Notice the 'therefore nothing should be done' - haven't said that, only that what's being proposed (trillions in wealth transfer & limitations on personal liberty without verifiably justifiable cause or known benefit) shouldn't be done.

Agreed. I'm very much a fan of the "don't do anything that wouldn't be done otherwise for other, better reasons anyway" view. Using less oil, and improving efficiency in general, are valid goals in their own rights.

Forgive me for straying away from the specific thread topic but you must admit there’s been a fair amount of wandering and a little more shouldn’t hurt and it may in fact be a positive thing.

Anyway the whole concept is "where" are these threads located and based on that, "who" is the target audience.

I did in fact receive a fair amount of incredulity the last time I made this assertion but in point of fact the JU site is undoubtedly "very" conservative at the least. There are many I know that would agree with this statement. In fact many of those that would agree with this statement are in fact people that I consider conservative and they in fact acknowledge themselves to be conservative but when they do wander onto JU are taken to be liberal. Aeortar for one fits this category and Willythemailboy as well. I'm absolutely positive about Aeortar but Willy's case might be slightly different and I could in fact be putting words in his mouth. I do know that he considers himself conservative and I also know that he's not a big fan of JU either, but as to the why of it perhaps he might speak for himself.

Anyway like I've said dozens of times in innumerable threads, when everyone basically agrees I find it totally boring. I’ve tried various liberal sites and I find them no fun whatsoever. When everyone pretty much agrees it’s just boring. On the other hand when you’re the one lone voice with a particular point of view and you’re shouted down in your own thread by literally dozens of people holding a contrary view then that’s not much fun either.

Every so often I try a post on JU just because I do believe the site has potential but it always seems to work out the same. Any decent point I make is either ignored, misconstrued or cherry picked for a phrase to be used out of context. So far as I can tell I’ve never made a single legitimate point on JU ever.

So while I do like a certain amount of controversy and difference of opinion I am by no means a masochist and have no desire to simply take abuse for no apparent benefit. That is most certainly the case on the rare occasion that I do wander onto JU.

So instead I make a specific point to post into the Off-topic forum which although does exist on JU it also exists on a wider range of Stardock’s game sites. The upside of this is that I can get a better balance between conservative and liberal folks and the discussion is not so one sided. The downside of this is that the Off-topic forum is not intended as place for political, religious or otherwise contentious threads.

So I need to keep my threads to a certain level of civility so that they’re not simply pushed over to JU. That’s why I blacklist certain individuals if I feel that their only point is to be disruptive but also if I get to the point where they simply don’t listen to what I have to say and I get tired of hearing them say the same thing over and over.

In reality I would prefer to not have to blacklist anyone and I would prefer if I could post to JU specific threads and at least have my opinion considered not too unreasonable to hold. I don’t require anyone to admit that I’m right I simply require that folks accept that my opinion is not totally unreasonable to hold. I’ve always been willing to make the same concession in return even when I don’t agree with someone’s opinion.

I’ve always maintained that I’m a reasonable person but I feel that on the rare occasions that I do venture onto JU I’ve not been treated reasonably.

For what it’s worth these are my true feelings.

I would love to see some illegally hacked, out of context, e-mails made by those against global warming. 

My point?  Both sides have their sour apples.

Well fuzzy, if you read the OP, it seems to be full of political bias. The boat was sinking right out of the harbor.

Apparently each of us makes about a kilogram of co2 per day that enters the atmoshpere when we exhale, about 300 kilograms per year from breathing.  This puts a country like Australia with perhaps the highest per capita co2 release of about 20 thousand kilograms per yer into a more reasonable light.  At least for me, as I did not know until today how much co2 I exhale per day, and it seems reasonable for a country as sparsely settled as Australia to use so much fuel in living thier lives and maintaining their nation and soveriegnty.

That is that the highest per capita co2 emission is only about 60 times the absolute minumum.  Further no nation is at the absolute minimum level nor is it likely that any could exist without fire of some sort. 

 For those interested in obtaining the stolen emails http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html has several links to sites hosting a zip file.  I advise against it as it is likely a huge waste of time.

Climate science is physics.

So is this *really* who you want to be associated with?

This CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle and it gets taken in by plants. We are not the problem.

What is the problem is that forests are getting bulldozed so less CO2 is traken out of the air and less O2 is made, but ialso CO2 from fossil fuels is not a part of the carbon cycle. It is "extra" CO2 being dumped into the system when it has been trapped under ground for a very very long time. Obviously, this will have some sort of negative consequence.

Being the front runner just gives someone competent the opportunity to backstab her on their way to the front. Tell me, at the beginning of 2006 had you even HEARD of Obama?

A presidential election is a lot like a timed game of king-of-the-hill, played with an audience equipped with fire hoses. It's rarely to a candidate's advantage to be at the top of the heap until the very end.

Climate change is down to witchcraft? Of course, why didn't I think of that!

Maybe Palin should be the first witch burned at the stake?

Sadly, if we were to do that on every nut, that practice would add to global warming...

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/15/barack_obama_a_look_at_the

Here's a link to the entire speech if you're interested. In point of fact I was there.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm

I believe the ocean temperature still is though, which also takes in much of the heat.  It is probably more important to look at the ocean rather then air, the ocean temperatures are a large factor which contribute to earth's climate.

I'm also skeptical about the word strangely.  Yes CO2 concentrations have continuied to climb, but for our prediction of the temperature, there is a margin of error.  The question to ask really, based on the data, how likely would a 10 year span of temperature not rising occur?  I don't know the anwser to that question since I don't have the data and model, but those who have constructed it should be able to state something on the topic.  (It probably also has to do with the relationship how energy and how much land and air can hold compared to water.)

For the most part, I want to be on the safe side of things if there is insifficient evidence towards late warming trends.

That's nice. Did you even read the article?

As I mentioned previously, I'm a regular on RealClimate and have been since 2005.  So I'm already familiar with some of the articles you mentioned. 

One of the more galling things I find about climatists is their assumption that if you don't agree with them it's due to ignorance. 

The article I put up is brand new (December 11). I don't need someone regurgitating their library of auto-response links. I've seen them before. Read them before. 

If you had bothered to look at the article I linked to, you would have seen why it is relevant to the discussion.  

What you just did there, Mumble, is the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and saying "I can't hear you!!!"

I don't have an ideological axe to grind here.  I doubt anyone in this thread has spent even a fraction of what I've spent on "green" technology this past year.  

But I have a healthy skepticism for anyone who wants to coercively take my earnings to give to others. I've followed Gavin Schmidt (co-founder founder of realclimate)  probably longer than most of the johnny-come-lately.  So I really don't need a bunch of old articles spewed at me to "Educate" me.