I never could figure out why one was, and one was not.  Maybe plate techtonics?

However, I wouldn't call that image ridiculous. It's actually quite effective and it again highlights that the true goal of denialists (as opposed to true skeptics) is only to cause confusion. There is no need to "prove" anything, all burden of proof is on the other side and any such proof that's offered can simply be further argued thus extending the "controversy". All that's required is to be able to demonstrate the pretense of a debate so as to give those ideologically predisposed to be against the proposed solutions some reason no matter how tenuous to base their opposition.

This is the scientific equivalent of "trolling" and as everyone knows they only thing you can do with a troll is to not feed them. Is it any wonder why "true" climate scientists might begrudge giving data, models and other fruits of their labor to people that are only going to cherry pick, distort and outright lie about what that data means. There is no other scientific field where this occurs. There is absolutely NO credible scientific dissent and yet climate scientists continually have to respond to the crap dredged up by former TV weathermen that never graduated from college or any other nut case capable of creating a blog. Can you imagine if physicists had to operate in that kind of environment? That is what is ridiculous.

The blog that I use is http://www.realclimate.org/ which is the only blog whose membership consists of "real" climate scientists. In opposition there are literally hundreds of denier sites, after all how much does it cost to create a website?

Anyway regarding that gif image, what better way to cause confusion then to quickly flash a sequence of graphs, the point or detail of which is not totally obvious, to lead someone to believe that current temperature levels today are totally ordinary and normal.

I will have to look into it in more detail but one thing I can say off the top of my head is that showing long term graphs of temperature over 10's of thousands of years without regard to what other conditions exist on the planet is disingenuous at best. For example they clearly show deep temperature troughs that existed 10's of thousands of years ago without mentioning that at that point in time sea level was some 200 feet below were it was today. In the same manner they also make no mention of where sea level was during the peak temperature periods either. Perhaps it has been hotter than it is currently, however if sea levels were 30 feet higher at the time then that's not much solace.

I don't know for sure this is the case but like I said this is something that should be discoverable.

Also the GISP2 data happens to indicate a higher temperature during the MWP than what exists currently whereas the hockey stick does not. However what the gif shows is a single record in isolation whereas the hockey stick graph uses multiple records from different locations.

Like I've said all along there is no credible scientific denial of the hockey stick graph. The only "disproof" of it comes from internet sites with demonstrated ulterior motives and when you ask the question as to why aren't any of these "so called" disproofs published the only response is that some kind of global conspiracy of climate scientists prevents it.

If conspiracy theories are your prime defense then thats simply not the side that I care to be on.

Not True!  Here is a sampling of some other sites worthy of visiting:

Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre - Science of Statistics
Climate sanity - Tom Moriarty Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Climate Science - R.A. Pielke Sr. Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins M.S., Ph.D., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1969, 1973

CO2 Science - CRAIG D. IDSO, Ph.D. - former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.

ICECAP - Joseph D’Aleo, Executive Director, Certified Consultant Meteorologist
Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist
Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research in the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany
Reid A. Bryson Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., Global 500 Laureate, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Robert Carter, Researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel, TV Meteorologist KUSI-TV, San Diego
William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
Chris De Freitas, climate scientist in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist
Dr. Mel Goldstein, Chief Meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut.
Dr. Vincent Gray is an “Expert Reviewer” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. William Gray, Meteorologist
Ben Herman, Professor and former Head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at the University of Arizona and former Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics
Dr. Christopher Horner, Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition and Senior Fellow, CEI
Dr. Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, retired Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada
Dr. David Legates, Associate Professor in Climatology, University of Delaware
Dr. Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Dr. Pat Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa
Dr. James O’Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University
Dr. Gary Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr. S. Fred Singer, President of the Science & Environment Policy Project
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama

Jennifer Marohasy - Dr. Jennifer Marohasy - Director of the Environment Unit

World Climate - Patrick J. Michaels is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia

Here is a great article that I was reading that actually shows the scientific work that goes into some of the research that scientists do. It also goes into explain how just because there are variations in interdecadal data doesn't change the overall larger trend that is occurring. Scientists make mistakes for sure. But, one of the quotes that I especially thought was good was at the very end where it quoted:

“Models are not perfect,” says Syd Levitus. “Data are not perfect. Theory isn’t perfect. We shouldn’t expect them to be. It’s the combination of models, data, and theory that lead to improvements in our science, in our understanding of phenomena.”

Here is the article:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php 

It also highlights why peer-review is so important.

I recommend reading it. It is a good read for the science process if anything. It is something you don't often read in climate articles. Too often people just post graphs and interpret it for themselves and that is how things can be taken out of context from what the original researchers actually intended.

Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, you have to like good science!

I don't care who ya are, now that's funny.

So I had this long post typed out, then I lost it all...Lovely!...

