And, Lomborg specifically addresses the problem of killing our economies (and impoverishing our children and their children) to try to pretend to prevent a problem (Kyoto would delay the most catastrophic predictions for a mere 6 years -- if fully implemented) that could be easily and cheaply mitigated. Indeed, the benefits of a warmer climate far outweigh what little damage would result.

Can't you read, Bruce? Oh, I forgot -- you're a moron.

OBTW, the earth isn't warming. It's been cooling for nearly the last decade. And, if the sun has lost it's spots (they're not back yet), it could get downright chilly.

Oh goody, here's your chance to switch gears, Bruce. Let's see you show your fear of the coming ICE AGE!

In spending money on assisting poor countries, "Measures to stem climate change should compete with development aid, Lomborg suggests, because according to predictions 'the developing world will suffer most of the damage from climate change.'...

"Laying out the case for climate change [as the single most important item to spend Third World assistance funds on] was William Cline, an environmental economist at the Center for Global Development in Washington, DC. His primary evidence was the 2001 report of the IPCC, which predicts an increase in average global temperatures of between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C by the year 2100. Lomborg acknowledged that the report is 'the best of our knowledge on climate change'."

So, when Rogers says that Lomborg denies the existence of a serious global-warming problem, he is... well, the polite interpretation is that he's totally mistaken. Since then, of course, the IPCC's follow-up 2007 report -- based on continued and firmer data -- has convinced such longtime additional holdouts as "Reason" magazine's Ronald Bailey.

Ah, but now for the really good part:

"The most cost-effective strategy, Cline argued, would be a global carbon tax, more aggressive than the one called for under Kyoto, that would halve greenhouse emissions by the end of the century.

"The panel [selected entirely by Lomborg] rejected that line of argument, concluding that Cline's proposal would be 'very bad' investments. Panelist Nancy Stokey, an economist at the U. of Chicago, explains that the solutions would require 'large expenditures for benefits that would come far in the future.' " That is, we should concentrate entirely on what's good or bad for ourselves, and ignore all effects of this problem on our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, no matter how catastrophic they may be.

I gather that this kind of entirely short-term reasoning is actually a mandatory rule in present-day business accounting. For the GW problem, it's criminal insanity (especially since -- given both the amount of heat energy being stored in the oceans and the fact that it's much harder to pull a CO2 molecule out of the air than not to put it there in the first place -- the longer we wait on dealing with this problem the harder it will be to to stop or reverse). Of course, that may be why it appeals to Mr. Rogers.

And we all know that there is NO science behind this purely political report. That indeed, the earth has been cooling since 1998.

Can't you come up with a cite that doesn't rehash the IPCC garbage -- and months after the fact? C'mon Bruce, try a little harder. I gave you an NWS link, at least.

"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74 deg C(plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. [By the way, the recent fuss over whether temperatures were higher for 2 years in the 1930s than in the 1990s is entirely a reference to temperatures in the US -- and even there it's debatable. There is no question at all that average WORLD temperatures are higher right now than they have been for at least a millennium -- Moomaw]

"Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower and mid-troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties, and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

"An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased 'blanketing' effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data (see previous figure), but is larger in the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors...

"There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical -- both showing a strong warming signal.

"Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations. The records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher altitudes than weather stations, allowing scientists more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere...

"Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due to the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the distant past.

"For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000 AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium.

"Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years."

Coming up: Lomborg.

Michael -- the only one who was "confused" was you. You don't know squat about atmospheric physics, as we've amply demonstrated. The problem with ALL of the warm-mongers wild-ass modeling claims is that there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb enough energy or to hold it to make a damned bit of difference to the earth's temperature. ALL of these idiots depend on an enormous increase in humidity to justify their silliness. There isn't ANY way to demonstrate their necessary phenomena -- nor is there any way to model what would happen to the excess humidity (think cloud formation, think excess reflectivity, think nobody can possibly base any predictions on these assumptions -- except you morons).

You, Michael, claimed that the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules would be RE RADIATED back to the earth. Now you say you're sorry your words caused confusion? What a joke! What is it in your psyche that won't let you admit you shot your mouth (OK keyboard) off half-cocked and you got it wrong?

