This is a completely inaccurate assertion, and a very misleading post. Fundamentally, this bill does not in any way raise taxes for the consumer. It shifts taxes we are already paying to subsidize oil companies to the renewable energy sector. It is possible that heating oil and gas may become more expensive. However, the American taxpayer is currently burdened with an unfair tax to subsidize the oil companies. This house resolution merely seeks to shift $18 billion in subsidies from the oil companies to renewable energy companies. It is simple; why do companies like Exxon (which single-handedly posted a $40 billion profit last year) need tax incentives? There is no reason. The only reason oi...

This is a completely inaccurate assertion, and a very misleading post. Fundamentally, this bill does not in any way raise taxes for the consumer. It shifts taxes we are already paying to subsidize oil companies to the renewable energy sector. It is possible that heating oil and gas may become more expensive. However, the American taxpayer is currently burdened with an unfair tax to subsidize the oil companies. This house resolution merely seeks to shift $18 billion in subsidies from the oil companies to renewable energy companies. It is simple; why do companies like Exxon (which single-handedly posted a $40 billion profit last year) need tax incentives? There is no reason. The only reason oil costs so much now is because of the greed of the oil companies. That's it. If you don't like expensive gas, why not focus your criticism on the oil companies? Doesn't it make you angry that your tax dollars are going to help out an industry that is making profits ten times larger than the subsidies? It makes no sense!

Secondly, any serious free-market conservative should appreciate the subsidy of the American renewable industry. This industry is will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, and will poise America to be the world leader in renewable energy technology and manufacturing. This is a no-brainer. What upstart manufacturing sectors does America have? None. The American auto industry is in shambles, technology is being outsourced, and even the service industry has been outsourced.

This tax bill will help, not hurt Americans, and the future of their children.

I understand and respect your opinion, and I also respect your viewpoint that "less government, less regulation, and less taxation" is a good way to go. I am a liberal democrat, so I don't share this viewpoint with you, but that doesn't mean that we can't agree on this house resolution. This house resolution does not increase government regulation, nor does it increase taxation. The oil companies are ripping you and me off as taxpayers. They do not deserve subsidies for exploration, or whatever they use this $18 billion for when they record $200 billion in yearly profits. This bill is small change. It is $18 billion over the next decade. From a yearly point of view, that is only $1.8 billion...

I understand and respect your opinion, and I also respect your viewpoint that "less government, less regulation, and less taxation" is a good way to go. I am a liberal democrat, so I don't share this viewpoint with you, but that doesn't mean that we can't agree on this house resolution. This house resolution does not increase government regulation, nor does it increase taxation. The oil companies are ripping you and me off as taxpayers. They do not deserve subsidies for exploration, or whatever they use this $18 billion for when they record $200 billion in yearly profits. This bill is small change. It is $18 billion over the next decade. From a yearly point of view, that is only $1.8 billion taken away from the oil companies per year over that period. That is only .9% of last year's profits, and I emphasize the word profits. They do not need subsidies from the federal government for research and exploration. They can use some of their $200 billion in profits for that.

You cannot be upset about high gas and oil prices and at the same time feel that government regulation is unnecessary. If you want these prices to drop, the government must regulate the oil companies, or at least stop subsidizing them. Why do gas and heating oil cost so much when the oil companies are flush with money? It is because they have absolutely no reason for them to lower prices, and there never will be a reason without regulation.

I'd also like to (happily) point out that the bill in discussion just passed in the house 10 minutes ago. There was even some republican support. Considering that the republicans spent most of the debate session today complaining that they couldn't attach an unrelated FISA extension to the bill, and that the debate was fairly heated at times, it shows that this bill has substantial bipartisan support. After all, the republican congress has repeatedly supported alternative energy bills in the past.

You are just wrong. The $18 Billion is in the form of subsidies currently being paid by taxpayers to the oil companies. That means on top of the $40 million in PROFITS exxon made last year, which came from record per gallon gas prices they are receiving our tax dollars! Now that $18 Billion is the amount over 10 years. These private companies have enjoyed special status and incentives under the republicans for the last 10 years, their profits prove these subsidies are not only no longer neccessary but perverse.
As far as them stating that they think our heating bill was too low and wanting to raise the costs more you are just wrong again. The price of oil has done nothing but go up sin...

You are just wrong. The $18 Billion is in the form of subsidies currently being paid by taxpayers to the oil companies. That means on top of the $40 million in PROFITS exxon made last year, which came from record per gallon gas prices they are receiving our tax dollars! Now that $18 Billion is the amount over 10 years. These private companies have enjoyed special status and incentives under the republicans for the last 10 years, their profits prove these subsidies are not only no longer neccessary but perverse.
As far as them stating that they think our heating bill was too low and wanting to raise the costs more you are just wrong again. The price of oil has done nothing but go up since these subsidies were enacted, and will continue to go up no matter what we do. Waiting to incorporate newer more efficient cleaner technologies will only cost us more the longer we take to begin. The sooner we find and perfect another way, the sooner we won't have to worry about the cost of oil/gas. These companies have had the last 10 long years to plan and prepare for this day, they chose instead to stay the course and reap the benefits in the form of cash. It is time to say thank you to the American people for making them number one for profits in the country, pull their lobbyists and the flow of money on this issue and let the subsidies lapse. Further, they need to invest in education in America to fill their employment needs rather than looking outside their country.

Morganmghee.spaces.live.com

PLEASE READ THESE! STOP THE SCANDALS AND THE COMING HUNGER PLAGUE!!!!!!!
The heart of the plan is a huge, taxpayer subsidized expansion of use of bio-ethanol for transport fuel. The President's plan requires production of 35 billion gallons (about 133 billion liters) of ethanol a year by 2017. Congress already mandated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that corn ethanol for fuel must rise from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion in 2012. To make certain it will happen, farmers and big agribusiness giants like ADM or David Rockefeller get generous taxpayer subsidies to grow corn for fuel instead of food. Currently ethanol producers get a subsidy in the US of 51 cents per gallon ethanol...

