Boy, that’s scientific….

Plonk.

CO2 is increasing in the oceans, so they cannot be a source for the atmospheric increase. The source is not geological because of the isotope ratios. And finally, you’d have to explain where the expected carbon from fossil fuels is going if not into the atmosphere.

Frankly, it’s a stupid argument to say that the CO2 rise is not man made, and I’d have to question the understanding of any scientist who would propose it.

If you think that Gasoline prices are high now, If you think food prices are high now, if you think utility bills are high now. Just you wait, If this Bill passes, you are in for a rude awakening on prices. Democrats do not care about the American pubic; they only care about their own interest groups and themselves. Look at Nancy Pelosy. She flies back and forth in a huge airplane to California, burning thousands of gallons of fuel while the rest of the country is starving for oil. Is she willing to put together a comprehensive Energy Bill?

If this Bill passes I see Thousands of American jobs leaving the US. Companies will find a way to manufacture their product cheaper. If it means moving to far east they will do it.
Guaranteed.

You need to think how you vote this November.

What science is (and you would think William would know):

Notice an issue and formulate a hypothesis to explain it. Then devise an experimental means to demonstrate confidence in the likelihood of your hypothesis, preferably using mathematical logic to derive the result. Then formulate a conclusion based on the ability of your experimental results to confirm your hypothesis. Duplication by contemporaries will lead to agreement or not with your conclusion. This is not new. It was formulated in the 18th Century as the Scientific Method, and led to the Enlightenment which your lot would dearly love to reverse.

What science is not:

Notice an political issue and find a pre-existing 19th Century hypothesis to back it up. In the absence of the possibility (and inclination) to experiment; form a politically expedient conclusion and then make the conclusion fit the hypothesis by constructing elaborate computer models.

“Computer modeling has a number of attractions for academics. It does not need the resources that experimental science demands; nor does it need the long hours of careful attention required for research by measurement. In just a few hours you can create a model, just a computer program, which is so complex that no outsider can hope to unravel it. You can build in many assumptions that might well be unjustifiable under independent examination. Furthermore, the human unconscious is a mischievous influence that can produce the desired results, even for those who are not deliberately cheating. In the same few hours you can produce beautiful graphs and tables, the like of which would take months in experimental science, but which are so convincing to laymen and particularly politicians and bureaucrats.” quoted from John Brignell (I hope you don’t mind, Sir).

Also quote large amounts of data showing unprecedented recent warming from unreliable weather stations in warm urban areas and broken ones from the ex USSR. Cover up conflicting information from satellites and inconvenient El Nino events, and then form a political quango at public expense called the IPCC who relies on taxpayers money to come to a “consensus” about the above, given that all negative conclusions reduce the income of the climate hierarchy and make the latter redundant. While you’re at it discredit dissenters in true Orwellian style by ostracising, cutting off funding and using ad-hominem attacks and being the “thought police” of Wikipedia. For good measure use politically sympathetic media for “groupthink” and use editor allies of publications to “peer review” your “work”.

Then call it “science”.

Now some evidence to back up this view:

1 Our Sun may seem an enduring, unwavering beacon in the sky, but in truth it has a “heartbeat” of sorts–a pulsation between dimmer and brighter phases so slow that it only “beats” 9 times each century!

It’s understandable that you might not have noticed. The pulsing is not only slow, it’s also subtle. The total energy coming from the Sun only varies by about 0.1% over each 11-year cycle. For a long time scientists didn’t notice it either, which is why the Sun’s intensity is called, ironically, the “solar constant.”

The intensity of the Sun varies along with the 11-year sunspot cycle. When sunspots are numerous the solar constant is high (about 1367 W/m2); when sunspots are scarce the value is low (about 1365 W/m2). Eleven years isn’t the only “beat,” however. The solar constant can fluctuate by ~0.1% over days and weeks as sunspots grow and dissipate. The solar constant also drifts by 0.2% to 0.6% over many centuries, according to scientists who study tree rings.

