughing at was that was 100% CO2, not the 0.0378% that is now part of our atmosphere! It showed that at even 100% CO2, the temperature had only risen to 6 degrees above current atmospheric levels. They think their tests were successful and the brainwashed kids got their pats on the head and their fifteen minutes of fame. What I saw was a catastrophic failure in the theory of CO2 causing multi-temperature rises in earth temperature.

Every claim the Global Warmers make ends up being shown to be false or at the least greatly exaggerated. Like the hottest year on record, NASA admitted that 1998 or 2006 were errors in data, and that it was really in the 1930s. But of course, to them the ends justify the means, no matter what lies you have to tell to get the Utopia built right?

How can it be said that the global warming skeptics have no motivation? Who will carbon reduction legislation affect the most? Oil conglomerates, manufacturers, mineral extraction companies, energy suppliers; these poor, helpless, enormously profitable organizations have no means to protect themselves from the savage onslaught of reputable science organizations and debt laden island nations. Oh wait, I forgot that the government is bent on getting all of our money; come on are you serious? Is there an angry government leprechaun sitting in a vault somewhere just thumbing our money through his greedy grubby fingers? This notion is completely ridiculous, how could the government profit from a carbon tax when it's paying out billions in subsidies for green technology and energy production as well as paying out billions more to help mitigate global warming's effects on poorer nations. Hey wait a moment, maybe that's what the tax is for? Its clear that global warming will be a detriment to government revenue; the notion that the government is promoting global warming not based on scientific facts, but on a desire to gain new tax revenue, is completely preposterous.

Overt1, the first article you posted is an opinion page. Opinion pages are to news as Wikipedia is to Encyclopedias. On it's own, it carries no more merit than my word or yours. The second article you posted clearly talks about the mechanisms that are warming Mars that are NOT happening on Earth. The planet has darkened (absorbing more light) and massive sand storms are absorbing more heat, (which is reasonable considering that a sandstorm would increase the available surface area for heat to be absorbed into). The third article you posted though, does actually help your point. 2007 WAS a cool year, but the decreasing trend is thrown off by 1998, which was an abnormally warm year, causing the subsequent years to be cooler (but still warmer than the decades and centuries previous). The final link you posted DOES show a large increase in the monthly sea ice anomaly. If you look at the graph though, you will notice that every increase is followed by an even larger decrease, resulting in a downward trend. The graph cuts off at 2008, but I'm fairly certain that the data for 2009/10 will show a similar trend of large decrease following an increase. Here is a page with charts from all four organizations that monitor global temperature. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_cooling.html I don't need to point out the upwards trend lines, they're self evident. Before anybody says anything, the article is posted by a professor at a COMMUNITY college. He does, however hold Bachelors and Masters degrees in Meteorology from respected institutions. Muzikjock, heavier-than-air particles float around in the atmosphere all the time. Carbon is heavier than air, but I challenge you to walk into the Los Angeles basin and believe that there is nothing in the air. As for the article, of COURSE scientists are trying to change public beliefs. They've uncovered major evidence that we're on a dangerous path and we need to take measures to change. If it seems like they're trying to cause mass hysteria, it's because they want people to care. You don't make people care by publishing some papers and sitting around. The notion that the anti-global warming scientists have no money behind them is ridiculous. The transportation and fuel industries are the ones currently at blame for this problem, and saying that there's no money in cars and oil is just foolish. There's also this thing about the "elite" wanting to tax the people to make money. That would make sense if the taxes WENT to the "elite". Taxes go into the treasury, and then back into the country (and help jumpstart the economy again). Government officials are paid flat salaries. The only extra money comes from large-scale lobbyists (like the ones from the oil and automobile industries). Both sides are being paid. This next part is from memory, it might be wrong. If it IS wrong, I apologize. Disregard it. The carbon tax doesn't tax citizens, it taxes automakers for making inefficient vehicles. Car producers have to pay higher sums of money for less "green" vehicles. This, in turn, makes the more environmentally friendly cars more affordable to the consumer. This can be seen in the new Ford Fiesta coming to the US soon, and similar cars from Dodge and Chevy. More affordable, more efficient. If I was wrong and it DOES tax citizens, then it would decrease carbon emissions by encouraging people buying cars to go for the cheaper, more efficient option. I would have thought that was clear. New World Order? Really? Yeah, Obama is leading to a singular collective world government. That makes sense. I don't expect to change any minds with this post. I just get aggravated when I see things like this.