PLEASE READ THESE! STOP THE SCANDALS AND THE COMING HUNGER PLAGUE!!!!!!!
The heart of the plan is a huge, taxpayer subsidized expansion of use of bio-ethanol for transport fuel. The President's plan requires production of 35 billion gallons (about 133 billion liters) of ethanol a year by 2017. Congress already mandated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that corn ethanol for fuel must rise from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion in 2012. To make certain it will happen, farmers and big agribusiness giants like ADM or David Rockefeller get generous taxpayer subsidies to grow corn for fuel instead of food. Currently ethanol producers get a subsidy in the US of 51 cents per gallon ethanol paid to the blender, usually an oil company that blends it with gasoline for sale.

In short, the use of farmland worldwide for bio-ethanol and other bio-fuels—burning the food product rather than using it for human or animal food—is being treated in Washington, Brazil and other major centers, including the EU, as a major new growth industry.
(continued below)

http://wiccaboy-2.livejournal.com/118681.html

The green claims for bio-fuel as a friendly and better fuel than gasoline are at best dubious, if not outright fraudulent. Depending on who runs the tests, ethanol has little if any effect on exhaust-pipe emissions in current car models. It has significant emission, however, of some toxins including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, a suspected neurotoxin which has been banned as carcinogenic in California.

Ethanol is not some benign substance as we are led to think from the industry propaganda. It is highly corrosive to pipelines as well as to seals and fuel systems of existing car or other gasoline engines. It requires special new gas pumps. All that conversion costs money.

But the killer-d...

The green claims for bio-fuel as a friendly and better fuel than gasoline are at best dubious, if not outright fraudulent. Depending on who runs the tests, ethanol has little if any effect on exhaust-pipe emissions in current car models. It has significant emission, however, of some toxins including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, a suspected neurotoxin which has been banned as carcinogenic in California.

Ethanol is not some benign substance as we are led to think from the industry propaganda. It is highly corrosive to pipelines as well as to seals and fuel systems of existing car or other gasoline engines. It requires special new gas pumps. All that conversion costs money.

But the killer-diller about ethanol is that it holds at least 30% less energy per gallon than normal gasoline, translating into a loss in fuel economy per gallon of at least 25% over gasoline for an Ethanol E-85% blend. No advocate of the ethanol boondoggle addresses the huge social cost which is beginning to hit the dining room tables across the US, Europe and the rest of the world. Food prices are exploding as corn, soybeans and all cereal grain prices are going through the roof because of the astronomical—Congress-driven—demand for corn to burn for bio-fuel.

That decline in grain reserves, the measure of food security in event of drought or harvest failure—an increasingly common event in recent years—is pre-programmed to continue going as far ahead as the eye can see. Assuming modest world population increase annually of some 70 million people over the coming decade, especially in the Indian subcontinent and Africa, the stagnation or even decline in the tonnages of feed corn or other feed grains including rice that is harvested annually as growing amounts of bio-ethanol and other bio-fuels displaces food grain, in fact means we are just getting started on the greatest transformation of global agriculture since the introduction of agribusiness revolution with fertilizers.
(continued)

The difference is that this revolution is at the expense of food production. That preprograms exploding global grain prices, increased poverty and malnutrition. And the effect on gasoline import demand will be minimal.

Big oil is also driving the bio-fuels bandwagon. Prof. David Pimentel of Cornell University and other scientists claim that net energy output from bio-ethanol fuel is less than the fossil fuel energy used to produce the ethanol. Measuring all energy inputs to produce ethanol from production of nitrogen fertilizer to energy needed to clean the considerable waste from bio-fuel refineries, Pimintel's research showed a net energy loss of 22% for bio-fuel—they use more energy than...

The difference is that this revolution is at the expense of food production. That preprograms exploding global grain prices, increased poverty and malnutrition. And the effect on gasoline import demand will be minimal.

Big oil is also driving the bio-fuels bandwagon. Prof. David Pimentel of Cornell University and other scientists claim that net energy output from bio-ethanol fuel is less than the fossil fuel energy used to produce the ethanol. Measuring all energy inputs to produce ethanol from production of nitrogen fertilizer to energy needed to clean the considerable waste from bio-fuel refineries, Pimintel's research showed a net energy loss of 22% for bio-fuel—they use more energy than they produce. That translates into little threat to oil demand and huge profit for clever oil giants that re-profile themselves as "green energy" producers.

So it's little wonder that ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP are all into bio-fuels. This past May, BP announced the largest ever R&D grant to a university, $500 million to the University of California-Berkeley to fund BP-dictated R&D into alternative energy including bio-fuels. Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Program got $100 million from ExxonMobil; University of California-Davis got $25 million from Chevron for its Bio-energy Research Group. Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative takes $15 million from BP.

I recommend linking to the article to fully appreciate
the dynamics of this boondoggle.

http://wiccaboy-2.livejournal.com/118681.html

The bio-fuel market is booming like few others today. This all is a paradise for global agribusiness industrial companies like Cargill, ADM and Monsanto, Syngenta.

All this, combined with severe weather problems in China, Australia, Ukraine and large parts of the EU growing areas this harvest season, guarantee that grain prices are set to explode further in coming months and years. Some are gleefully reporting the end of the era of "cheap food." With disappearing food security reserves and disappearing acreage going to plant corn and grains for food, the bio-fuel transformation will impact global food prices massively in coming years.Another agenda behind Ethanol?

Uh Huh. The dramatic embr...

The bio-fuel market is booming like few others today. This all is a paradise for global agribusiness industrial companies like Cargill, ADM and Monsanto, Syngenta.

All this, combined with severe weather problems in China, Australia, Ukraine and large parts of the EU growing areas this harvest season, guarantee that grain prices are set to explode further in coming months and years. Some are gleefully reporting the end of the era of "cheap food." With disappearing food security reserves and disappearing acreage going to plant corn and grains for food, the bio-fuel transformation will impact global food prices massively in coming years.Another agenda behind Ethanol?

Uh Huh. The dramatic embrace of bio-fuels by the Bush Administration since 2005 has clearly been the global driver for soaring grain and food prices in the past 18 months. The evidence suggests this is no accident of sloppy legislative preparation. The US Government has been researching and developing bio-fuels since the 1970's. The bio-ethanol architects did their homework we can be assured. It's increasingly clear that the same people who brought us oil price inflation are now deliberately creating parallel food price inflation.
Last year, as bio-ethanol production first became a major market factor, corn prices rose by some 130% on the Chicago in 14 months. It was more than known when Congress and the Bush Administration made their heavy push for bio-ethanol in 2005 that world grain reserves had been declining at alarming levels for several years at a time when global demand, driven especially by growing wealth And increasing meat consumption in China, was rising.

