What? We have to retire the word because it is sometimes used to describe really awful crackpots? It can’t be used to describe ordinary cranks anymore? Hardly seems fair. At that rate we’ll run out of choice words before this session of Congress ends.

Once again, you’re jumping ahead:

Last half-million years – CO2 concentrations between 200-300 ppm.

Last 200 years – CO2 concentrations one-third highger, rising in correlation with the use of fossil fuels.

Yes or no?

And I do call attempts to ruin the careers of meteorologists who don’t tow the Gore line Lysenkoish. And I actually think calling skeptics of predominant man made global warming ‘deniers’ is not much better. Denier being commonly associated with ‘holocaust denier’. I believe the holocaust happened but I firmly doubt predominant man made global warming.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently around 370 ppm, about a third higher than the trend of the last half million years. This increase correlates to the use of fossil fuels.

These are simple facts, Dugger. Do you accept them or not?

According to this scientist and the work he cites, man-made carbon emissions account for MORE than the increase in atmospheric CO2. What doesn’t stay into the air, goes into the oceans and forests.

That’s entirely bogus.

1) You’re assuming straight-line causality between CO2 concentration and temperature. You’d be hard pressed to find such an idea written anywhere.

2) You’re balling together percent of total and percent of increase. Two different things.

3) Lysenkoish attempts to quash debate? That’s a joke, right? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the work cited above: the increase in CO2 concentration correlates with the rise of industrial society. Crackpot deniers are the ones doing the shouting.

Yes, I’m skeptic. And the Lysenkoish attempts to squash debate makes me more skeptical.

As the Geico cave man said:

What!?

It doesn’t matter if 97% of the C02 is natural, but rather the ‘relative shift’ in origins of the 3%?

yeah.

Trnaslation: #1

You lose. Why can’t you be a man and admit it?

>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to 315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling][Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is human-made:

* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,p 44-45] [White]

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

LINK!

It’s a shame you didn’t trouble yourself to share that one.

Over the last 400,000 years, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 stayed steadily in the range of 200-300 parts per million. With the onset of the industrial age, the concentration shot up to 370 ppm–a leval not seen, ever, in the past.

So what “force of nature” do you suppose is responsible for the sudden increase?

No, I don’t. I asked a simple question. You ducked it with a lot of bullroar.

It’s simple: the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at an all time high. How do you suppose that happened?

Can’t see how they are being played for fools by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other liars-for-hire paid for by the Energy cartels.

The Conservative Media have made it a point of Honor never to be swayed by any argument or fact, and fools like Dugger will fight to the death for….

Pollution?

Waste of our natural resources?

Stupidity?

It’s beyond belief.

Hey Dugger, you ignorant shit, 2006 was hot as well. So was 2005, 2004, 2003, etc. How long do we have to hold off before we can make a conclusion?

Eh, must’ve ran off in a hissy fit. He’ll be back by August.

Dugger, you’re right… CO2 levels being higher now than anytime in the past 1,000,000 years? Bah, probably natural causes for that. The fact that it happened alongside the rampant industrialization of much of the globe is probably just a coincidence. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Considering that the pollution that is responsible for global warming also leads to other problems, such as the depletion of the O-Zone layer, acid rain, and poisoning the air, and that developing a renewable clean source of energy would be cheaper in the long run as well as lessen our dependence on foreign oil, are you actually saying that we should continue to pollute and pretend these problems don’t exist?

I expect one of three responses:

1. Pretend that I never posted anything.

2. Refuse to answer the question for some idiotic reason.

3. Say what they think everyone wants to hear, and completely miss the point.

Frankie chose ’3′. What will you choose?