Oh, I "haven't been around here (this blog?) long enough" to judge your ignorance and refusal to admit to error? I guess this blog must be your echo chamber, right? Sorry to burst your bubble.

And now you claim that "doing something" to solve a non-existent problem that wouldn't make a bit of difference anyway -- is better than a "bad outcome". Again, I suggest you read Lomborg. He grants your (ilk's) worst predictions and then demonstrates that even if the most dire of your predictions come true, it's still far, far cheaper to let it happen and mitigate against it (make the seawalls a little higher and such) than to impoverish our progeny to try to prevent your scenarios. Even if Kyoto were fully implemented, it would push back the worst case 100 year temperature rise by SIX YEARS! And NOBODY is adhering to Kyoto.

And I'm not (and most scientists are not) willing to grant you anything. There's no science behind the IPCC -- just politics. You luddites want to kill off most of humanity so you can go back to living in trees (I guess your primary motivation is take the toys away from people who can afford them because no one will pay you enough to enable you to buy your own).

And, your logic defies understanding. First you claim that we needn't consider the net benefits of global warming -- and the actual costs to mitigate what little hardships would ensue -- because the US of A killed more Japs with napalm than with nukes. And now you tell us you want to take some meaningless action today because some people can support drilling in ANWR even if they don't believe our economy would collapse without it. Huh?

OBTW, atmospheric pressure MAY have been greater aeons ago because Oxygen (O2)is a LOT heavier than NITROGEN (N) -- like more than twice! (you moron). Now do you get it?

And, I guess you don't have the chops to actually do any real science (why am I not surprised?) No, Michael, atmospheric CO2 will never be fully absorbed by the oceans. But, the levels will stabilize, depending on temperature and gas pressure. No, Michael, the CO2 won't "remain" in the atmosphere. That which can be absorbed, will be absorbed. Have you never taken a college level chemistry course?

The answer to the question (which you obviously cannot answer) is that levels will return to approximately where they are at present. The earth has survived the Indonesian fires of the nineties:

WASHINGTON, DC, November 8, 2002 (ENS) - Wildfires that scorched parts of Indonesia in 1997 spewed as much carbon into the atmosphere as the entire planet's biosphere removes from it in a year, shows new research published this week. The fires, which destroyed thousands of forest acres and left peat bogs smoldering for months, released as much as 2.6 billion metric tons of carbon - mostly in the form of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) - into the atmosphere.

A team of scientists led by Susan Page from the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom attempted to estimate the mount of carbon released by the 1997 fires, and their potential effects on global warming. In an article published in the November 7 issue of the journal "Nature," the researchers conclude that these fires were "a major contributor to the sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations detected in 1998."

This 2.6 Billion tonnes (metric tons) contrasts with the 7 billion/yr mankind may be responsible for.

Are you going to prevent natural fires and volcanic eruptions too, Michael?

And Bruce, (poor Bruce). Have I reduced you to just casting silly insults towards me? Why don't you cite some "climatologists" (can you get a degree in this now? Our tax dollars at work!) to refute the NWS article I cited above (no atmospheric warming, AT ALL). No fun, huh?

Michael, there's no need to appologize for "poor wording".

I was actually apologizing for the confusion it caused, not the wording itself.

but you don't have the mindset to admit to being wrong.

You haven't been here long enough to make that kind of judgment, sorry. Stick around for a year or so, then try again.

Since you like cites, why don't you give us one to the scenario you're most fearful of.

How about this one:
I'm on record as being skeptical of catastrophic claims anyway.

And Michael, you claim to "be on record" (cite?) as being skeptical of catastrophic warming.

Again, stick around for a while and you'll know it's not just a "claim". Funny, I had assumed by the previous quote that you hadn't read this portion.

If that's so, then why advocate doing anything?

Because doing something is better than a not-quite-catastrophic-but-still bad outcome. For the same reason people can support ANWR drilling without believing that the US economy will collapse without it.

I'll make an educated guess

I find that difficult to believe.

that you're wildly against permitting more domestic oil drilling because (amongst other things, I'm sure), any successes wouldn't impact domestic supplies for fifteen to twenty years.