Ethanol is no good.

Ethanol costs $1.29 to produce for $1.00 worth of bio-fuel. There are quite a few undesirable features with it, due to it's corrosive damage (properties) to vehicles.
.................an even bigger disaster..........

Wake Up ADM, Bunge and Cargill

Ironically, these companies are destroying forests in the name of solving the global warming crisis through biofuel expansion. ADM, Bunge, and Cargill would like us to believe that we can maintain our car addiction using a carbon neutral process—growing plants to fuel our cars. Not a chance. These companies clear pristine forests, burn the remaining stumps, drain peat swamps, and ...

Ethanol is no good.

Ethanol costs $1.29 to produce for $1.00 worth of bio-fuel. There are quite a few undesirable features with it, due to it's corrosive damage (properties) to vehicles.
.................an even bigger disaster..........

Wake Up ADM, Bunge and Cargill

Ironically, these companies are destroying forests in the name of solving the global warming crisis through biofuel expansion. ADM, Bunge, and Cargill would like us to believe that we can maintain our car addiction using a carbon neutral process—growing plants to fuel our cars. Not a chance. These companies clear pristine forests, burn the remaining stumps, drain peat swamps, and transport the fuel crops around the world for our cars. Hardly a carbon neutral process. In fact, Indonesia and Brazil are the third and fourth largest emitters of greenhouse gases due primarily to the burning of forests.

It’s time that we held these companies responsible for their hypocrisy in warming our planet for biofuel profits. Send an email to the CEOs of ADM, Bunge and Cargill to urge them to stop destroying rainforests for biofuels, stop displacing communities, and stop trading our climate for profit.

http://understory.ran.org/2007/10/09/wake-up-adm-bunge-and-cargill/

If ethanol was such a great alternative, it wouldn't need the
massive subsidies they're getting from us, the taxpayers.

Clean coal is just about the least cost-effective energy generation technology available. Even Bush closed out funding for a trial clean-coal plant that was being built.

Equating fascism with not being able to drive a Chevy Suburban (which this bill does nothing to regulate) is ridiculous. Look up the definition and see if you think trying to help the environment and grow American industry is still fascism.

Wilhelm, you still haven't made any good points in any of the discussions about this bill. Stop relying on the ridiculous right-wing rhetoric you use constantly, read a newspaper, and say something that is based in reality and issues.

Part of the definition of fascism is the suppressio...

Clean coal is just about the least cost-effective energy generation technology available. Even Bush closed out funding for a trial clean-coal plant that was being built.

Equating fascism with not being able to drive a Chevy Suburban (which this bill does nothing to regulate) is ridiculous. Look up the definition and see if you think trying to help the environment and grow American industry is still fascism.

Wilhelm, you still haven't made any good points in any of the discussions about this bill. Stop relying on the ridiculous right-wing rhetoric you use constantly, read a newspaper, and say something that is based in reality and issues.

Part of the definition of fascism is the suppression of opposition and criticism. When you use that word to quash debate over something like this bill and marginalize discussion from a broad range of viewpoints, you are yourself being a fascist.

I'm glad you're amused. I'm also glad you finally posted something with substance. In response:

1) "Bush does not oppose such ventures." You didn't read my statement correctly. I didn't say Bush opposes clean coal. I said that he has "closed out funding for a trial clean-coal plant," which is true. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/no-future-future-gen-technology/story.aspx?guid=%7B62186DAD-E611-4CD5-BFE0-35046862B3C2%7D)

2) "He opposes government funding it." Wrong again. Bush supports government funding for clean coal. If you read the same article mentioned above, you'll see that he is the reason the government has funded clean coal development up to this point.

3) "And it is not t...

I'm glad you're amused. I'm also glad you finally posted something with substance. In response:

1) "Bush does not oppose such ventures." You didn't read my statement correctly. I didn't say Bush opposes clean coal. I said that he has "closed out funding for a trial clean-coal plant," which is true. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/no-future-future-gen-technology/story.aspx?guid=%7B62186DAD-E611-4CD5-BFE0-35046862B3C2%7D)

2) "He opposes government funding it." Wrong again. Bush supports government funding for clean coal. If you read the same article mentioned above, you'll see that he is the reason the government has funded clean coal development up to this point.

3) "And it is not the least cost-effective." You are correct about this. I was speaking about current prices. In the future, because coal is abundant and cheap, clean coal would not be the least cost-effective, as you state. According to MIT, clean coal could be a good future energy source. However, the development of these technologies requires the kind of government subsidies you rail against in your earlier posts, so I can't see how you support this technology and not the others funded in the new house bill. Why would you preferentially subsidize clean coal when wind and solar are ready to go now at near-market prices? About MIT's findings: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0314-coal.html.

4) We need to get off of oil and coal. They'll run out eventually and the extraction of these resources from the earth does incredible amounts of damage to the environment. Climate change is real. It is accelerating. Carbon dioxide and sulphur emitted in the burning of coal and oil is one of the major drivers. We cannot keep on the coal/oil path and expect nothing bad to happen. It's great if we can design no-emission coal plants, but we have the chance now to embrace cleaner technologies. Why not take it? Wind and solar are free, cause almost no environmental impacts, and are ready to be installed.

Huh? I didn't agree with you on point 1 and 2. Read my comment again. I agreed with you in point 3.

How did I sidestep the issue and intent of government funding? Please explain that to me, so we can discuss.

4 is not my opinion, it is based in fact:
1) It is a fact that oil and coal will run out.
2) It is a fact that the extraction of these resources from the earth does huge damage to the environment. Have you seen a strip mine? Have you ever seen mountain top coal mining?
3) It is a fact that climate change is real. The evidence is overwhelming. The science is solid. The only major remaining dissenters are individuals who are in some way or another funded heavily by the oil industry for...

Huh? I didn't agree with you on point 1 and 2. Read my comment again. I agreed with you in point 3.

How did I sidestep the issue and intent of government funding? Please explain that to me, so we can discuss.