Ok, I am not one to call out poor sources, but that is bad. I was willing to go through 9 points from Burton's claims. But, that website takes Burton's claims and runs with them in an expotentially exageratted method. Almost all of the sources for that article come from FF.org. That is a politically backed conservative think tank. It even says this in their mission statement:

"...whose mission is to promote conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

So while I am not denying their claim of errors, I am questioning their scientific proof and methods and that is all I care about. All I care about is science. I don't care about politics or semantics.

Most of what that articles goes through is placing doubt through semantics. They use editing errors and Gore's semantics to claim error to the science behind it all and that is what I have a problem with. Come to me with sources from scientific organizations and you'll have my attention completely.

What Al Gore does do is claim a lot of the high end of figures that have been given at the time of the movie. While they may not be the more likely of predictions, that doesn't make him wrong. That may give others reason to call him an alarmist or whatever you want to call him, but he isn't wrong. A good analogy is in advertising. Let's say you see and advertisment for broadband internet that claims 20Mbps download speed. So you order it and come to find out you are only receiving 5Mbps download speed. Well it turns out that you only receive the 20Mbps download speed under "perfect" conditions. That doesn't make the advertisment wrong. You may call it misleading or whatever you want to call it, but if they didn't advertise it as 20Mbps, would the ad be nearly as effective? Probably not.

Sometimes, to get the publics attention you need to scream. That is what Gore did. He has been at this a long time and he originally thought he could just make his case and people would catch on. That is not the case as it turns out. So when making a documentary, why wouldn't he advertise the fullest extent? If you want to get their attention, you'd better do so. Sure, eventually later down the road climate models will make the documentary completely irrelevant. But at the time it was just what was needed to raise awareness on an important issue.

I will touch on a couple things from the article. One of the things they talked about that Gore did actually say what that he said the intensity of cyclones will increase as ocean temperatures rise. The article claimed that there is no trend over the last century that the severity has risen even though ocean temperatures have been gradually rising. This is true. But, it is grossly misunderstood on the subject. There IS a trend over the last decade that the severity has been getting worse, but not over the last century. This is mainly because of a term called thermal inertia. Thermal intertia is the way heat transfers through a material until it reaches a balance. As we all know water warms and cools slower than land and air does. It is also known that cyclones require ocean temperatures to be at LEAST 80F degrees for them to form.

What researchers have found is that by taking measurements across different environments and mediums, they have found an imbalance in heat energy. They've found that this imbalance of heat energy shows that the ocean is not yet at equilibrium. There is a ton of heat energy found in the upper atmosphere that grows each year. This is not in dispute. They've found that there is an increasing imbalance per square meter in the ocean that concludes the ocean temperatures are going to continue to rise, but slightly lagging behind air and land temperatures. The reason for the fact that cyclones have not grown in intensity until recently (and thus no trend has yet to occur) is because of the fact that cyclones require at least 80F to form.

But because A+B=C, it comes to reason without a doubt that as ocean temperatures continue to rise over the next several decades, tropical storm intensities will continue to rise. We may not have a century long trend to show it, but there is more evidence without a doubt to show that will likely happen.

I'm sorry, but most of the graphs on that website are clear misrepresentations of data, so much so that I can't take it seriously. On the temperature graph, they show it being in relation to temperatures "now" as a deviation. But, then on the CO2 graph, they just show the numbers in ppm. The CO2 graph shows the usual hockey stick graph. But, the temperature graph (in order to throw the reader off) uses a deviation in relation to temperatures now. Considering the deviation value to temperatures now will always be 0, you will never get a hockey stick graph from those values. This is portrayed in this method to throw readers off to show that there is no relation between CO2 and temperature. When a website stops misleading readers like that in such a blatant way, then that is when I will take it serious. I don't mind if website exaggerates data or outcomes, but when they misrepresent data, that is what gets me.

Nor would I expect you to go over 35.  9 was well done.  But what you did point out with your rebuttal, both on the 9 errors, and then the over view of the 35, is that An Inconvient truth is a shoddy piece of work.  While there may be no libelous errors, clearly there is confusion, mis-statements, and nebulous points attempted to be made.  Which is fine for a fictional piece like The Day after Tomorrow.  But hardly worthy of a documentary.  And in that, it not only got him an oscar, but a Nobel prize.

I would have to conclude based upon the quality of the work that either both were political and not merited, or one or the other or both were a result of greatly reduced standards that cheapen the awards for all the others who have recieved them.

The irony is McIntyre never pretended to be a climatologist and indeed does believe in Global Warming.  But he is a very accomplished statistician (a science all in itself) and wanted to just verify the data.  If Mann and Briffa had enlisted his help, maybe none of this would have happened (discrediting of their work).  It might have taken them longer to come up with the evidence they need to support their hypothesis, but they would not be facing embarrasing questions now along with possible criminal charges.