Or, you could go back and read through some comment threads on that very topic, and see me criticizing people, including front-page authors, for making that very argument. Again, you haven't been here long enough to make any kind of judgments.

And what argument did I make that you claim is "flawed"?

You claimed that animal and plant respiration caused a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. You also claimed that O2 is heavier than C+O2. The first is flawed logic, the second is mathematically wrong.

I explained to you that every bit of carbon mankind releses into the atmosphere has been there before.

I'm not arguing with you on that, I'm simply stating that the atmospheric conditions, when it was there, were not suitable for our current ecosystem.

And I asked you to answer a very simple question: if all of the carbon now stored in fuels and plant life were released into the atmosphere in a short period of time (say a month or so), how long would it take for the oceans and plant life to absorb it?

The oceans will only absorb until they reach an equilibrium, which by definition means that there will still be an increase in atmospheric CO2, even after the oceans have absorbed all they are capable of. Plants are not currently CO2 deprived, so increasing the availability of CO2 won't actually cause much increase in plant growth. So the answer to your question is that it will never be fully absorbed. Without a mechanism to remove some of it from the carbon cycle, the increase will remain.

Did I get it right, Michael?

No, and I'm beginning to believe that you don't want to either. Still, your "moron" tick didn't introduce itself into every paragraph of your post this time, I guess that's a good sign.

In fact you demonstrated ignorance about the basic heat transfer mechanisms central to what passes for theory amongst the faithful warm-mongers. And you don't even know the groundings for the wildass claims of catastrophic threshold effects (they ALL depend on unstoppable and ever increasing humidity to get enough greenhouse effect AND to absorb and hold and eventually transfer enough energy to our oceans to actually make a difference in global temperatures).

Since you like cites, why don't you give us one to the scenario you're most fearful of. Provide one that actually links to raw data, underlying theories, and modeling details. Let's see if you can find one that doesn't depend on water vapor.

And Michael, you claim to "be on record" (cite?) as being skeptical of catastrophic warming. If that's so, then why advocate doing anything? I'll make an educated guess that you're wildly against permitting more domestic oil drilling because (amongst other things, I'm sure), any successes wouldn't impact domestic supplies for fifteen to twenty years. If you don't want to do anything now that might help Americans in the near future, why are you so anxious about doing SOMETHING now about Global Warming -- which may never occur (it seems to have stopped nearly ten years ago -- and may never have occured at all).

And what argument did I make that you claim is "flawed"? I explained to you that every bit of carbon mankind releses into the atmosphere has been there before. And I asked you to answer a very simple question: if all of the carbon now stored in fuels and plant life were released into the atmosphere in a short period of time (say a month or so), how long would it take for the oceans and plant life to absorb it?

Obviously, this kind of question is beyond your skill set.

And your parting argument is priceless. Let me see if I can distill it for you:

Michael claims that we needn't consider the net benefits of global warming -- and the actual costs to mitigate what little hardshops would ensue -- because the USA of killed more Japs with napalm than with nukes. Did I get it right, Michael?

In fact you demonstrated ignorance about the basic heat transfer mechanisms central to what passes for theory amongst the faithful warm-mongers. And you don't even know the groundings for the wildass claims of catastrophic threshold effects (they ALL depend on unstoppable and ever increasing humidity to get enough greenhouse effect AND to absorb and hold and eventually transfer enough energy to our oceans to actually make a difference in global temperatures).

Since you like cites, why don't you give us one to the scenario you're most fearful of. Provide one that actually links to raw data, underlying theories, and modeling details. Let's see if you can find one that doesn't depend on water vapor.

And Michael, you claim to "be on record" (cite?) as being skeptical of catastrophic warming. If that's so, then why advocate doing anything? I'll make an educated guess that you're wildly against permitting more domestic oil drilling because (amongst other things, I'm sure), any successes wouldn't impact domestic supplies for fifteen to twenty years. If you don't want to do anything now that might help Americans in the near future, why are you so anxious about doing SOMETHING now about Global Warming -- which may never occur (it seems to have stopped nearly ten years ago -- and may never have occured at all).