4 is not my opinion, it is based in fact:
1) It is a fact that oil and coal will run out.
2) It is a fact that the extraction of these resources from the earth does huge damage to the environment. Have you seen a strip mine? Have you ever seen mountain top coal mining?
3) It is a fact that climate change is real. The evidence is overwhelming. The science is solid. The only major remaining dissenters are individuals who are in some way or another funded heavily by the oil industry for expert testimony or the like. Those are not people to from whom you should seek honest opinions. There are thousands of scientists funded by non-partisan groups who agree that climate change is happening and worsening, and it is because of human influence.
4) It is a fact that we have a chance now to embrace cleaner technologies. In some parts of the country, wind energy is cheaper than oil/coal generation. Why not use it on a larger scale? Why not move away from the oil/coal cycle?
5) It is a fact that wind and solar cause negligible deliberate harm to the environment.

I would love to debate with you whether any of these points are opinions or fact.

Just like your use of the word fascist on the other message board, your accusation of me "just citing my opinion" is intended to slander my post, which was based in well-established fact. Please stop using weak right-wing catch phrases to quash debate and start having a discussion.

1) It is a fact that oil and coal will run out.

No, it is not a fact. It is a fact that there is a finite supply, but not that we will run out.

2)It is a fact that the extraction of these resources from the earth does
huge damage to the environment. Have you seen a strip mine? Have you
ever seen mountain top coal mining?

That is propaganda.

3) It is a fact that climate change is real. The evidence is overwhelming.

You lost me here. You are either lying, scientifically illiterate, or just a hack.

5) It is a fact that wind and solar cause negligible deliberate harm to the environment.

The also will not provide a substantial amout o...

1) It is a fact that oil and coal will run out.

No, it is not a fact. It is a fact that there is a finite supply, but not that we will run out.

2)It is a fact that the extraction of these resources from the earth does
huge damage to the environment. Have you seen a strip mine? Have you
ever seen mountain top coal mining?

That is propaganda.

3) It is a fact that climate change is real. The evidence is overwhelming.

You lost me here. You are either lying, scientifically illiterate, or just a hack.

5) It is a fact that wind and solar cause negligible deliberate harm to the environment.

The also will not provide a substantial amout of energy wihtin the next 50 to 100 years.

Just like your use of the word fascist on the other message board, your
accusation of me "just citing my opinion" is intended to slander my
post, which was based in well-established fact. Please stop using weak
right-wing catch phrases to quash debate and start having a discussion.

I can cite my opinion however I choose about your fascist ideology.

Again, you choose rhetoric over argument and logic to debate this issue with me. I encourage you to go back to my previous post and back up your claims of the falsehood of my points with fact, not opinion.

"No, it is not a fact. It is a fact that there is a finite supply, but not that we will run out."
- Finite means something that has a definite limit. If we don't stop using coal and oil, we will reach this limit. I think that means that we run out.

"That is propaganda."
- You feel that a strip mine is a natural element that helps wildlife, plant life, and is a positive member of the scenery? You believe that a strip mine is a necessary component of the landscape?

"You lost me here. You ...

Again, you choose rhetoric over argument and logic to debate this issue with me. I encourage you to go back to my previous post and back up your claims of the falsehood of my points with fact, not opinion.

"No, it is not a fact. It is a fact that there is a finite supply, but not that we will run out."
- Finite means something that has a definite limit. If we don't stop using coal and oil, we will reach this limit. I think that means that we run out.

"That is propaganda."
- You feel that a strip mine is a natural element that helps wildlife, plant life, and is a positive member of the scenery? You believe that a strip mine is a necessary component of the landscape?

"You lost me here. You are either lying, scientifically illiterate, or just a hack."
- Where did I lose you? I am a PhD researcher in Atmospheric Physics. I am not scientifically illiterate or a hack, especially when it comes to climate science. Which part of my argument was factually incorrect? Let's talk about that.

"The(y) also will not provide a substantial amou(n)t of energy wi(th)in the next 50 to 100 years."
- Denmark has demonstrated that at least 20% of electric supply can be generated from wind. How is that insubstantial? That is happening now. Wind will never provide 100% of our energy demands because of intermittency and storage problems, but it can be a large source. Why not make it so?

"I can cite my opinion however I choose about your fascist ideology."
- This just doesn't make sense as a response to the quoted statement from my post. How is my ideology fascist? I have in all of my arguments admitted when I am wrong, and asked for you to discuss these issues with me. I am not imposing a viewpoint on you. If you cannot support your claims with any evidence, you are wrong. Being wrong is okay.

You are embarrassing yourself by slandering me without discussing what I'm saying. You should detach from your ideologies and reconcile yourself with facts. Support your arguments. Please.

Wow. Great post. Good point. I guess I do sound like I'm crying in my posts. You could probably tell that because I'm so emotional, right? What gave it away? Was it how I use words like "environment" or "climate" instead of "fascist" and "propaganda" when trying to have a discussion? Give me a break. Do you call people "nazis" a lot, also? I've been waiting for that one. You should try it, it's a really good way to "win" a conversation.

"Do some reading"
- So, let me get this straight. You've spent the past two days criticizing my posts as being opinion, when I've backed my points up with research, articles, and informed points. Now, you're referring me to your very own posts to inform myse...

Wow. Great post. Good point. I guess I do sound like I'm crying in my posts. You could probably tell that because I'm so emotional, right? What gave it away? Was it how I use words like "environment" or "climate" instead of "fascist" and "propaganda" when trying to have a discussion? Give me a break. Do you call people "nazis" a lot, also? I've been waiting for that one. You should try it, it's a really good way to "win" a conversation.

"Do some reading"
- So, let me get this straight. You've spent the past two days criticizing my posts as being opinion, when I've backed my points up with research, articles, and informed points. Now, you're referring me to your very own posts to inform myself? Way to go. I'm looking forward to reading through all the unsubstantiated claims you make on this website. See you in the other forums.

Willhelm what belugah is trying to explain to you, and it is perfectly clear to me just in reading these few posts that he is correct, is that you have cited no facts nor provided any proof nor even any other references to people that agree with you. By continuing on only with platitudes and personal insults you do no justice to whatever cause or point it is you are trying to make. belugah appears willing to debate in an intelligent structured manner, and able to conduct himself in a civilized manner to a certain extent on a subject that is tip of the iceberg current and hotly debated. I would imagine that is pretty rare, so if you are interested in putting making your point on this do it,...