I think many skeptics are not denying that something with the temperatures has been happening, but they are embarrassed by the shoddy and fraudlent work put forth so far by the inner circle of East Anglia (which includes the likes of Schmidt, Mann, et,al.).

And the fact that those who want to beleive in AGW are so quick to demean and denigrate any one who asks a simple a question as "How" or "why" does not do their side well in the long run. 

You are right, most will not be swayed by this discussion who were already set one way or the other.  But too many are like that woman in Copenhagan that clearly was clueless.  And at least the smart ones like that will do some research.  And unfortunately, until the Climatologist clean up their house, that research is going to show it is one big house of cards - with very little foundation or substance.

One caveat emptor before going into all of this is that just because someone takes money from ExxonMobil doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is something that should be considered when using anyone or any site as a source.

Plus I never said that there are absolutely *zero* credible skeptics, only that they are substantially outnumbered by credible proponents (hence the scientific consensus). In fact true qualified skeptics are a definite benefit to the science but their existence merely adds to my argument.

Basically throughout this thread I have maintained that what is "settled" is (1) that the planet is warming and (2) that human activity is a significant contribution to that warming. Period. Arguments about how much warming, how fast that warming will occur, what the consequences of that warming will be and what if anything we can do about it are all things about which reasonable people can hold a wide range of opinion. I simply maintain that it is not reasonable to deny the above two stated premises of AGW.

The fact that there are true skeptics with contrary opinion that are fully qualified and thoroughly familiar with the peer reviewed publishing process and yet there is still no credible scientific peer reviewed evidence that denies AGW strengthens my argument and requires the belief in some global conspiracy to disprove.

I submit that my acceptance of AGW is not a "religious belief" as some here claim but is merely putting my trust in the established science and is no different in the trust I place in the physics community to explain the intricacies of string theory.

I further claim that there is far more "religious acceptance" required by those whose belief system requires the existence of some kind of global conspiracy for the current state of affairs to exist.

McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc.

"Strategic advisor" for an oil and gas exploration company, no conflict of interests there. Also referred to as Climate Fraudit.

Tom Moriarty is a Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He has extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties, from basic silicon to the highest efficiency multi-junction devices and newly emerging organic technologies.

He has a masters degree in Physics and previous experience in two other national laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.  Additionally, he worked for several years in the Gates Rubber Company Advanced Materials Analysis Lab in Denver, Colorado.

Not sure how "extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties" relates to an expertise in climatology but I suppose anything is possible.

Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces. He has said: "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers".

However, Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of cherry picking data to support a selective view of the science. 

Seems this one is a true skeptic and not just a denier. I guess it just goes to show that such things do exist. What isn't totally clear is what specific website he's associated with as there seem to be a couple of them but Climate Science has in fact moved to http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/. I have to admit that this probably is a legitimate resource.

Anyway from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change.

The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO2 Science Magazine.

In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had "recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration." The Greening Earth Society, is a front group of the Western Fuels Association. Donald Paul Hodel, chairman of Summit Power Group is listed among the "scientific advisors" to the Center.

The Center states on its website that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" and that "all donations are kept confidential". However, Sherwood Idso confirmed that Exxon "made some donations to us a few times in the past".

Connections to big oil, big coal and a power plant development group, what more do you need to know?

This is pretty much the entirety of the "experts" listed at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts. Thankfully there are a few "experts" left off the list along with mere "members".

When dealing with something like this there are a couple of key references that I use.

The first one is Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers. This in turn references the following useful links. The above link lists each of the 400 individually, also see Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked for a summary of the list.

http://www.sourcewatch.org, http://en.wikipedia.org, and http://www.exxonsecrets.org. All of these resources can be used to look up the organization and/or the individual.

As it turns out most all of the names listed above are among Inhofe's 400 and so for brevity I'll simply list each entry from the Who's Who.

85. Joseph D'Aleo, served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation. Served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Involved with industry-funded groups such as the Fraser Institute, and the website icecap.us
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1276
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D'Aleo

22. Dr. Robert Balling, heavily involved with industry-funded groups. Has received money from Exxon for studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5

21. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass. Heavily connected to many industry-funded groups.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3
http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas

55. Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences). Was one of the people who thought we were facing global cooling in the 70's.