And what argument did I make that you claim is "flawed"? I explained to you that every bit of carbon mankind releses into the atmosphere has been there before. And I asked you to answer a very simple question: if all of the carbon now stored in fuels and plant life were released into the atmosphere in a short period of time (say a month or so), how long would it take for the oceans and plant life to absorb it?

Obviously, this kind of question is beyond your skill set.

And your parting argument is priceless. Let me see if I can distill it for you:

Michael claims that we needn't consider the net benefits of global warming -- and the actual costs to mitigate what little hardshops would ensue -- because the USA of killed more Japs with napalm than with nukes. Did I get it right, Michael?

I had thought you moonbats had gone away to lick your wounds. Oh, well

And the name calling begins, this doesn't bode well for your argument.

True, but you are deliberately trying to obfuscate your previous assertion -- that the heat capture mechanism purported to be the engine of global warming is the RADIATION of energy by the few CO2 molecules in our atmosphere that is subsequently ABSORBED by the earth and then re RADIATED back into the atmosphere.

Okay, poor wording on my part, I apologize. Yes, convection is responsible for the majority of heat transfer in the atmosphere. However, radiation is how it gets in, and radiation is how it gets out, anything that happens in between is irrelevant to libido.

Actually it does. Because they base ALL of their catastrophic claims on their notion that a (very) slight increase in average temperatures (purportedly due to CO2 effects) would occasion a huge rise in average humidity -- WHICH WOULD BE THE REAL DRIVER FOR INCREASING TEMPERATURES.

Hmmm, I haven't seen that notion in all of the catastrophic claims I've seen. But they again, I'm on record as being skeptical of catastrophic claims anyway.

Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and evaporation from the oceans.

And where to you suppose those animals or the oceans got the carbon dioxide from in the first place? It doesn't matter how much we circulate it, all that matters is the total amount there. When I exhale, the CO2 I breath out comes from hydrocarbons that I consumed in plant matter, which extracted the CO2 from the atmosphere some time before. There is no net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere because of this process. Please don't call me a moron while you're making such obviously flawed arguments.

Um Michael? Don't you insist on cites for these kinds of assertions.? Actually, there is quite a bit of theorizing on this -- and it may be true. But, so what? The increased air pressure would have been due to increase O2 concentrations (it weighs more).

During the Jurassic period, O2 levels were 130% of today's levels, while CO2 concentration was 500% of today's levels. During the Cambrian period, CO2 levels were nearly 12 times today's levels, with O2 at only 63% of today's levels. Oh, and CO2 weights more than O2, by about the weight of a carbon atom.

OK, Michael -- now we're gonna burn to death!

Didn't I specifically say you don't have to be burned to die? In nearly those exact words?

You ought to read some of Lomborg's works. He demonstrates that even if the most outlandish musings of you morons come true, far more deaths due to extreme cold conditions would be averted than the increased deaths attributable to warmer temperatures.

And that has what to do with what exactly? The US incendiary bombing of Tokyo directly killed more people than our atomic bombing of Hiroshima, that doesn't mean we should use atomic weapons more often.

Um, Gus? Surely I’m not the first to have concluded you’re a moron!

1. Rush is a commentator – not a “journalist”.

2. The notion that journalists must be taught “journalism” is another idiocy that you morons subscribe to. It’s really about conforming to the bias of “conventional wisdom” – and you’re a prime example, Gus.

3. Do you think parents want their children to hear about the needs of pederasts? Or Maoists? (Actually, I’m sure you do).

And, you wonder why I think you’re a moron?

Bruce Moombat tells us: The uncertainty about the amount of CO2 that will be in the air by 2100 runs BOTH ways ...

DUH! So why do you idiots persist in telling us, WE'RE DOOMED (unless we act right now!) And, THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!! And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And: The June 7 "Science News" reports the best analysis yet of CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in glacial ice layers over the last 800,000 years.

