I don’t think you have an agenda, Todd, other than what you believe is right and good. I was certainly a jerk to throw Venus in your face. But in the spirit of this type of forum–and because of the phd waving–I couldn’t resist….

To be clear, I am an open minded skeptic. I do not trust everything written in the books you’ve studied–nor the agenda of those who push biased knowledge into universities. As was said by the bards of the ancient universities, “the beginning of knowledge is doubt.”

“Climate skeptics?” I don’t fully agree or disagree with the other skeptics here, but if you want to use name calling rather than debate try “Climate Deniers.” That has more oomph–sort of suggests they might be in alignment with Nazi Holocaust Deniers.

As for “undeniable science,” aren’t we supposed to question what we think we know? As I understand it, if it’s “undeniable” it’s religion, not true science.

There is evidence also, suggesting all the planets in our solar system are experiencing global warming at this time–due to solar activity.

I’m not saying that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature rising. I’m an open minded skeptic. But this phd is the perfect example of what true education isn’t–institutionally trained!

The emails don't disprove anything.. what it does say, is that most of the scientists that worked at East Anglia (pretty much the NASA of climate science, let's not be modest about how chummy these particular scientists were with political leaders) themselves were shocked to see that there was an apparent cooling trend. And “how were they going to explain” it? Things like that…

Further, if you ACTUALLY go into reading the emails, you can see the ACTUAL SOURCE CODE for some of the models they used to promote their theory.. and WHAT does the source code say? It BLATANTLY shows the adding of whole degrees of temperature here and there to make the temperatures APPEAR warmer than they actually were.. THAT is a big no no… THAT is what the media chooses not to report to help the AGW theory save-face.

Speaking of AGW, do you think it's fair to stick the average everyday people with a tax to “help neutralize their carbon footprint” when it is CLEAR that the average Joe doesn't contribute NEARLY as much as say “dirty” companies that use coal and fossil fuels? Or even the natural occurrences like volcanoes? Or bovines? Or pets? Or should we stop breathing? Stop exhaling ALL that CO2.

THAT is our major gripe with this issue… the policy that keeps coming out is going to REALLY hurt the average taxpayer. The excess costs we will incur when we have to pay for ANYTHING energy related.. electricity? heat? gasoline?

The emails don’t disprove anything.. what it does say, is that most of the scientists that worked at East Anglia (pretty much the NASA of climate science, let’s not be modest about how chummy these particular scientists were with political leaders) themselves were shocked to see that there was an apparent cooling trend. And “how were they going to explain” it? Things like that…

Further, if you ACTUALLY go into reading the emails, you can see the ACTUAL SOURCE CODE for some of the models they used to promote their theory.. and WHAT does the source code say? It BLATANTLY shows the adding of whole degrees of temperature here and there to make the temperatures APPEAR warmer than they actually were.. THAT is a big no no… THAT is what the media chooses not to report to help the AGW theory save-face.

Speaking of AGW, do you think it’s fair to stick the average everyday people with a tax to “help neutralize their carbon footprint” when it is CLEAR that the average Joe doesn’t contribute NEARLY as much as say “dirty” companies that use coal and fossil fuels? Or even the natural occurrences like volcanoes? Or bovines? Or pets? Or should we stop breathing? Stop exhaling ALL that CO2.

THAT is our major gripe with this issue… the policy that keeps coming out is going to REALLY hurt the average taxpayer. The excess costs we will incur when we have to pay for ANYTHING energy related.. electricity? heat? gasoline?

Sue Al Gore, then go shopping in your Hummer, everything is OK. Enjoy the fantasy while you can……eh?

Frustrated climate scientist,
Todd

Either way, the climates of both Earth and Mars have fluctuated to much warmer and much colder temperatures due to concentrations of greenhouse gasses. The radiative transfer, energy balance, and physics, are all well understood.

In the future, though, if you plan to insult someone for making a mistake, you might wish to check your spelling and grammar first (3rd GRATER? venues? earth? But you capitalize Scientifically? I'm glad to see how well our education system is working out.

THE TRUTH OUT – THE 'SCIENTISTS' LIED TO PUSH THEIR GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA.

so much for that PhD!

Here's how it goes, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c...

If his goal is to simply get the science discussed in court as a matter of public record, well, that's cool, I guess. I imagine there might have been a better way to do it.

I've read enough scientifically sound anti-anthro global warming to have my doubts as to the severity of man's impact on the Earth. But I do not doubt that we do, in fact, have an impact and a significant one.

The common sense view is that we are helping to accelerate an overall global climate change that was already taking place. I can get behind this.

I'm also behind analysis that says man kind cannot do anything to halt the climate change or really even slow it down. It's too late.

Things are going to suck sooner than they should have. Many species will not have time to react and will die off.

This is the nature of.. well, nature. There are these big cycles that we cannot help but be a part of.

Biodiversity is great but it is not something that can be maintained artificially.

If man stopped cutting down rain forests for cow pastures or crops, stopped dumping trash into the ocean, and made intelligent long term decisions, we could do a lot to help minimize the pain of climate change.

Some people criticize Al Gore for being set to make billions off of the tech he's pushing to help the Earth. So. That's capitalism.

Wind power, solar power, and geothermal power are effectively limitless. Nuclear power has a ridiculously high return on investment.

Clean coal, isn't. Oil reserves are dwindling. It may be 125 years before they run out, but it will be a few billion years before solar runs out.

I could care less about foreign vs. American oil. We shouldn't be focusing on oil, regardless.

On the other hand, if the Yellowstone super volcano were to explode, all of our tiny conservation efforts would mean exactly nothing.

By the way, the IPCC is an extremely conservative organization.

But we're not saying that the Earth is going to bake. CO2 has risen and so have global temperatures. Why is this being denied? Ask Exxon.