as we presently understand it, is simply wrong. Either way, the hypothesis is wrong. Definitely wrong. Sorry for the long post...

If that's not enough for you, ALL of the IPCC circulation models predict that energy radiated into space will decrease as the surface temperature increases. This is due to a positive feedback that is built into their models that thickens the insulating layer as warmer temperatures produce more water vapor. However, all observation show that energy radiated into space increase as surface temperature increases, and at a rate about three times the rate that greenhouse gas theory predicts it should decrease. Again, greenhous gas theory prodicts the opposite of what we observe. The greenhouse gas hypothesis fails the test. We *must* conclude either that global warming is not driven by greenhouse gases or that greenhouse gas theory, as

With regard to man-made global warming, ALL of the circulation models that the IPCC has used to 'prove' global warming, show a temperature trend in the tropical lower troposphere at a rate of 3 or for times the surface trend. However, all observations show a trend that is about half to three-quarters the surface trend. The opposite of what greenhouse gas theory predicts.

Dahni wrote: "There is no definitive proof, either way. Any opinion is just that, an opinion. " Actually, there *is* definitive proof - one way. The Scientific way. In Science, a hypothesis can be formed from any source or set of observation. All scientific theories must be falsifiable. That is, once a hypothesis is formed, the role of Science is to test the hypothesis against relevant, non-trivial predictions of the hypothesis. If observations are contrary to the predictions, the hypothesis is disproved. Even if you have a truck-load of evidence that supports a hypothesis, if a necessary prediction of the hypothesis is contrary to observations, the hypothesis is false. This is the fundamental strength and founding principle of Scien

"Science is about induction, not deduction. " This is entirely false. Science by induction is the very definition of Pseudo-Science. For a reference, see Karl Popper's Theory of Demarcation. The idea here, is that you can find a truck load of evidence to support virtually any hypothesis. However, it only requires one contrary example to prove the hypothesis false. This is the principle of falsifiability. In science, a "hypothesis" is often formed via the process of induction, based on observations. However, at that point, it is the role of science to test the hypothesis against non-trivial predictions that are implied by the hypothesis: Deduction. "The consensus of a hundred scientists is undone by one fact" - Albert Einstein.

I think Greg's comment (above) is perfect. Atlas is more fundamental and sets an underlying theme that virtually all of your subsequent shows will be part of.

Even the climate alarmists admit that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. Molecule-by-molecule, water vapor is a more potent absorber of infrared. Additionally, water vapor is typically a thousand times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. So why focus on a minor player like CO2? Well, CO2 is a by-product of the vast majority of means of producing energy. So control CO2 and you control energy production and thereby control virtually every activity that requires energy. Hell, just getting out of bed requires energy. Regulating CO2 is the path to complete and total control of all human activity. Is it a significant factor in global warming? Not on your life. It is simply a path to complete control.

"I still haven't seen a good explanation for the cause of the warming and glacial periods, but they are plain to read in the geological and fossil records. "

The glacial and inter-glacial periods are very well correlated to the so-called Milankovitch Cycles which are related to small variations in the Earth's tilt, wobble and eccentricity. It is NOT a controversial explanation and is the standard explanation usually taught in geology classes for those temperature variations.

that only the opinions of climatologists matter, are extremely naive.

First consider that there are five major reservoirs of carbon: the atmosphere, the upper oceans, land vegetation, the topsoil and fossil fuels. Each of these reservoirs are in close contact, are of comparable size and interact strongly with each other. As a result, you cannot understand one without understanding all the others.

This means that, understanding the climate, particularly with respect to the role played by CO2, requires many scientific disciplines. These include, physics, hydrodynamics, chemistry, biology, zoology, botany, oceanography, geology, astronomy and probably some others I haven't mentioned. Economics, for...

You say that "Victimization plays well with the conservative base" In what universe are you from, Cal? Sarah is not playing the victim. You and the media are attempting to thrust victimization upon her, precisely because it *doesn't* play well with the base. You and the out-of-sync Republicans are still trying to kill her.

Your statement "Do I wish Palin had more intellectual depth like Jeane Kirkpatrick..?" implies that she hasn't. Prove it! There is more to intellectual depth than a pompous demeanor and Ivy-League credentials. Sarah has many real-world intellectual accomplishments that Kirkpatrick can only dreams about. I wish Kirkpatric had a little of what Sarah has!