Gee, Bruce -- why limit your research to the last 800,000 years? You think of yourself as a "scientist", don't you (even if the rest of us are laughing -- and sneering -- at you). Is it because if you extend the historical range of your "citation", CO2 levels were MUCH higher? And that there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is a follower -- AND NOT THE DRIVER -- of temperature? (check out the Carboniferous Period and the rate of absorbtion of carbon) And, do you really wonder why I think you're a moron?

And, There have already been one hell of a lot of studies of the extent to which the increase in atnospheric CO2 might stimulate plant growth to pull it back out of the air in a self-regulating negative feedback ...

Bruce, you moron -- this is how it works! You're just as stupid as Michael -- you idiots don't understand that there is a fixed amount of carbon in and on our planet. More isn't created -- and it never gets used up. Instead it gets cycled -- and the biggest moderator is our oceans. Is it any wonder that you've never found anyone who would pay you what you think you're worth?

And, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas

No, Bruce, CO2 is a VERY WEAK greenhouse gas. (see the explanation in an earlier post -- you idiots think you can claim that a small increase in global temperatures that MIGHT be occasioned by slightly elevated CO2 levels would ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY POSITIVELY occasion a LARGE increase in water vapor -- which would be the actual driver of REALLY INCREASED TEMPERATURES). And, do you really wonder why I think you're a moron?

And, Earth has undergone comparably big changes in global temperature for other reasons in the geological past -- but they've been stretched out over tens of thousands of years (we could easily adapt to the coming change if it was that leisurely), and had any as rapid as this one occurred when humanity was around, it would have been comparably destructive to human society.

Bruce, you should try (holding your nose and) reading Lomborg. If indeed the most dire warming scenarios unfold, it will be easy (and cheap) to deal with them. Indeed, the benefits (longer growing seasons in now colder climes, shorter winters (no change to summers), fewer deaths due to cold) far outweigh the problems. Are you really as stupid as your writings suggest?

1. Rush is a commentator – not a “journalist”.
2. The notion that journalists must be taught “journalism” is [Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.. ]It’s really about conforming to the bias of “conventional wisdom” – and you’re a prime example, Gus.
3. Do you think parents want their children to hear about the needs of pederasts? Or Maoists? (Actually, I’m sure you do).
Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Keep commentary to discussion of issues.

Convection does not get energy from the sun to the earth, nor from the earth back into space.

True, but you are deliberately trying to obfuscate your previous assertion -- that the heat capture mechanism purported to be the engine of global warming is the RADIATION of energy by the few CO2 molecules in our atmosphere that is subsequently ABSORBED by the earth and then re RADIATED back into the atmosphere. I explained to you that the principal heat transfer mechanism is CONVECTION (by several orders of magnitude). Now you're just trying to pretend your really not as stupid as I have amply demonstrated.

OBTW, here's a cite from the National Weather Service that explains all this and gives us LOTS more information.

Convection
Convection is the transfer of heat energy in a fluid. This type of heating is most commonly seen in the kitchen when you see liquid boiling.
Air in the atmosphere acts as a fluid. The sun's radiation strikes the ground, thus warming the rocks. As the rock's temperature rises due to conduction, heat energy is released into the atmosphere, forming a bubble of air which is warmer than the surrounding air. This bubble of air rises into the atmosphere. As it rises, the bubble cools with the heat contained in the bubble moving into the atmosphere.
As the hot air mass rises, the air is replaced by the surrounding cooler, more dense air, what we feel as wind. These movements of air masses can be small in a certain region, such as local cumulus clouds, or large cycles in the troposphere, covering large sections of the earth. Convection currents are responsible for many weather patterns in the troposphere.

It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.

In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)

The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case.

The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.

The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.

Michael: CO2 is a weak green-house gas, yes, but that fact alone doesn't make the modelers morons.

Actually it does. Because they base ALL of their catastrophic claims on their notion that a (very) slight increase in average temperatures (purportedly due to CO2 effects) would occasion a huge rise in average humidity -- WHICH WOULD BE THE REAL DRIVER FOR INCREASING TEMPERATURES. Go ahead, ask me for a cite! And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Michael: CO2 is the focus because it's what we have control over.

Control over? And, you wonder why I think you're a moron? What percentage of the yearly CO2 contributions are from mankind? Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tonnes of man-made emissions from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture.

