New Study: No Rise in Carbon Dioxide Fraction

If you penetrate a little further into this study by Wolfgang Knorr and read his comments on his findings you will find a very level headed man. He states his study doesn't say one way or the other if AGW is happening, but that we need to take a good look at the scientific models and studies and make sure we are doing them correctly. I am all for emission control, but the Cap and Trade idea gives me great pause. Great pause.

Never been susceptible the the Al Gore types" the shy is falling" absurdness, I think we need to slow down on this and not implement massive Cap and Trade policies until all avenues are exhausted.

I read the evidence you highlighted and did not see one item I had not read at least 100 times over the past 20 years.

Here is a fact.

Whatever Al Gore says about anything has no relevance to climate science. Why are you talking about what he says? It would mean that if I say something, that by you pointing out what I say is wrong then means that science is wrong.

That isn't childish, it is insanity. You would have to mentally insane to close your garage door and run your combustion engine while sitting in the car. Yet, you would argue that 1 billion cars all pumping the same gasses into the atmosphere is silliness.

Better not publish this comment either. Time to bring on good ole 'mericano censorship.

If you've actually taken the time to read that information, then you've proved I was right: you ARE obtuse. Even a six-year-old could figure out from the information presented there that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is a bunch of hooey. Of course, some people don't want to figure things out; they are inconvenient to their ideology.

People like me cite Al Gore because he is the High Priest of your religion. He is the all-seeing and all-knowing prophet of your faith. It is quite obvious what he says has no relevance to science, but he claims it does, and most of his disciples like yourself claim what he says is "science," so it makes sense that we would mention him when we talk about your religion.

It is true that this whole thing is childish. In fact, as I stated earlier regarding the reckoning ability of the average six year old, it's somewhat insulting to children to say that the belief in AGW is "childish." Most children aren't closed-minded enough to believe this nonsense.

By the way, you only display further appalling ignorance with your Leftist cry of "censorship." Maybe it escaped you, but Dakota Voice is not a government agency. You have no right to say anything here, and I am under no obligation whatsoever to publish your ignorant comments....even though I often do, until my patience runs out.

Very poor conclusion. To say that because all hamburgers have been eaten that the number of cows slaughtered remains constant is faulty logic.

To state that 45% of CO2 remains airborne is also conjecture based upon hypothesis. If CO2 is eaten by oceans until the ocean is no longer hungry, this would imply the percentage would change.

To then conclude other science is hot air is childish.

I don't conclude other "science" is hot air based on this finding. You should read the summary of the mountain of evidence against the silly theory of anthropogenic global warming at the link embedded in the word "evidence" in the last paragraph.

Gee Bob what makes you think I haven't read all the mountains of data? Is because you haven't read it and by default think evryone knows less than you? No surprise there.

There is no such thing as a silly hypothesis. If science were worried about being labeled as "silly" for asking questions lesser educated people are unable to even form, then science would not have brought you fusion. Fusion is the power of the stars, and was first created in the stars, then through science, was mimicked using technology.

No science is silly. But when you read someone use condescending terminology expect less than cogent argumentation.

I have read it; why do you think I tried to point it out to you? Apparently you haven't, or you would realize what a laughable idea anthropogenic global warming is.

Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear you aren't interested in learning anything because your entire comment is filled will fallacious and obtuse statements.

Enjoy your Koolaid.

Let's run a hypothetical experiment and see if we draw any relevant conclusions about man's ability to impact long term climate.

Take all the nuclear weapons in silos across Europe, North America, China, and the mideast.

Maybe 10,000 warheads. Launch these weapons into all the nuclear powerplants that are running on all the continents.

My hypothesis is this:

A cloud of radioactivity would cover the planet leading to a general decline in biodivesity, resulting in systematic collapse of all plant and animal based food chains. Desertification and decomposition would raise atmospheric CO2 above the 45%.

Now please argue your side and explain how this nuclear nightmare could not impact long-term climate. And if you must include your silly laughable words, feel free if it helps you feel better.

You should have quit a long time ago, Earl. You've gone beyond making yourself look bad to...well, I won't go there.

