I read your message but could not derive your point; what are you saying?

If you want an answer as to whether we should burn fossil fuels the answer is no we should not! When we do we take carbon that nature has sequestered and return it to active movement through the carbon cycle. The sequestering of this carbon resulted in the moderate climate we need to survive. Reversing the sequestering process will remove that moderate climate and replace it with a very hostile one.

Not all alkanes are the same. We can use Methane (CH4) to get Hydrogen for fuel and the carbon footprint is low enough that a moderate capture program would render the use carbon neutral. Coal on the other hand (@C135 H96) is virtually impossible to use...

Would be too much trouble to ask for some peer reviewed scientific data before we hurl Mr Gore into the dock?

I have asked for that from every person I have met that disputes anthropogenic climate shifting and I have yet to see one example that passes this simple test!

I know most of the readers here find the scientific method tedious but if we are going to argue science then it behooves us to do it using science and the dreded four letter word ....DATA.

There are several reasons why Al Gore will never be sued.

1) He has a HUGE body of science behind him and it has passed the peer review process.

2) In reality,the best reason he will never be sued is because the non-scientists that form the core of...

I like most scientists use the word trick in a way that you would find odd as well,

I "trick the data back" all the time, that does not mean that I falsify my data. In the case of tricking back it means I created a formula to back check some math. For example the proof for 2x2=4 would be 4/2=2.

For other instances a trick to clarify a process is used.

If I want to add all the numbers from 1 to a certain number (lets say 100=X) I can do it two ways. I can use 1+2+3+4+...=Y etc. or I can simply use Y=(X^2+X)/2. If I am reading a paper that uses the first method I would say to the author " I used the trick (x^2+x) / 2 to hide your tedious math.

You could infer that I thought he got the wrong answer or I was...

I guess you don't get it! As we shift CO2 medians we also acidify the ocean, change the local agricultural components over vast areas and cause sea currents to alter or cease. This effect causes a rapid climate shift when a trigger point is reached. Some areas plunge and others rise.

In the 80's scientists were worried that it would happen from a natural cycle alone. Subsequently it was found that ACC was making it more likely and also shortening the time frame.

Why do you think it's called "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming lately? It's because the shift in median CO2 will cause a whipsaw effect in some areas and result in some areas going into a cold cycle. The facts show that we could not survive the result...

The verbiage changed because the science evolved and the words needed to be all encompassing. The concept of natural and anthropogenic forcing was not incorrect in the 80's it was just missing a couple puzzle pieces. We have since filled them in.

Use your car as an example. If you want to go 60 mph you can do it two ways.

You can depress the pedal smoothly until you reach 60 then back it off to maintain 60 until you run out of gas, or you can floor it and release it repeatedly to try and maintain 60 as an average.

One way will not harm the car and will get good gas mileage, the other will destroy the engine and waste gas. At any given point with the second method it is impossible to determine if you are...

You are right, the environment is self regulating and self healing but you fail to consider that it operates on a time scale incompatible with our limited lifespans and uncaring of our survival.

In fact the earth dosen't even care if we have a CO2 fraction of 800ppm. If that was the case ambient temperatures would be so high that most areas would not support mamillian life, but the planet as a whole would simply go on being a planet! It would however be without all of us to insult it any further.

I keep hearing deniers say that climate change is based on "Junk Science" but have yet to see proper data that supports their allegation. Saying something loudly or often does NOT make it science. Also, unsupported opinions are...

Of course the Right would never use fear to manipulate opinion that would make them like Al Gore by extension ....right?

Al gore will never be sued because there is no legal cause of action. That is sad because once he put the matter to rest to a legal as well as scientific certainity by proving his point and by making the deniers shoe the huge lack of rebuttal witnesses with credible qualifications, we could stop having these discussions based on unsupported claims and begin dealing with the problem.

Jo you are confusing weather and climate!

They are NOT the same thing.

Local weather and global climate are vastly different although the latter does affect the former.

Of course the Right would never use fear to manipulate opinion that would make them like Al Gore by extension ....right?

Al gore will never be sued because there is no legal cause of action. That is sad because once he put the matter to rest to a legal as well as scientific certainity by proving his point and by making the deniers shoe the huge lack of rebuttal witnesses with credible qualifications, we could stop having these discussions based on unsupported claims and begin dealing with the problem.

Yep they accidentially discarded the raw data in a move, hardly a nefarious act (Haven't you ever cleaned out your attic and wished you didn't thrown something out?) but it is of little consequence scientifically for two reasons.

1) They kept the published data and they know their adjustment algorithims so some hapless grad student will probably spend the next year in tedious reconstruction, "Tricking Back" to the original data. This would yield a very accurate reconstruction.

2) Do you think that East Anglica is the only university taking climate measurements worldwide? Their data was gathered and conformed with hundreds of other sources as a cross check.

Losing one database in a field of data that is global and...