Then transfer the green ideas back to USA and the war itself may not be necessary.

Which bit doesn't work like that ?

CO2 makes higher temps (obvious part of greenhouse effect)

Higher temps mean oceans dissolve less CO2, and more plants are stressed and release CO2, and permafrost and potentially methane clathrates make (OK not more CO2 but more CO2e).

Am I wrong ? - I am genuinely interested if I am wrong.
I read a lot of stuff.

1. Time lag disproves causality - true, but irrelevent, past changes driven by temperature caused co2 changes. This time we are driving with Co2 and causing temp changes. Coupled system - both effect each other. This is not good news as CO2 begets more temp which begets more CO2 and so on, also these changes happen much slower in past so who knows what happens this time when ocean thermal reservoir catches up.

2. H20 vs CO2. Yes lots more water - difference is that there arn't oceans of CO2 lying around H2o is in equilibrium with liquid water. We couldn't have any effect on H20 concentration directly if we tried. It would rain out if we added it or evaporate out of oceans if we took it out. CO2 on the otherhand is just the right powerful lever to pull and we are yanking it like it's never been yanked before in the history of earth - certainly since mammals were evolved anyway. CO2 also begets H2O which aggreed is most of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is a forcing H2O is a feedback.

3. Viking farm anecdotes. Climate changes - this was not a global phenomenon, and is interesting but doesn't disprove AGW.

4. So you are arguing the point about the temperature record on earth but you think that there is sufficient data on mars global temps to make that statement and use it to disprove AGW (one of the greatest scientific efforts ever) ? Thats just silly.

They have done due diligence but unfortunately - we have to watch the earth get stuffed seriously and rub your face in a post civil society - stuffed planet for you to get it. Plus we actually have to get it before major problems happen because of the decade time lags between action and response in the climate system and the political, engineering time lags, and tipping points.

Some of these points were probably worthy of discussion during the early 1990s.
Maybe this is one of the most important subjects out there and is worth more of your time investigating than just learning enough to parrot other ignoramuses.

I think I will be obtaining all my information and forming my world view based only on Fox News from now on where i can be sure to not encounter any pornography.

I own a copy of Matlab, but am moving more and more stuff out of it.
It integrates with command line very poorly (on windows).
The java interface parts look like shit.
The language sucks for real development work.
They want to pay them a fee to retain the future ability to purchase toolboxes, even though I don't want support.
The only thing I am still using is the griddata function because it is better than octaves.
Most of my work is now in python with gnuplot.

You have some pretty interesting and novel theories there, why don't you attempt to get some papers published based on your research.
We might find out how optimal your science is too.

Since your posting on slashdot depends so heavily on english, grammar, logic and computer use it is surprising your work has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional linguists, logicians, philosohers and computer scientists.

Or alternatively,
People who disbelieved the mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change will put this latest piece of evidence in the same mountainous pile of ignored evidence.
People who have taken the somewhat less convenient path of rationally assesing the available scientific evidence will still accept the evidence, and and would have continued to even if the CRU had been found guilty of intentional gross fraud and conspiracy.
Then again CRU could have been one cell in a world wide scientific fraud conspiracy group intent on world domination. But this inquiry and the other one found that they wern't - which makes sense : if scientists had wanted to have power and money they wouldn't have studied science over politics or finance.

Small countries scuttle a deal ? What version of history are you using ?
The DEAL agreed by 117 countries was stabilization at 350ppm.
Then the countries that have the historical responsibility for the problem, are the major current cause of the problem decided that they should also be the future cause of the problem, and couldn't agree to anything that might cause them to show leadership in their own countries.
Are you seriously suggesting countries like Maldives and Tuvalu should have signed up to what would have been a suicide pact for them with the rich nations, just to be cooperative ? That is not democracy. That is pure self interest.

Democracy is really good for giving the people what they want, which is really successful in peace time.
Unfortunately in this case where a problem is so large we need to get on a planetary war footing, but what they want is willful/plausable ignorance of the subject.
Politicians and the media are forced to supply, untill things get really bad, and then history shows capable leaders will turn up.
I doubt Winston Churchill would have been elected in peace time.

Unfortunately the dynamics of the climate and the masking by aerosols of the magnitude of the forcing mean that if we wait for things to get even worse with a few more years of willful decadent opulent ignorance, then we are commiting to some far worse problems after we start to take drastic action. The magnitude of these problems depends on which model of ocean mixing is accurate and where in those fat error bars the value of aerosol forcing turns out to be. On top of that there is the potential for tipping points that could arrive before or after we start to take action.

Any sensible person with this information would have to say act now.
Better to stick with denial.

I could guess that they are determining temperature by finding the peak wavelength of light using Planks law.

If there was a smaller body in front of the bigger body, the spectrums are added ( or spectrum of big one * (size of bigone - size of small one) + spectrum of small one * size of small one) which might move the peak wavelength slightly. This would work for both a hotter and colder small body, and tell you size and temperature, given sufficient precision in wavelength and amplitude.

Or we could just have a brief and rather blunt conversation with our friends in the coal, oil and beef industries.
Which is what world leaders are tiptoeing around trying to avoid, pretending terrestrial biofuels were an option, pretending carbon sequestration is an option. All of this stuffing around to avoid some uncomfortable conversation about facts that both the politicians, the people and the companies know are true.

Must we be stupider as a species than our individual parts ?

Yeah - idiots , imagine if a family bought TWO cars.

I live in Australia too.
Fuel tax has not gone directly to roads since the seventies - it goes into general revenue.
Rego + fuel tax does not fund roads.
Local, state and federal gov all subsidise the building and maintaining of roads. Federal receives fuel tax, state receives rego. All three levels of government spend more on roads that they receive from motorists.
Add to that our activities in Iraq, exclusion from the proposed CPRS (Carbon pollution reduction scheme), and the hospital costs to handle all these obese Australians, and most cancers are reduced by an active lifestyle.
We also subsidise our car industry to produce technologically backward large cars.
No. Cars are recieving massive subsidies at the expense of cyclists.
Also look around at all the extra infrastructure - traffic lights extra lanes, car parks, parking spaces, garages etc, that are required to support this system.
Bikes cause less wear and tear, require far less road to be built, and require less insurance because they can damage less.


But don't think you are incorrect because of mere facts, take comfort being surrounded by a large percentage of Aussies who share your beliefs, which is why politicians feel the need maintain this system.

Sounds like you fear being run up the back of in your car.
And that is the reason why you don't like slowing for bicycles who fear being run into from behind.
So your solution is for everyone to drive faster.
This will result in ever increasing speeds. Not sensible. Why not slow down and if you can't beat bikes, join them.
Re your assertion that bikes can only ride in bike lanes, besides being ridiculously impractical, is likely incorrect :
http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm
I looked at what I thought would be the most backward states and they all say bikes have equal rights.
This is consistent with the US being a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic