If i could, I would give this post a googleplex of thumbs up.

I can say Ovomit.
Obummer.
Obooboo.
O = 0.
His Excellency El Presidente Zero
Liar-In-Chief
A POS POTUS.

My Issues with Global Warming:

The science of modeling global warming and the political discussions arguing in support of it suffer from a comprehensive list of logical fallacies.
First the science part.
Any mathematical model can suffer from mistakes in reasoning which lead to invalid predictions. That is why validation of the model against actual data is critical. The UK’s Met Office has acknowledged that global warming has been on pause for the last 15+ years (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/new...). I do not believe that any of the models predicted this, and in fact had almost uniformly predicted a 0.5+ degree C rise. Since the consensus of the models have been wrong since the mid-1980s, I believe that there must have been a fundamental flaw in the premise.
Two logical fallacies feed into this; they are Measurement and Anchoring fallacies. Measurement fallacies are unwarranted inferential leaps in the extrapolation of raw data to a measurement based value claim (global mean temperature vs CO2). Anchoring is a cognitive bias that places too much importance on the first piece of information in a deductive chain. In this case the assumption that CO2 is “the principal” driver of global warming. Then what follows, all based all based upon the non-existent global warming, are dire predictions of the effects of global warming on increased volatility in weather patterns yielding droughts and torrential storms. These in turn are concluded to yield famines, floods and property damage. Next those effects lead to disease outbreaks, increased mental disorders and stress.
The chain of effects is quite long. And apparently these effects are, according to many people in all forms of the media, happening today. But if there hasn’t been any recorded increase in mean global temperature over the last 15+ years how can these current effects be assigned to increased levels of CO2 which has in deed increased?
This whole logical chain also encompasses the naturalistic that more is either better or worse. More CO2 might improve crop yields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...).
Secondly the arguments in support of global warming also suffer a wide range of logical fallacies.
Sadly apart from modelers’ general fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (presenting a false cause and effect), are the following arguments:
• card-stacking (the selective use of facts) – reporting high temperature weather extremes as “climate”, report that some glaciers are receding while ignoring that others are growing, etc.
• bandwagoning (asserting that everyone agrees) – the use of Google searches on article about global warming; most of which assign current effects to non-existent warming
• non-sequitur (making jumps in logic) – asserting that pretty much any malady can be caused by global warming. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...
• petitio principi (assuming they are right) – politicians, media, celebrities, and many others speak as if they are a genuine authority and want to been known for having the right opinions.
And most disturbing all are the ad hominem attacks on the character of anyone who, in any small degree) dissents from the “group think.” Some of those who support the theory of global warming are suggesting punishing or imprisoning dissenters (https://theconversation.com/is-misinform...) & ( http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-...).

In conclusion; I have provided the logical basis for my opposition to the theory that CO2 is the principle driver of global warming, and that the political discussion in support of it has degenerated into “petitio principi” argument using vicious “ad hominem” attacks.
And by the way, “the science” is seldom settled. The Standard Model’s prediction of a plethora of additional supersymmetry particles have yet to discovered(http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/06/higgs-boson-physics-hits-buffers-discovery). We’ve come a long way from Niels Bohr’s model of the atom, and westill have farther to go.

Jeff Crump

Can you say Obama?

They don't want to air that all the BS they have been dumping in the air (talk about pollution) is wrong. They need a crisis to have anything to report. They don't want to have nothing to report forcing them to say "nothing happened yesterday, so we'll listen to some nice music instead".

The volcano that erupted in Iceland a few years back dumped more CO2 in the air that all the effort of reduction that has been done were eliminated.

Like the founder of the TV weather channel says, if we think we can fix this we're fooling ourselves. I suspect that goes for whatever causes this so called problem.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I do find the cap increasing sort of damning. Of course a short change may be noise. It is still ominously silent in the media.

I just submitted a "best of" for your comments;;;
Thank You! . we leave nothing but footprints in
the Smokies, also! -- j

"The problem"
There is no problem unless it is the good chance of a cooling earth.
The solution to that is more coal powered generators. There is plenty of coal. That will produce more CO2 which is good for plant growth and may mitigate the effect of decreasing grain production from lower temperatures.

scojohnson writes
'We do see very pronounced effects of global warming around the arctic circle,'

Seven years ago, Al Gore said
‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,' ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Gore wrong again-
The Arctic ice cap is expanding. The summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres more than 2 years ago

for real figures see
http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm

There is no "it".
Carbon dioxide in a plant nutrient not a pollutant.

ok, my usual comments...
re: the Smithsonian Graph...
>> Most humans graph things with the time arrow pointing to the right, not left... Bleah.

MMGW?
>> Ok, EXACTLY WHAT caused Each and Every One of the RECURRING Major Ice Ages?
<crickets...> still, always waiting for an answer to that one... from Anyone! .... nada.

Nuclear?
>> Japan shut theirs down after the tsunami and now imports hydrocarbon-based stuff to provide their electricity. Smart move?

Europe also shut down nukes to go Green...
>> and discovered that electric power usage has TWO components... base loading and peak or varying load. Nukes are PERFECT for base loading.. They're discovering that in Europe today, now that their cleanest base-load plants are being taken offline.

Solar/Wind/Green Power?
>> Are ALL INTERMITTENT and literally Require base-load generation from 'non-green' sources! Even if wind or solar could provide enough Total Energy needed by the grid, the sun Still Don't Shine at night, so ya still gotta store the excess peak production somewhere somehow, and batteries, flywheels and pumped storage just can't hack it ... YET. Some of the latest developments in battery technology are starting to look promising on that front (including for electric vehicle propulsion (!), but I suspect that large-scale commercial applications are at least 5-20 years off.

So the question Should Be: "How do we best deal with these problems UNTIL the pie-in-the-sky gets delivered to our doorsteps?"

.... crickets.... people would rather fix the blame than the problem.

While I do not know of anyone figuring that out. I have no doubt that it could be piled that high.

"missing your point"
I see how that was confusing. I was trying to say adopt nuclear and keep hydrocarbons as a backup and to get us through the transition, not b/c we might want it once nuclear is working. My thought is don't wait for it to be a crisis in some form or another.

"Are you a believer in human caused climate change, or just thinking we need to deal with a natural climate change that is going to be a future problem? "
I accept the evidence that humans are having a significant effect on the cycle of glaciation/deglaciation. Regardless of the cause, I think this will incur significant costs to humans in the form of changing farming conditions (in some cases for the better, other times for the worse) and coastal flooding. If we could control it, we could avoid these costs and manipulate things in our favor.

missing your point. Maybe the same as my store/transfer question.

Are you a believer in human caused climate change, or just thinking we need to deal with a natural climate change that is going to be a future problem? It is not clear to me that the trend has legs and/or that it will not simply stabilize at a new point close to where we are.

but if we have electricity, say from nuclear or a new superior solar, we can simply use electricity and electric cars. What is the problem, other than the batteries that everyone is already working on?

That is very good, not to believe CG at all.
C02 comes out of the ocean water when it is warm, well so do hurricanes feed off of warm water. No hurricanes have hit the USA in 6 years because the Atlantic is to cold to support them, so no C02 comes out of the ocean. The jet stream is and has for several years gone south during the winter so that allows the cold air to drop down to florida etc. the very idea that the earth is warming is a serious joke. what we are experiencing and have been for 30 years is going to continue and the next 5 years will be worse than this year. I wonder if canada will be able to get a wheat crop this summer and how much of our crop will be effected. check via the internet about the weather in places like siberia. putin wants the ukrain for their wheat otherwise he could careless about the place. you might want to get a copy of DARK WINTER by JOHN CASEY. He does explain how the sun is the primary culprit in causing the cooling. Some Russian climatologists do believe that we have already started the process going towards the ice age. the general conversation should not exist because there is no man made global warming, there is simply the earth doing what ever it does as a course of its existence. Get a good sleeping bag and outerwear and store food and fuel.

Something to replace what burning stuff does for us now.

Not for later, for if we if don't find a cost-effective alternative to store/transfer energy or in case we don't find a cost-effective way to deal with climate change.

Why the vehicle to store/release energy rapidly?

Job-killing enviro-facist federal bullies are the problem in Alabama. I have a stepson who is a coal miner with a wife and three kids to feed.

http://yellowhammernews.com/business-2/b...

"I meant its easier by not using coal plants."
It has to be not burning stuff, even natural gas. It has to be nuclear. And there has to be a vehicle to store the energy and release it rapidly.

Maybe the difficulty level lies between easy and enormous.

"Getting CO2 back in the box is easy. Just wait for the plants to do it."
Yes. They did it before. They can do it again.