These small changes can affect Earth in a big way. For example, between 1645 and 1715 (a period astronomers call the “Maunder Minimum”) the sunspot cycle stopped; the face of the Sun was nearly blank for 70 years. At the same time Europe was hit by an extraordinary cold spell: the Thames River in London froze, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and northern sea ice increased. An earlier centuries-long surge in solar activity (inferred from studies of tree rings) had the opposite effect: Vikings were able to settle the thawed-out coast of Greenland in the 980s, and even grow enough wheat there to export the surplus to Scandinavia.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

Notice the source. It’s NASA. Yes that’s right. NASA says the sun energy output changes and that that change impacts climate. what part of this is so hard to understand? This is freaking NASA. Do you all understand this data? Notice that CO2 is not mentioned for the little ice age, for the warming that let the Vikings settle Greenland. It was the SUN.

Some more from the article:

Researchers still aren’t sure how small changes in the Sun’s output nudge Earth’s climate in one direction or another. To find the answer, they need to monitor our climate and keep a finger on the Sun’s “pulse” for many decades running……

….Getting consistent measurements from the ground is tricky, explains Joukoff, because Earth’s changing seasons and weather cause sunlight hitting the ground to wax and wane. On average, clouds and the atmosphere absorb or reflect 51 percent of the incoming sunlight, and this can vary widely between overcast and cloudless days.

Two big points here: one it takes DECADES to understand the Sun’s contribution to Climate change but CO2 nitwits have it figured out in 5 years. Two. the energy striking the earth varies WIDELY day to day, month to month, year to year. This blows the computer models of the CO2 nitwits full of holes. If the input of your models varies widely you can not with certainity deduce the outcome. All the models assume a constant energy stiking the earth from the Sun. the models entire conclusions is based on a faulty assumption IMO.

you sure about that? Some scienctists disagree:

Now, let’s ask: “What is the empirical evidence that CO2 is driving surface temperature, and not the other way around?” If we ask that question, then we are no longer trying to explain the change in temperature with time (a heat budget issue), but instead we are dealing with what is causing the change in CO2 concentration with time (a carbon budget issue). The distinction is important. In mathematical terms, we need to analyze the sources and sinks contributing to dCO2/dt, not dT/dt.

So, let us look at the yearly CO2 input into the atmosphere based upon the Mauna Loa record, that is, the change in CO2 concentration with time (Fig. 3)……..

……..The evidence for rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere comes from the fact that current carbon cycle flux estimates show that the annual CO2 exchange between surface and atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of the total amount in the atmosphere. This means that most of the carbon in the atmosphere is recycled through the surface every five years or so. From Segalstad’s writings, the rate of exchange could even be faster than this. For instance, how do we know what the turbulent fluxes in and out of the wind-driven ocean are? How would one measure such a thing locally, let alone globally?

Now, this globally averaged situation is made up of some regions emitting more CO2 than they absorb, and some regions absorbing more than they emit. What if there is a region where there has been a long-term change in the net carbon flux that is at least as big as the human source?

After all, the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need to know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2. Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in accuracy?? I doubt it.

So, one possibility would be a long-term change in the El Nino / La Nina cycle, which would include fluctuations in the ocean upwelling areas off the west coasts of the continents. Since these areas represent semi-direct connections to deep-ocean carbon storage, this could be one possible source of the extra carbon (or, maybe I should say a decreasing sink for atmospheric carbon?).

Let’s say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we get the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate of human emissions.

If nothing else, Fig. 3 illustrates how large the natural interannual changes in CO2 are compared to the human emissions. In Fig. 5 we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/

For the above questions it is easy to see that the science is not “settled” yet people like you would want to change the entire economy, human advancement for a theory? read the whole article maybe you might see there is other reasons that could be causing the warming. I’m thinking it has to do with the SUN more than anything. you know that big yellow ball in the sky.

Hogwash.