Now, ask me for a cite. Let's show the world how little you know about the subjects you opine on.

Michael, do you really believe that you can eliminate mankind's contribution -- or that eliminating 7 parts vs. the remaining 150 parts would actually make a difference? And, do you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Michael: A dinosaur alive today would feel like you would living on top of Mt. Everest, the atmosphere is much thinner than they were accustomed to.

Um Michael? Don't you insist on cites for these kinds of assertions.? Actually, there is quite a bit of theorizing on this -- and it may be true. But, so what? The increased air pressure would have been due to increase O2 concentrations (it weighs more).

Michael: heat can kill you without being hot enough to burn you.

OK, Michael -- now we're gonna burn to death! You ought to read some of Lomborg's works. He demonstrates that [Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.] far more deaths due to extreme cold conditions would be averted than the increased deaths attributable to warmer temperatures. Another "Inconvenient Truth", Michael?

Result: 65-29 negative nationwide -- which means there's a good chance that his attack on Fox threw the very close Missouri Senate race, and with it control of the US Senate, to the Dems. Go, Rush!

(1) The uncertainty about the amount of CO2 that will be in the air by 2100 runs BOTH ways: a fact which should be obvious, and which has been remarked on recently in a whole series of articles in science journals. There's a growing body of climatologists who think that the IPCC has seriously UNDERSTATED the extent of the problem. (See, for instance, the June 8 and July 6, 2007 issues of "Science".)

(2) The June 7 "Science News" reports the best analysis yet of CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in glacial ice layers over the last 800,000 years. During that period, the level never rose above 300 parts per million -- until this century. Now it's at 380 ppm, and rising at a rate of 2 ppm per year. Which is not exactly surprising, given that we're burning up hydrocarbons stored underground over a period of literally hundreds of millions of years in a single century. (As for Rogers saying that irrigation wells are a serious problem because they increase in a major way the amount of water capable of evaporating into the air as humidity -- in a world where the entire water table is directly physically linked together, from underground aquifers to rivers to the ocean -- well, my God.)

(3) There have already been one hell of a lot of studies of the extent to which the increase in atnospheric CO2 might stimulate plant growth to pull it back out of the air in a self-regulating negative feedback. Answer, unfortunately: very little. Plants don't just need more CO2 to grow: they need more water and more soil nutrients -- and the supply of neither will grow. (What IS virtually certain to happen pretty soon is that the already-recorded increase in temperature of the soil in Earth's tundras will cause them to release a large additional burp of CO2 stored right now in cold tundra soil, thereby worsening the problem.)

(4) How long, O Lord, will the Custeresque shrinking band of GW skeptics keep dragging out that "climatologists thought in the 1970s that there was a serious danger of Earth cooling" canard? A small number of climatologists raised that at the time as one of several alternative possibilities for about 3 years in the late 1970s, and then quickly dropped it when the accumulating climatological evidence of the time conclusively disproved it. By contrast, the far vaster accumulation of climatological data we have now has been simply adding more and more, ever since the mid-1980s, to the idea that man-made global warming is by contrast a very real phenomenon. Indeed, given the common-sense facts that (1) CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, both directly and indirectly (as has been known for a century), and (2) we are dumping far more of it into the air than has existed there for tens (and perhaps hundreds) of thousands of years, it would be astonishing if it DIDN'T produce a major problem.

Earth has undergone comparably big changes in global temperature for other reasons in the geological past -- but they've been stretched out over tens of thousands of years (we could easily adapt to the coming change if it was that leisurely), and had any as rapid as this one occurred when humanity was around, it would have been comparably destructive to human society.

Which of course leaves us with the much more difficult question of just what the optimal course of action is for dealing with man-made GW is -- and I imagine that we are going to have to throw a combination of everything but the kitchen sink at it (carbon taxes, new energy-production technologies, new energy-conservation technologies, possible new CO2 re-sequestration technologies, massive worldwide migrations of population, simple endurance of increased worldwide misery). The one course of action that is NOT acceptable is sticking your head in the sand in the hope that it will be cooler under there.