Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:00am:


Disagree. Totally.

From the link provided in the OP

CONCLUSIONS

There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.

There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, econom ical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, how -
ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and an imal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase.

Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.


Far out? Who financed this self-contradicting garbage?

How the hell do ridiculous papers like this get published in the 1st instance?

Have you bothered to read the last page of your link?

It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales.

Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling.

Just ignore Ajax.  He has trouble with basic arithmetic and comprehension.  I actually this he is really just a weird piece of software that endlessly repeats silly talking points on forums like this.

Surely a real person couldn't be so ignorant.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:30am:


Typical alarmist when they cant fight the science FACTS they revert to personal insults.

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:33am:

Don't be silly Ajax - you wouldn't know a FACT if it bit you on the arse. 

You can't add up.
You don't understand what you read.
And you tell lies.

Come back to us when you can do some calculations that are not out by a factor of a million.
And when you can tell us why you believe a tabloid columnist that tells you warming stopped in 1998 - when sea levels have continued to rise, the arctic ice cap has continued to melt and global glacial mass balance has continued to decrease.

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:00am:


Damn, and I really wanted to know if I wanted to take an umbrella with me when I go out on the 28st August 2113.

So let me get this right, climate models tell you how windy it will be on that day and whether or not it will rain on a particular day 100 years in the future? - or do they just forecast general averaged trends? 

Do you think that climate is just a tad different from weather forecasting?

I'm interested in your opinion.