Willhelm what belugah is trying to explain to you, and it is perfectly clear to me just in reading these few posts that he is correct, is that you have cited no facts nor provided any proof nor even any other references to people that agree with you. By continuing on only with platitudes and personal insults you do no justice to whatever cause or point it is you are trying to make. belugah appears willing to debate in an intelligent structured manner, and able to conduct himself in a civilized manner to a certain extent on a subject that is tip of the iceberg current and hotly debated. I would imagine that is pretty rare, so if you are interested in putting making your point on this do it, don't just pop in with a few statements and insults and then expect your target to 'review' your other posts to glean your side of the debate.

Anyone with half a brain reading this comment series would determine you to be an uneducated dolt that receives his news from the redneck comedy tour. There are many people speaking intelligently on your side of the debate, it might be more helpful if you let them respond in public, you do them no service.

I am not really concerned with yours or anyone's view about personal insults or platitudes. If you are insulted, then that is a choice you make. I've made 5359 comments. So for you to make the claim that you do suggests you have read all 5359. The fact of the matter is that AGW is a pile of bovine scatology and you know it. A valid theory increases its validity with scrutiny, agw theory does not. In fact, it is supported by absolutely _no_ science other than a generally accepted, though potentially flawed, assumption that the Earth has warmed .7 degrees in the past century. Science does not need the support of politicians and UN beaureucrats. If Balinuas is a fraud because she is paid by o...

I am not really concerned with yours or anyone's view about personal insults or platitudes. If you are insulted, then that is a choice you make. I've made 5359 comments. So for you to make the claim that you do suggests you have read all 5359. The fact of the matter is that AGW is a pile of bovine scatology and you know it. A valid theory increases its validity with scrutiny, agw theory does not. In fact, it is supported by absolutely _no_ science other than a generally accepted, though potentially flawed, assumption that the Earth has warmed .7 degrees in the past century. Science does not need the support of politicians and UN beaureucrats. If Balinuas is a fraud because she is paid by oil companies at least she is a capable and correct fraud, unlike the fraud of Gore.

By the way I'm sure other notable hacks and those unworthy to be trusted and thus "slandered" include: Dr. Iam Clark, Dr. Timothy Patterson, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Tad Murty, Dr. Ross Mckitrick, Dr. Vicent Gray, Dr. David Legates, Dr. Richard Lindzen. ( to name a few )

I am not interested in persuading you against your faith. Have fun with it.

Global Warming Notes

1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are consistent. It is also consistent that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere follows and does not precede the warming.
2.correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps are not consistent. In fact, many times the opposite was true.
3. Many bodes in the Solar System are warming, none are cooling.
4. The earth has warmed and cooled for millennia with an anthropogenic means.
5. The troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house effect).
6. It is an impo...

Global Warming Notes

1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are consistent. It is also consistent that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere follows and does not precede the warming.
2.correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps are not consistent. In fact, many times the opposite was true.
3. Many bodes in the Solar System are warming, none are cooling.
4. The earth has warmed and cooled for millennia with an anthropogenic means.
5. The troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house effect).
6. It is an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading are taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. The satellite readings, which are much more accurate, are kept out of the formula.
7. Over 95% of all green house gas is ocean evaporation. This has increased with the current warming trend, which is due to solar irradiance.
8. The ppm measure of green gases increases as a result of warming, not the opposite.

9. When you see Al Gore showing footage of pieces of glaciers crashing into the ocean, this is actually called sheathing. It is a geologic process that occurs when glacier recede AND advance. But in this case, it is just an emotional appeal to ignorance.
10. If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? According to my calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the scientist knew all the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 percent. In actuality it would probab...

9. When you see Al Gore showing footage of pieces of glaciers crashing into the ocean, this is actually called sheathing. It is a geologic process that occurs when glacier recede AND advance. But in this case, it is just an emotional appeal to ignorance.
10. If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? According to my calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the scientist knew all the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 percent. In actuality it would probably be < 5%.
11. CO2 accounts for about 5 % of greenhouse gases and 95 % of CO2 occurs naturally. So man’s contribution of CO2 is extremely small and is vastly outweighed by the increase in ocean evaporation which is 95 % of greenhouse gases.
12. Very little is understood about climate including the water cycle, solar effects, geologic effects, ocean currents, ocean temperature storage, feedback loops, even astronomical influences. So to suggest man is causing global warming given the numbers is laughable.
13. The Earth has been cooling since 1998.
14. Temperature readings in the past 100 years are grossly flawed and the margin of error is such that we could have easily cooled during the past century.
15. I have personal relationships with those in the field with impeccable credentials that assure me they are not paid by big oil and those pushing AGW alarmism with 100% certainty are not worthy of the title Dr.

"If you are insulted, then that is a choice you make."
- You've demonstrated nearly no personal knowledge or understanding of climate change or this energy bill, so why would I be insulted by hollow language that only makes a conversation impossible. You insult yourself.

"So for you to make the claim that you do"
- For me to claim what? This makes no sense.

"AGW is a pile of bovine scatology"
- Wow, now that's pretty technical. Is that a term that Sallie Baulinas uses?

"A valid theory increases its validity with scrutiny, agw theory does not."
- And it has increased it's validity. Trace the discussion in the IPCC reports. It is still being scrutinized to no great end by skeptics like you ...

"If you are insulted, then that is a choice you make."
- You've demonstrated nearly no personal knowledge or understanding of climate change or this energy bill, so why would I be insulted by hollow language that only makes a conversation impossible. You insult yourself.

"So for you to make the claim that you do"
- For me to claim what? This makes no sense.

"AGW is a pile of bovine scatology"
- Wow, now that's pretty technical. Is that a term that Sallie Baulinas uses?

"A valid theory increases its validity with scrutiny, agw theory does not."
- And it has increased it's validity. Trace the discussion in the IPCC reports. It is still being scrutinized to no great end by skeptics like you who have no background in the field, and don't make any great discoveries refuting the evidence. Your scientific brethren in the field haven't done much, either.

"In fact, it is supported by absolutely _no_ science other than a generally accepted, though potentially flawed, assumption that the Earth has warmed .7 degrees in the past century"
- Nope, it is supported by more paleoclimate records, observational records, and modeling studies than you or I could count. All this is highlighted in the thousands of pages of discussion published by the IPCC.

"Science does not need the support of politicians and UN [bureaucrats]."
- You're right, it doesn't. I, nor any other scientists I know personally are supported by politicians or the UN. The UN does not support the research that went into the IPCC report.

