Should us true scientists have to prove AGW or ACC wrong?

Actually, the "alarmists" have to prove their case. On the other hand, we--as skeptics--can provide simply ONE solid problem with the AGW hypothesis to refute it...and we have provided about a dozen. Here are a few:

1. CO2 is not by any means a noxious gas, as is, e.g., Carbon Monoxide. As a matter of fact Carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for photosynthetic plants, upon which we depend for oxygen production and food.

2. CO2 is associated with only very marginal 'greenhouse" effects. Other gases, such as sulfur dioxide, e.g., from volcanoes and rotting organic material, are much more potent greenhouse gases.

3. The biggest "driver" of climate change is Solar Activity, not CO2,

4. The placement of temperature reading stations around the world tends to be near cities, not out in the "wastes," so their readings could be expected to be skewed higher than the actual earth temperatures.

5. Temperature readings from satellites do not dovetail with surface stations...there are many inconsistencies.

6. The AGW alarmists routinely "cherry--pick" data, in order to support their case. A prime example is the "hockey-stick" graph feature, incorporated in their materials. When flaw in the data is

removed, the "dramatic" evidence of GW disappears.

7. Any "warming" (hard to say, conclusively) was on the order of 0.3 degrees, and this very modest increase leveled off in the late nineties. There is no basis for a cataclysmic prediction based on these data. To do so is to operate on the intellectual level of the Fund. Christian apocalyptic folks who rant about the Second Coming. Hardly scientific.

Incidentally, hardly anyone wants to consider the dangerous role that HAARP experimentation at several sites around the world (including the one in Alaska) poses. Some of the "weird" weather phenomena may be related to this "playing around" with the ionosphere.

"us true scientists." Why is it that some people have a penchant for making themselves look perpetually ridiculous.

No. I believe that the AGW crowd has presented their case and a preponderance of evidence to date supports the scientific hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, the proponents of AGW have not demonstrated sufficient evidence to convincingly generate a coordinated geopolitical response solely to mitigate mankind influenced climate change, nor have the proposals put forward been cohesive enough to warrant an investment that I have variously heard ranging as high as $14 Trillion dollars.

Why in the world the opposition groups-and individuals such as yourself-follow a strategy that has and is being proven a failure in American politics when the argument you need against climate change legislation is so easily encapsulated in one paragraph is beyond me. All of these incredibly moronic and obviously illogical and dead WRONG arguments makes you look like exactly what you are, and you contribute to the impasse that the skeptics and reasonable politicians are unable to break to move (at least) the United States forward in a positive direction.

Here's an idea-why don't you learn to debate in a way that advances the dialogue that we need to address an issue before us instead of subjecting yourself to the daily ridicule you seem to so willingly subject yourself to in this forum?

EDIT: You're not very good at picking on me -or anybody else for that matter, you're just running off at the mouth like you always do, claiming to be something you aren't and demonstrating your almost complete lack of reading comprehension. You're just childish.

You wrote: 'You...have not responded to the question...' I answered your question like this:

No.

'Preponderance of evidence' is just what I said it was-not proof. It is almost unbelievable that you would somehow reinterpret this to imply that I was saying just the opposite of what I actually said in my answer...that the 'preponderance of evidence' is insufficient to support the initiatives proposed by the proponents.

You wrote: "So you admit that your side is transmitting a 'STRATEGY' rather than 'SCIENCE'." Totally a**-backwards for the first part, and for the second, I don't HAVE a 'side' in the AGW debate other than the side that is against blatant ignorance..

For goodness sake.

Should? Yes. It is proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we humans have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. If all other things remain equal, this will cause the earth to retain more of the energy it receives from the sun. If it doesn't, you have to explain why it doesn't.

Will you? I seriously doubt you are able, because if you could, you would have done so. (Of course sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la", is about as close to science as we can expect from you and most deniers of the sciences.)

PS feel free to report my answers and have my account deleted, it doesn't take long to create a new one.

Edit:

Kano, the only one who questioned what ACC means is a fellow denier ;)

I doubt there is a drastic change in the climate or warming to prove. We now know that the increased CO2 levels has increased biomass by 5% to 10 % in many places around the planet since 1982, yet the increases in temperatures since the mid-1800s is a fraction of a degree and well within natural climate variability. A preponderance of that evidence itself shows that CO2 has created more life. The planet itself is showing that it handles extra CO2 quite well.

I hate that the temperature average of the planet has gone up 0.6 degrees Celsius since the mid 1800s.

It's funny that people of the "information age" can get so excited with information.

I guess you should have stated your question "Should "we true scientists" have to prove AGW or ACC wrong?" It doesn't mean anything to the "lack of intelligent information" side of this argument that you are bringing an intelligent question. They are here to attack your message so they attack your minor mistake in grammar. Typical!

You true scientists? With your quotes from Paul Erhlich and your hero, Joseph Goebels? LOL!

Realists have to prove that global warming is happening. And we have

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we have proven that we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fil...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ (Razzberry sound effects)

Paul Ehrlich can only speak for himself. And he is not a climatologist. And even if he were, and if he published anything, what would matter is not whether he is a nice guy, but whether scientists could replicate his findings.

Would you call someone who electrocuted dogs to make people afraid of alternating current nice? That was done by Thomas Edison. Whether we like Mr. Edison or not because of this does not change his role in usherring in the electrical age.

You're going to prove the antarctic circumpolar current wrong? What did it do? Oh...maybe you meant the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Its really a moot point. There isn't an Alarmist out there that would accept a bona fide peer review from a skeptic. They actually admit to being (DA's). I've given up trying to rationalize with them, even though they are great secondary spell checkers.

This might tickle your funny bone: http://news.yahoo.com/carbon-dioxide-greening-dese...

It would make you far more credible if you could. So far you only present yourself as lying denialist morons with room temperature IQs

Hmm see how smart all these climate scientist are duh, it took me 5 seconds to work out ACC meant Anthropogenic Climate Change

What's ACC?