59. Dr. Robert. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. Paleoclimate scientist. Member of the institute of public affairs, a Industry funded think tank that takes money from places like Monsanto, Big Tobacco and so on.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

72. John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, which he was allegedly forced out of within one year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)

79. Dr. William R. Cotton of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Cotton

124. Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, the University of Auckland, N.Z. One of several scientists who offered an amicus brief organized by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receives funding from Exxon among others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas

144. Dr. Mel Goldstein, PhD, TV weathernman/meteorologist.
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=27202 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Goldstein

149. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand. Associated with coal research, has not published any peer-reviewed work in regards to climate. Hasn't published anything in over 17 years. Also a member of the NRSP, which gets funding from energy companies such as Exxon.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray_(scientist)

150. Dr. William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the school's Tropical Meteorology Project. Well-respected hurricane specialist, but has been criticized by other scientists for his views on climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

167. Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona. In the very article Inhofe's report links to, Herman says in his own words, "I am, myself, not a climate expert." And then goes on to say that we need to do everything we can to lower/lesson CO2 levels.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/06/guest-weblog-by-professor-ben-herman-of-the-university-of-arizona/

175. Douglas V. Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired), and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/bio.htm

199. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist with Environment Canada; Editor of "Climate Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards," IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007. Connected to multiple industry-funded groups.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1358

220. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S. Connected to industry-funded groups.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=18

233. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S. Connected to industry-funded groups and scientists.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=152

255. Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia. Admits he is industry funded.
http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

273. Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Murty

279. James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University. Connected to the George C. Marshall Institute and the Fraser Institute, both of which receive money from ExxonMobil and other corporate interests.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/bios/obrien.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1133
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=134

335. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S. marine biologist and connected to industry-funded groups.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gary_D._Sharp

344. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service. connected to several industry-funded groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

353. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Meteorologist, creationist and has many industry-funded connections.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

Many of these folks are positively infamous and deserve far more than the little space dedicated here. A handful of folks from the above quote were not on the list but one in particular deserves the effort it takes to look him up separately.

Christopher Horner is a practicing attorney and specializes in FOIA act requests. He associated both with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute whose Oil and Tobacco industry connections have been well documented.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Chris_Horner
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Had enough? I know I have.

Don't stop! I'm almost there! Seriously though, you guys are beating a stick with a dead horse.

I found this very interesting and perfectly pertinent.  A little 'thick' due to the translation from German, I suspect, but makes me wonder which horse is really dead.

psychoak, in an effort to be more "worth" your time, I will attempt to help answer your question, despite the fact that you source completely misleading websites in your claim. You claim that because temperature after ice ages go up first followed by CO2 climbs, then CO2 does not cause temperature to go up. This is false.

Read this for an explanation:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

If you don't have time for me or the article, here is a quick summary:

What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO₂ leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO₂ might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

First of all, i am sorry if i offended you by implying youre being socialist. However if someone is calling for more government regulation, i really do not know how to call such person. Off course there are nuissances, but sorry, i do not care about them, for me simply state regulation = socialism. I live in central Europe in the post-communistic society, so i have fair share of experience with this. If you are American, certainly more than you.

You say you have your own company. I find it pretty funny you dont mind the government incentives we are talking about. Just for a moment try to imagine you run oil company instead the internet company of yours. And the government will start to give their incentives and support your competition. If you have problem with this analogy, let´s just stay with your internet business and replace the green company with something what might be competition to you here (have no idea right now, but the point stays.)

Government is treating you and your company unfairly. How do like that?

I believe you do not, and i tell you why. In capitalistic society the point of government is not to give incentives and f*ck with the market. The role of government is to enforce law,order, partially medical care, and some other things. But certainly not giving incentives.

Regarding the auto-industry, sorry, but your view that if government regulated the auto-comany stronger, there won´t be any poor management. Just LOL. Again it is not the role of government to check if private company is managed properly or not. By the way do you believe that state-appointed management would fare better? We have old saying over here: The blood does not bleed from the strange. Unfortunately i could not find appropriate translation to english, so this is my poor attempt to do it on my own. Basically it means you always care more, if your (not someone elses) own good is at stake. Surely you understand what i am implying here in regard to state-management.

And the crisis of american auto-industry is from global point of view nothing serious at all. So what that GMC collapsed, as i said, if they deserved it, it serves them well. Another, more succesful company will claim their place.

You are right about one thing, i have my ideals, how the society should work. I believe in free trade and i would love if the global trade was free, without any taxes and tolls respectively. No state protection of companies and export/import at all. I would dissolve the income tax and leave consumer taxes only. This would actually motivate people to go green much more than your carbon taxes. They would much more think if they really need to go by car, or if they wont spare more money by choosing some energy-efficient equipment.

Finally there will not be any government interfering with the market (aside law enforcement). You said things do not work that way, but oh yes they do...we just do not let them to work like this and keep constantly interfering with the market...because this and that needs to be protected, regulated blah blah blah....No. Simply no. If the company is unsuccesful, it will fail. No bail outs, no mercy. Strong will surive, weak will die. This is how it works in nature and it seem to work just fine. It is the natural way, it does not need to be fixed. The same applies to libertarian, free trade.

Sorry for off topic. But for me in the end the AGW debate is just another skirmish between lefties and right-wingers.