Suffice to say (for any other Koolaid drinkers like yourself out there who might wander by and think your hypothetical argument might actually make some sense) that nuclear radioactivity and CO2 are two vastly different things which have vastly different effects on organic matter. In short, one is a natural and useful part of our environment, while the other is not a natural part of our environment and is immensely destructive to it.

I won't bother trying to explain anything more complicated than that, since you obviously can't even get your head around the astonishingly clear information I provided which proves beyond any (sane) doubt that climate change on our planet is natural and cyclic, and has been going on for centuries before evil capitalist industry or SUVs were ever thought of.

Okay, I've wasted enough time on you today, Earl. I hope the light comes on for you someday, at least.

At the bottom of this page

www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
It includes:

British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, 'Food to Ethanol'
The United States Department of Energy, 'Nuclear'
Irish Electricity Supply Board. 'LNG, Nuclear'
UK Nirex Ltd. 'Nuclear'
Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
Tate and Lyle. 'Food to Ethanol'
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 'Nuclear'
KFA Germany, 'Nuclear'

You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.

This is all about making Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol more cost competitive.

They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for, the results that you accept, and drive you to demand low CO2 products. They have the products you now want so desperately, and they are ready to deliver.

The raw data, the computer models and the methods used by the CRU have not been released, only the results. The CRU does not do science; they are in the anti-CO2 business.

I do not see a difference between this and Merck, their 'researchers' and Vioxx, the government and 'thousands and thousands' of doctors believed them, as did a lot of people.

It is business, it is capitalism.

Science Fiction from the Climate Research Unit.

The CRU is has not been practicing the scientific method for almost two decades. The scientific method requires that the researcher publish the original data, models and procedures needed for a skeptical analysis of any of their work. Since they are not using the scientific method then they simply are not doing science, they are writing fiction.

Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work. The outputs from the CRU are in comparison junk, so I ask, why are these fictional 'research' papers allowed to remain in the realm of scientific publications? Why do people continue to quote the CRU as if they were the work of Albert Einstein rather than the work of Mark Twain?

This is not the science that you think it is. DailyScience has not correctly stated the conclusions or even used the a correct title for Knorr's paper.

Knorr's article is about the ANTHROPOGENIC fraction of the increase in carbon dioxide over time, which Knorr claims that he can't find any statistical significant increase ... in the FRACTION. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040...

A proper detailed examination of the paper is written up by SkepticalScience
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne...

This news like all data saying that AGW has been greatly exagerated will be ignored take for example,
"Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2009 was 10.26 million square kilometers (3.96 million square miles). This was 1.05 million square kilometers (405,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for November, but 420,000 square kilometers (160,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in November 2006. In general, the ice edge is now at or slightly beyond its average location, with two notable exceptions: Hudson Bay and the Barents Sea."(source The National Snow and Ice Data Center) Which means sea ice is growing, but you never hear that! The fact is you would think it would be on the front page of the every paper, people of the world should be thrilled! I know I am. but this is not the case, they deny this good news. For some odd reason people want global warming to be true! I wish I could tell you why, but I cant! Maybe they think this will bring some piece and love eutopia to the world! Some beautiful eutopia where the streets are paved with gold! But the only gold eutopia will be in the pockets of the ones invested in carbon credits and so called green technology!

Carbon dioxide composes a little more than .03% of atmospheric gas. This does not fluctuate significantly except as a function of ocean temperatures. Carbon dioxide dissolves readily in cold water but escapes when water warms. This is the same phenomenon we see when we open a warm soda and it foams up. Furthermore, when CO2 levels rise in the ocean waters carbonate-fixing organisms (like some plankton, clams and other mollusks) proliferate causing the excess carbon to be locked-up in ocean sediments (all that limestone that we use for construction and still covers most of the earth was once carbon dioxide).

If we made it a mission of mankind to raise carbon dioxide levels to raise global temps it would be like spitting in the ocean. Climate scientists know all this, but as we have seen with the e-mails from top CRU officials, this is not about saving the environment, it's about implementing world government controls on industrial nations.

Direct, to the point and absolutely on target!
Kudos.