Your 99 percent figure is pure manufactured malarkey. “Wholeheartedly endorse” is just beyond the pale. Even if you read the IPCC reports they contain qualifications. In any case, truth is not established on the basis of a vote. It is established on the basis of evidence and logic.

I'll admit I could be wrong. Al Gore can't allow himself that honesty. But again, logic dictates that if you have a complex climate model, and you admit you don't understand all the inputs very well — the IPCC report admits this, but it is true whether they admit it or not — you cannot be certain of the conclusion.

It all rests on the models. I am not a climate scientist. There are two areas I would like to explore when I have the time.

Number one, CO2 levels and greenhouse effect are not linear. At some point you reach a saturation, where increasing the CO2 will not cause much additional greenhouse warming. (This is obvious, because in the distant past, when CO2 was twice what it is now, or five times, or ten times, we did not have runaway warming.) What level is the likely saturation point? We may already be near.

Second, I have been told that the models depend on an amplifying effect from water vapor to produce their predictions of extreme temperature rise. All the major models do this, and they assume water vapor is constant. However, I've seen data showing a decadal trend of decreasing relative humidity. If this is so, then the models are out the window. If the models depend on water vapor to amplify their CO2 warming, and if water vapor is not trending as predicted in their models, then the predictions are no good. I don't know if I'm right about this, but it could be the nail in the coffin for the whole notion of regulating CO2.

I don't know, but I mean to find out. And if I'm wrong, I will change.

Funny, Al Gore is always pointing to the North Pole. Yet, Antarctic sea ice is on a multidecadal increase. I guess Al just doesn't get around that much. If you look at the entire globe instead of just the Arctic, sea ice area trends are not precipitously declining. A mild oscillation with perhaps a slight downward tilt. It does not look alarming. This is the kind of information the public needs to see. Truth — actual measurements. Not computer model fantasies.

Your 99 percent figure is pure manufactured malarkey. “Wholeheartedly endorse” is just beyond the pale. Even if you read the IPCC reports they contain qualifications. In any case, truth is not established on the basis of a vote. It is established on the basis of evidence and logic.

I'll admit I could be wrong. Al Gore can't allow himself that honesty. But again, logic dictates that if you have a complex climate model, and you admit you don't understand all the inputs very well — the IPCC report admits this, but it is true whether they admit it or not — you cannot be certain of the conclusion.

It all rests on the models. I am not a climate scientist. There are two areas I would like to explore when I have the time.

Number one, CO2 levels and greenhouse effect are not linear. At some point you reach a saturation, where increasing the CO2 will not cause much additional greenhouse warming. (This is obvious, because in the distant past, when CO2 was twice what it is now, or five times, or ten times, we did not have runaway warming.) What level is the likely saturation point? We may already be near.

Second, I have been told that the models depend on an amplifying effect from water vapor to produce their predictions of extreme temperature rise. All the major models do this, and they assume water vapor is constant. However, I've seen data showing a decadal trend of decreasing relative humidity. If this is so, then the models are out the window. If the models depend on water vapor to amplify their CO2 warming, and if water vapor is not trending as predicted in their models, then the predictions are no good. I don't know if I'm right about this, but it could be the nail in the coffin for the whole notion of regulating CO2.

I don't know, but I mean to find out. And if I'm wrong, I will change.

Funny, Al Gore is always pointing to the North Pole. Yet, Antarctic sea ice is on a multidecadal increase. I guess Al just doesn't get around that much. If you look at the entire globe instead of just the Arctic, sea ice area trends are not precipitously declining. A mild oscillation with perhaps a slight downward tilt. It does not look alarming. This is the kind of information the public needs to see. Truth — actual measurements. Not computer model fantasies.

Your 99 percent figure is pure manufactured malarkey. “Wholeheartedly endorse” is just beyond the pale. Even if you read the IPCC reports they contain qualifications. In any case, truth is not established on the basis of a vote. It is established on the basis of evidence and logic.

I'll admit I could be wrong. Al Gore can't allow himself that honesty. But again, logic dictates that if you have a complex climate model, and you admit you don't understand all the inputs very well — the IPCC report admits this, but it is true whether they admit it or not — you cannot be certain of the conclusion.

It all rests on the models. I am not a climate scientist. There are two areas I would like to explore when I have the time.

Number one, CO2 levels and greenhouse effect are not linear. At some point you reach a saturation, where increasing the CO2 will not cause much additional greenhouse warming. (This is obvious, because in the distant past, when CO2 was twice what it is now, or five times, or ten times, we did not have runaway warming.) What level is the likely saturation point? We may already be near.

Second, I have been told that the models depend on an amplifying effect from water vapor to produce their predictions of extreme temperature rise. All the major models do this, and they assume water vapor is constant. However, I've seen data showing a decadal trend of decreasing relative humidity. If this is so, then the models are out the window. If the models depend on water vapor to amplify their CO2 warming, and if water vapor is not trending as predicted in their models, then the predictions are no good. I don't know if I'm right about this, but it could be the nail in the coffin for the whole notion of regulating CO2.

I don't know, but I mean to find out. And if I'm wrong, I will change.

Funny, Al Gore is always pointing to the North Pole. Yet, Antarctic sea ice is on a multidecadal increase. I guess Al just doesn't get around that much. If you look at the entire globe instead of just the Arctic, sea ice area trends are not precipitously declining. A mild oscillation with perhaps a slight downward tilt. It does not look alarming. This is the kind of information the public needs to see. Truth — actual measurements. Not computer model fantasies.

And I'm gonna guess that whoever's pontificating on the John Batchelor show doesn't know much of anything about what Democratic senators are actually going to do. Moderates might yank some of the teeth out of C&T, but they'll probably allow the establishment of a policy that can be expanded later.

Some of the most rabid global warming alarmists seem to favor the carbon tax anyway. It is the least offensive to me.

Personally, I favor taxing all those NOT burning sufficient coal (or oil, gas, anything carbon at all) to fend off the next ice age, which is actually overdue, if you look at paleoclimate cycles.

The danger in having a national debate is that possibly respectable scientists who have shown the holes in Gore's cherished climate models will at long last get wide exposure, and the whole global warming religion will suffer mass apostacy. I could quote many of them, but instead I will end with a news item with some food for thought.

In the February 27 Calgary Herald, Ben Quine, the director of space engineering at York University, talks about a Canadian satellite which is designed to help understand the carbon cycle. (The US launched a big satellite — the Orbiting Carbon Observatory — earlier this year, but a malfunction destroyed it.) The job of the Canadian satellite, like the OCO, is to “find earth's missing greenhouse gas.” D'oh! Missing greenhouse gas?!

Quoting the article again: “The problem is that where carbon dioxide comes from, and where it is sucked out of the atmosphere, remains poorly understood. 'Clearly, if we're going to do something about climate change, we need to understand where CO2 is produced and particularly where it's absorbed.That's much less clear,' Quine said.”

So, even assuming that CO2 is a predominant factor in climate change (I'm convinced it is not), if we don't understand where it is produced (human activity is a rather small percentage of total CO2 production) and where it is absorbed (a very important piece of knowledge, no?), then I find it eminently reasonable to question whether we know enough to be trying to regulate it. Not to mention all the other major inputs in computer climate models which are not clearly understood.

Scientists even admit they don't understand the cooling since 2001. They are flummoxed!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/wid/18298287/

We. Just. Don't. Know. (Hint: “We” includes Al Gore.)

The time to have this national conversation, of course, was LAST year, when gas prices were smacking us all in the face and hybrids were flying out of Toyota dealerships. But as with many things that didn't get done (or got done atrociously) during the Bush administration, we're left to pick up the pieces now. I'm actually rooting (just a little) for gas prices to shoot back up, so that those among us who think only in $$$$$$ will get their eyes back on the ball and stop whining about how much more expensive green energy will be.

And BTW, the Volt's not out already because it's nowhere near ready. From what I hear, they're not even close on a workable battery yet. If it comes out on time next year, it will be a shock. (Get it?)