"If Balinuas is a fraud because she is paid by oil companies at least she is a capable and correct fraud, unlike the fraud of Gore."
- This statement fails the logic test. You just called Baliunas a fraud. How can she be capable and correct and a fraud? Why do you keep spelling her name wrong?

In terms of the scientists listed:

Dr. Iam Clark : Again, Ian (you spell his name wrong) Clark is a proponent of the theory that solar variation can explain modern warming trends. It can't. We've been through this already. His comments on water vapor/cloud feedbacks are intriguing, although his insistence that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas is incorrect. CO2 has the largest radiative forcing (the change in heat energy transferred) of the greenhouse gasses, and is three times larger than the next component, methane. Methane is more effective on a molecular basis, but not the largest component.

Dr. Timothy Patterson : Argues that high CO2 levels and cool temperatures ~50 million years ago ref...

In terms of the scientists listed:

Dr. Iam Clark : Again, Ian (you spell his name wrong) Clark is a proponent of the theory that solar variation can explain modern warming trends. It can't. We've been through this already. His comments on water vapor/cloud feedbacks are intriguing, although his insistence that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas is incorrect. CO2 has the largest radiative forcing (the change in heat energy transferred) of the greenhouse gasses, and is three times larger than the next component, methane. Methane is more effective on a molecular basis, but not the largest component.

Dr. Timothy Patterson : Argues that high CO2 levels and cool temperatures ~50 million years ago refute current correlation between high CO2 values and temperatures. First, Patterson is a geologist. The geology of the Earth was vastly different during the period he refers to. Ocean heat transport operated in a completely different way. Atmospheric patterns were completely different because of topography and land/ocean contrasts. Chemical constituents in the atmosphere had different concentrations than now. There was substantially more volcanism, and volcanism has a very large cooling effect. The issues with comparing that era to today are tremendous in number.

Dr. Tim Ball : A geographer, also an ozone hole denier in that he does not believe that CFC's caused the depletion. Wrong! In general, he sounds a lot like you, Willhelm when talking about climate change. Lots of invective, little substance. He also is critical of non- climate scientists working on the issue. Why is he, then?

Dr. Tad Murty : Basically thinks that because "rapid" cooling and warming have happened in the past, today's changes are natural. Except that the changes now are orders of magnitude more rapid.

I've run out of space to continue. You can pretty much look up any of these scientists online and find good discussion about the shortcomings of their arguments.

1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are consistent. It is also consistent that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere follows and does not precede the warming.
- Again, we've already been through this. On both long and short time scales, solar irradiance and global temperatures are correlated. Solar irradiance does not correlate with or explain the warming of the last 150 years. No front loaded forcing like the anthropogenic CO2 forcing we are creating has ever happened in the data record. There are many reasons why CO2 would trail temperatures in a natural setting (increased local temps: increased local vegetation), this is different because humans...

1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are consistent. It is also consistent that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere follows and does not precede the warming.
- Again, we've already been through this. On both long and short time scales, solar irradiance and global temperatures are correlated. Solar irradiance does not correlate with or explain the warming of the last 150 years. No front loaded forcing like the anthropogenic CO2 forcing we are creating has ever happened in the data record. There are many reasons why CO2 would trail temperatures in a natural setting (increased local temps: increased local vegetation), this is different because humans are introducing the forcing. That is why AGW is such a big deal.

2. Correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps are not consistent. In fact, many times the opposite was true.
- I just discussed this in the above post.

3. Many bodes in the Solar System are warming, none are cooling.
- We went through this on the other board. It isn't a well substantiated claim for many reasons: data paucity, highly variable planetary dynamics, etc.

4. The earth has warmed and cooled for millennia with[out] an anthropogenic [forcing].
- Not as quickly as it has during the post-industrial anthropogenic forcing.

5. The troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not happened. (This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house effect).
- The troposphere has warmed. That's only the first issue with this comment. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5665/1771b

6. It is an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading[s] are taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. The satellite readings, which are much more accurate, are kept out of the formula.
- It is indeed true that most readings are taken in the NH. However, there are SH readings which confirm the warming, AND satellite readings are included, in the form of reanalysis by NCAR and ECMWF amongst many sources. So, this is wrong.

7. Over 95% of all green house gas is ocean evaporation. This has increased with the current warming trend, which is due to solar irradiance.
- You mean 95% of green house gas is water vapor from ocean evaporation. This is jus...

6. It is an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading[s] are taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. The satellite readings, which are much more accurate, are kept out of the formula.
- It is indeed true that most readings are taken in the NH. However, there are SH readings which confirm the warming, AND satellite readings are included, in the form of reanalysis by NCAR and ECMWF amongst many sources. So, this is wrong.

7. Over 95% of all green house gas is ocean evaporation. This has increased with the current warming trend, which is due to solar irradiance.
- You mean 95% of green house gas is water vapor from ocean evaporation. This is just totally incorrect. Water vapor (evaporated ocean water) is not nearly the most significant greenhouse gas. Plus, it aids in the formation of clouds, which actually cools the surface. Increased evaporation is the result of higher sea surface temperatures, which are not primarily due to increased solar irradiance.

8. The ppm measure of green gases increases as a result of warming, not the opposite.
- This is not detailed enough for me to comment on. Please provide a reference so that I can understand this point.

9. When you see Al Gore showing footage of pieces of glaciers crashing into the ocean, this is actually called sheathing. It is a geologic process that occurs when glacier recede AND advance. But in this case, it is just an emotional appeal to ignorance.
- Right on. It's also called manipulative film making, but no need to get so upset about it (although clearly the images resonated with you). The film didn't claim that the images of sheathing we were seeing were each individually related to climate change. As a whole, though, massive amounts of ice have sheathed from Antarctica, outside of the regular seasonal cycle. In addition, the seasonal cycle in the Arctic has yielded decreasing amoun...

9. When you see Al Gore showing footage of pieces of glaciers crashing into the ocean, this is actually called sheathing. It is a geologic process that occurs when glacier recede AND advance. But in this case, it is just an emotional appeal to ignorance.
- Right on. It's also called manipulative film making, but no need to get so upset about it (although clearly the images resonated with you). The film didn't claim that the images of sheathing we were seeing were each individually related to climate change. As a whole, though, massive amounts of ice have sheathed from Antarctica, outside of the regular seasonal cycle. In addition, the seasonal cycle in the Arctic has yielded decreasing amounts of sea ice. Using the extremely powerful image of sheathing is manipulative, but when aggregated, ice sheathing is part of the body of evidence that the polar regions are warming.

