Apr 12, 2012 -- 9:08PM, Rgurley4 wrote:

Back to Basics:

Q: What is THE MAJOR and most significant SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN factor influencing climate and its scientifically RECORDED changes on Planet Earth.

A: Our SUN

Q: What can we do about it?

A: Observe, record, predict the affect of changes ...such as the 11 cycle caused by solar flares

And The SUN influences jet streams, ocean currents, algae growth rates (60% producer of all plant life conversion of CO2 to O2 or O3)...etc, etc, etc, etc.

Man plays a MINOR roll in being able to significantly CHANGE climate or stuff  on Planet Earth!

BUT it's a really good business to try ....and to yak about it!

Yes .. but there's no money in that.

... and you can't form legislation to control the world populations if you focus on an object, the Sun, that you can't control.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:58AM, Bodean wrote:

Like I said earlier paeng ... BEST is not finished, and thus it hasn't proved anything [currently it has only incorporated land temps].  Second, BEST does not deal with "cause and effect", it's just a temp metric.

Very different from what deniers were saying while they were funding the study, right? Even the project leader was surprised by their own results.

What makes matters even worse is that the rest of your excuses ("not finished," "it's just a temp metric," not to mention silly points like claiming that these are just "organizations") works both ways! Would you have said the same things if the results were to your liking?

Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Bodean wrote:

But dang .. those anecdotal musings make for good media fodder!

On the other hand, note the last two paragraphs of the same article.

Apr 13, 2012 -- 8:06AM, Bodean wrote:

Ted ... I"m alll for a clean atmosphere.  Your above statement is premised on the claim that CO2 is a "pollutant".

You want to talk about NOX, SOX, PM10, metals, and a whole host of established pollutants, I'll stand next to you and hold the sign.

You'll find no bigger advocate of pollution control  I'm even slightly socialists about it.  If "we the people" are going to enjoy the benefits of certain things, like electricity, then I think it is our equal responsibility to foot the cost to ensure that it is clean.  I'd rather the Government give 1 Billion in grants to purchase technology to clean up existing point souces of pollution than give a billion to Solyndra and the like, only to see them go bankrupt.

It's not based on the premise that CO2 is a pollutant. It's that CO2 is part of the pollution that you want to avoid. Ultimately, when you are a "bigger advocate of pollution control" and you call for lower emission of pollutants by the use of renewable energy, then you end up with lower CO2 emissions.

Thus, you actually have the same policies as those who acknowledge AGW. This can be seen in NAS policies which urge the use of technology to clean up pollution, renewable energy, etc.