The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!

Wait. Do my ears deceive me? You are denying a well known scientific observation because it doesn't fit with your AGW doctrine? You think the OCO-2 sat is a 280 million dollar conspiracy to debunk AGW? Denier! Denier!! dave420 is in a denier of teh science!!11!ONE!

You guys are idiots. You want to know why there are so many people who are skeptical about AGW? Look in the mirror. If you don't know anything about climate science, keep your opinions to yourselves please. You aren't helping your side of the argument. Here's a quick list of papers I found with google. You could find hundreds more in no time at all.

1. [1] Broecker, W. S. et al., 1979: Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget, Science, 206:409-418
2. [2] Siegenthaler, U. and H. Oeschger, 1978: Predicting future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, Science, 199:388-395
3. [3] Siegenthaler, U. and J. L. Sarmiento, 1993: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the ocean, Nature, 365:119-125
4. [4] IPCC (1994) Climate Change 1994, Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios eds. J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meria Filho, J. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, B. A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain
5. [5] Joos F., 1994: Imbalance in the budget, Nature, 370:181-182
6. [6] Hesshaimer V., M. Heimann and I. Levin, 1994: Radiocarbon evidence for a smaller oceanic carbon dioxide sink than previously believed, Nature, 370:201-203
7. [7] Broecker, W. S. and T. Peng, 1994: Stratospheric contribution to the global bomb radiocarbon inventory: Model versus observation, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8:377-384
8. [8] Dale, V. H. and H. M. Rauscher, 1994: Assessing impacts of climate change on forests, Climatic Change 28:65-90
9. [9] Kheshgi, H. S., A. K. Jain and D. J. Wuebbles, 1996: Accounting for the missing carbon sink with the CO2 fertilization effect, Climatic Change, in print
10. [10] Hulme, M., S. C. B. Raper and T. M. L. Wigley, 1995: An integrated framework to address climate change (ESCAPE) and further developments of the global and regional climate modules (MAGICC), Energy Policy, 23:347-355
11. [11] Manne, A., R. Mendelsohn and R. Richels, 1995: MERGE: A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies, Energy Policy, 23:17-34
12. [12] Peck, S. C. and T. J. Teisberg, 1994: Optimal carbon emissions trajectories when damages depend on the rate or level of global warming, Climatic Change, 28:289-314
13. [13] Keller, A. A. and R. A. Goldstein, 1994: The human effect on the global carbon cycle: response functions to analyze management strategies, World Resources Review, 6:63-87
14. [14] Hudson, R. J. M., S. A. Gherini and R. A. Goldstein, 1994: Modeling the global carbon cycle: nitrogen fertilization of the terrestrial biosphere and the "missing" CO2 sink, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8:307-333
15. [15] Dregne, H., M. Kassas and B. Rosanov, 1991: A new assessment of the world status of desertification, Desertification Control Bulletin, UNEP, 20:6-18

I wonder... do you actually believe your spiel or do you just keep copy/pasting it to karma whore? Last time, I pointed out that there are significant unknown sinks of CO2. Yet here you are, lobbing the same half truths at the audience. So, tell us oh wise one... if you were in charge of the planet today, what would you do to reduce atmospheric CO2, given that the real climate scientists don't even know where it is all going now? I'd love to hear your plan, glorious leader.

I save the fucking planet, that's what. :)

"And here we see that increasing CO2 levels is causing increasing global temperatures..."

Yep, coorelation != causation.

I think you mean rife.

Test results? Missing carbon sinks. Well known fact that you glossed over. Every time you guys do that, you lose credibility. You can't convince skeptics by lying through omission.

Came here to say that. Would mod up. No points.

Except when it applies to a Law Enforcement Backdoor, right? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... right?

Go ahead and do lots of work with almost no chance of payment. If you don't win, you don't get anything, no matter how much time you put into it. That works out really nicely for Google. That doesn't work out so well for every contestant except for the one who wins.

Or it's bullshit to scare people away from tails. Have they demonstrated the exploit?

Well then, I guess I'll be purchasing gold coins to stash. Leaving much money in the bank seems like a really big liability after reading this article.

Or they sue you for libel. One of those two.

Sorry AC, you need to check your own facts. The largest chunk of the bailout went into buying GSE Mortgage backed securities. You know, all the bad debt these investment firms had invested in. Yeah, the government bought those bad debts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will likely be paying back on the bailout well into the next decade as a result.

Really. Then how do you explain their closing Teagan Presley's personal account, and her husband's account?

The only business I have with Chase is a single credit card account. I'll be closing that as soon my next payment on it clears. I'm also going to be thinking very hard about finding a European bank to move my money into.