10. If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent...According to my calculator, [the aggregate certainty] equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the scientist knew all the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 percent. In actuality it would probably be < 5%.
- The first and least complicated argument against this is that many variables are known to a higher degree of certainty than 99%. If you perform the same calculation assuming 99.9% accuracy, you get an overall accuracy of 90%, a huge change. More importantly though, this is an irrelevant manner of assessing the error accumulated in climate model calculations. No one argues that climate models are perfect, and good modelers assign error ranges to their predictions that take into account the measurement errors spoken about here. The IPCC includes such estimates. Lastly, this point is tangent to the discussion. We haven't been talking about climate models, but recent, recorded, unprecedented changes.

11. CO2 accounts for about 5 % of greenhouse gases and 95 % of CO2 occurs naturally. So man’s contribution of CO2 is extremely small and is vastly outweighed by the increase in ocean evaporation which is 95 % of greenhouse gases.
- Water vapor is transient and accounts for 36-70%. Water vapor is regionally variable, and increases with high temperatures. Those high temperatures must be caused by another change in radiative forcing, which has been attributed to anthropogenic emissions.

12. Very little is understood about climate including the water cycle, solar effects, geologic effects, ocean currents, ocean temperature storage, feedback loops, even astronomical influences. So to suggest man...

11. CO2 accounts for about 5 % of greenhouse gases and 95 % of CO2 occurs naturally. So man’s contribution of CO2 is extremely small and is vastly outweighed by the increase in ocean evaporation which is 95 % of greenhouse gases.
- Water vapor is transient and accounts for 36-70%. Water vapor is regionally variable, and increases with high temperatures. Those high temperatures must be caused by another change in radiative forcing, which has been attributed to anthropogenic emissions.

12. Very little is understood about climate including the water cycle, solar effects, geologic effects, ocean currents, ocean temperature storage, feedback loops, even astronomical influences. So to suggest man is causing global warming given the numbers is laughable.
- Actually, I see no numbers, and a lot is understood about these areas. In the future, you should focus on the lack of knowledge about the cloud radiative feedback. That's actually an area of debate.

13. The Earth has been cooling since 1998.
- Nope: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/107760main_annual_mean_anom.jpg

14. Temperature readings in the past 100 years are grossly flawed and the margin of error is such that we could have easily cooled during the past century.
- Incorrect. Temperature readings have become increasingly accurate, and more data is now available than ever, and yet we still see warming. Show me attribution for this claim!

15. I have personal relationships with those in the field with impeccable credentials that assure me they are not paid by big oil and those pushing AGW alarmism with 100% certainty are not worthy of the title Dr.
- Get them on this board.

16. The fact [that] the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century does not mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.

IPCC, 2001, pg 97

This statement has been retracted, revised, or overcome with actual evidence.

If you know something the IPCC does not, then perhaps you should inform them.
____________________________________

Another misleading comment. This is not the conclusion of the IPCC report. This is a section that addresses the concerns of people exactly like you. It is near the introduction of the report to indicate that the report must...

16. The fact [that] the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century does not mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.

IPCC, 2001, pg 97

This statement has been retracted, revised, or overcome with actual evidence.

If you know something the IPCC does not, then perhaps you should inform them.
____________________________________

Another misleading comment. This is not the conclusion of the IPCC report. This is a section that addresses the concerns of people exactly like you. It is near the introduction of the report to indicate that the report must demonstrate that anthropogenic influences are impacting climate above natural noise. It does conclude with this, amongst many statements, on page 699, in chapter 12:

"The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin."

The report goes on to attribute a large forcing to anthropogenic emissions. The latest assessment report uses even stronger language to make this point, as evidence has grown.

"Though you do make a good call on me failing the logic test regarding Sallie Baliunas, you display no competence to argue in support of your claim. In fact, you have not done so one single time."

"And yes, there are models galore. In fact, there is a model for every scenario."

- There is not a model for every scenario. This shows a lack of understanding regarding models. Substantiate this claim.

"Everything is caused by global warming. Slander or not you prove yourself to be quite incapable of any substance other than cynicism."

- Everything is caused by global warming? What on earth does that mean? You accuse me of cynicism and then end with "Continue on High Priest." I have said noth...

"Though you do make a good call on me failing the logic test regarding Sallie Baliunas, you display no competence to argue in support of your claim. In fact, you have not done so one single time."

"And yes, there are models galore. In fact, there is a model for every scenario."

- There is not a model for every scenario. This shows a lack of understanding regarding models. Substantiate this claim.

"Everything is caused by global warming. Slander or not you prove yourself to be quite incapable of any substance other than cynicism."

- Everything is caused by global warming? What on earth does that mean? You accuse me of cynicism and then end with "Continue on High Priest." I have said nothing even nearly approaching the level of cynicism of that comment.

"LOL! You are a piece of work. Everyone that does not agree with you is somehow a shill, a hack, or stupid. Yet, YOU know it all."
- I have never claimed that I know it all, nor have I claimed that others are shills, hacks, or stupid. Sallie Baliunas for one is not stupid. She is extremely intelligent. She has just chosen poor funding options for her research, and hasn't produced convincing results. I realize that in the course of posting I have demonstrated an ability to condense and explain a large variety of topics, which may seem to you like I know a lot, but I have never claimed that that is the case.

"To point the finger and to slander scientists by assuming they place personal intere...

"LOL! You are a piece of work. Everyone that does not agree with you is somehow a shill, a hack, or stupid. Yet, YOU know it all."
- I have never claimed that I know it all, nor have I claimed that others are shills, hacks, or stupid. Sallie Baliunas for one is not stupid. She is extremely intelligent. She has just chosen poor funding options for her research, and hasn't produced convincing results. I realize that in the course of posting I have demonstrated an ability to condense and explain a large variety of topics, which may seem to you like I know a lot, but I have never claimed that that is the case.