A very sound argument... Find the scientists who want to make the government money and dismiss their hypotheses, because they all are obviously involved in a conspiracy to manipulate and control us. I think that common sense would tell you that the waste products that we create probably disturb nature's equilibrium... To what extent? Who can say? Are you arrogant enough to assume that your one "side" (Because you've turned this into a false binary) has a complete understanding of this absurdly complex cause-effect relationship? I think if you are really honest with yourselves, the pollution that mankind is creating is probably not very good for the planet, and should be curbed, either by the government or by individuals, regardless of what you may think about global warming.

Nigel Lawson, Prospect Magazine, November 2005: "Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down. In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organized religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy." former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing - in terms of economic Socialism and environmental policy." Thomas Jefferson: "If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Pmnsuphafly, you are either a troll or a delusional/mindless follower with absolutely no truth to back up your claims. Judging by your comments you wouldn't know real science if it used you as a test subject. It is an amazing amount of human arrogance to believe we have any lasting effect on this planet whatsoever. It was here long before us and will be so long after. Calling it a religion is spot on. the only difference is you call the evil puppet master "fossil fuel producers and refiners" instead of "the devil" or "Satan" so you can cover your eyes and ears to any other way of thinking. This article speaks on just how honest leading global warming scientist are: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html This article speaks on how mars is experiencing a similar temperature change as earth: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece In case it isn't obvious this means that the sun is a more likely cause of global temperature variance than CO2. This article speaks of how it started COOLING in 2007: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-age-cometh/story-e6frg73o-1111116134873 This is why global warming advocates have started calling it "Climate Change" instead. This article speaks on how polar ice is growing, not receding: http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/04/world-sea-ice-reaches-levels-unprecedented-in-25-years/ In conclusion, if you are that worried about Carbon Dioxide emissions you can start by keeping your mouth shut! Though, with the evidence pointing to a coming ice age we might need your hot air after all.

pmnsuphafly, you are a koolaid drinker. There are so many inconsistencies in the theory of global warming its hardly even imaginable that intelligent people are debating this. For one, anyone who is versed in science can hardly dispute that co2 is a compound that naturally exists. Humans as well as other mammals exhale it. Also, it is indisputable that plant life inhales this as part of the photosynthesis process. They exhale or excrete o2! So, if you are really that concerned about co2 polluting the planet, plant a tree. Problem solved. The whole thing is a hoax from day one for the purpose of controlling everything we do and Finding a new way of taxing us for something and limiting our lives to what they say we can do. And we are buying into this....now if you can follow me, let me clue you in. It is also said that refrigerants pollute the atmosphere too. This is my industry. Assuming the devils advocate on this argument, lets say they are right. Lets say that Chlorodifluoromethane otherwise known as r-22 refrigerant, when the sun hits this in the upper atmosphere, causes a chemical reaction that causes chlorine to deplete the ozone layer as they claim. How then can you explain the warning labels on a drum of r-22 claiming that it is heavier than air, and ingesting this "freon" can cause suffocation and loss of oxygen in the system and loss of conscientiousness? If its heavier than air, how then can it deplete the upper ozone??? you cant have it both ways. Also, the new freon called r-410A is said to be environmentally friendly, marketed by carrier as "puron". If this new freon is so environmentally friendly, how come we in the industry are by law required to recover this refrigerant? If its so environmentally friendly there should be no need to recover it! I should be able to vent it! Face it, koolaid drinkers, you are buying into lie designed to at best rob you of all your wealth and at worst control your every move.