"To point the finger and to slander scientists by assuming they place personal interests above their integrity toward their field of study is the most absurd of all claims. It seems to be the only thing global warming idiots, like yourself, can manage to do."
- Well, that's not true. You were actually the first one to call in to question scientific integrity, and yet here you stand up for the few scientists who have the least integrity to stand up for. I've typed thousands of words on this board that show that that is not the only thing a "global warming idiot, like [myself], can manage to do." You on the other hand, have said nothing of substance, and quite a bit of slander against me, and all of the nearly scientific claims you have finally posted are for the most part copied verbatim from other websites. You have not demonstrated an ability to think critically, or digest the science in my posts. I'm still waiting for that.

"It is always a reinforcing exercise to see how those that claim to be such "experts" are really nothing more than useful idiots."
- Again, I don't claim that I'm an expert. I'm sorry if it seems that way to you.

Hilarious. So , Everyone else is wrong. Why? Because global warming is a fact. Wonderful.
You even go to the point of claiming you know to 99.9% certainty that which most scientists admit they know very little about - for example the ocean's ability to store heat, ocean currents, geologic influences, feedback loops, obliquity, etc.

The fact is global warming is a scam and THIS is why - You will not and cannot give me a scientifically valid reason that would show agw theory to be a failure. Everything that happens, every study ( as you seem to cherry-pick very well), every model, every scenario, every climate event is because of man-caused global warming.

You have said it would be so ea...

Hilarious. So , Everyone else is wrong. Why? Because global warming is a fact. Wonderful.
You even go to the point of claiming you know to 99.9% certainty that which most scientists admit they know very little about - for example the ocean's ability to store heat, ocean currents, geologic influences, feedback loops, obliquity, etc.

The fact is global warming is a scam and THIS is why - You will not and cannot give me a scientifically valid reason that would show agw theory to be a failure. Everything that happens, every study ( as you seem to cherry-pick very well), every model, every scenario, every climate event is because of man-caused global warming.

You have said it would be so easy to discredit the findings of every scientist I have put up and you do nothing but slander them personally and impugn their integrity claiming some outside influence to their scientific scrutiny and that makes you less than them. I would say that is projection because you claim to know 99.9% of all climate knowledge and make claims the IPCC flatly refuses to make, the whole time driving doubt into facts I offered using material fallacies of all sorts including cherry-picked evidence and drawing invalid conclusions to distort facts to support your purpose. For example, warming tropospheric temps. Tropospheric temps warm and cool continuously and while they have warmed relatively recently, they are trending cooler.
Then you agree that solar irradience plays a role in warming and cooling, then disagree that had an effect on our emergence from the little ice age or the various solar cycles at play.

"Hilarious. So , Everyone else is wrong. Why? Because global warming is a fact. Wonderful."
- I never said everyone else is wrong. I recognize that global warming is a theory. It is a theory with immense amounts of supporting research and findings, but it is and will always be a theory. However, you haven't made compelling arguments for the rejection of the massive amounts of evidence that global warming is real and human-induced.

"You even go to the point of claiming you know to 99.9% certainty that which most scientists admit they know very little about - for example the ocean's ability to store heat, ocean currents, geologic influences, feedback loops, obliquity, etc."
- I didn't say tha...

"Hilarious. So , Everyone else is wrong. Why? Because global warming is a fact. Wonderful."
- I never said everyone else is wrong. I recognize that global warming is a theory. It is a theory with immense amounts of supporting research and findings, but it is and will always be a theory. However, you haven't made compelling arguments for the rejection of the massive amounts of evidence that global warming is real and human-induced.

"You even go to the point of claiming you know to 99.9% certainty that which most scientists admit they know very little about - for example the ocean's ability to store heat, ocean currents, geologic influences, feedback loops, obliquity, etc."
- I didn't say that I personally know meteorological variables to 99.9% certainty, I said that there are variables that are resolved to that accuracy. Where do scientists admit that they know "very little about" oceanic heat transports, currents, geological influences, etc.?

"You will not and cannot give me a scientifically valid reason that would show AGW theory to be a failure."
- What on earth does this mean?

"Everything that happens, every study ( as you seem to cherry-pick very well), every model, every scenario, every climate event is because of man-caused global warming."
- Yes, I've cherry picked. I've cherry picked from the massive, massive amount of published results and evidence that global warming is anthropogenically forced. I know cherry picking isn't a problem for you since there are negligible findings supporting your opinions on this matter.

"You have said it would be so easy to discredit the findings of every scientist I have put up and you do nothing but slander them personally and impugn their integrity claiming some outside influence to their scientific scrutiny and that makes you less than them."
- Actually, if you read a little more carefully, you will see that I have addressed their backgrounds, findings, and arguments, not their personalities. I have not slandered them.

"I would say that is projection because you claim to know 99.9% of all climate knowledge and make claims the IPCC flatly refuses to make, the whole time driving doubt into facts I offered using material fallacies of all sorts including cherry-picked evidence and drawing invalid conclusions to distort facts to support your purpose."
- I know you think you put together a really terse statement here, but it's filled with falsehoods. Again, I didn't claim to know 99.9% of climate knowledge. Go back and read my statement. I cited the IPCC statement I made, you can go look it up. It's in one of the concluding chapters of the report. I didn't use material fallacies, that implies that I have made pr...

"I would say that is projection because you claim to know 99.9% of all climate knowledge and make claims the IPCC flatly refuses to make, the whole time driving doubt into facts I offered using material fallacies of all sorts including cherry-picked evidence and drawing invalid conclusions to distort facts to support your purpose."
- I know you think you put together a really terse statement here, but it's filled with falsehoods. Again, I didn't claim to know 99.9% of climate knowledge. Go back and read my statement. I cited the IPCC statement I made, you can go look it up. It's in one of the concluding chapters of the report. I didn't use material fallacies, that implies that I have made presumptions. I have not. I have presented sound scientific argument to your points that are cited, and easily retrievable. You have copied and pasted arguments strewn around the blogosphere. That's why it took me hours to respond to the posts that you put up in a matter of minutes. For someone who has accused me frequently of "stealing from the gristmill", it seems the opposite would be true.

"For example, warming tropospheric temps. Tropospheric temps warm and cool continuously and while they have warmed relatively recently, they are trending cooler."
- This is another lapse of logic. You do not define the time period encompassed by "recently", which makes the last sentence meaningless, and actually a self-contradiction. Are they trending cooler over a larger time period? Do you have a citation for this? I'd love to discuss with citations, like the one I originally provided for this claim.