Mmkay... If you still believe that "Scientists are VERY clear: AGW is happening," you are a true believer. Watch your prophet expound in a debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
If you go back a little longer than 10 years, you can see that CO2 was rising even during a global cooling period: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png So what's the direct relationship between CO2 and temperature again...?
2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution,
Citation...?
in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.
What about how much CO2 we and all the other animals on the planet exhale?
What about other sources of CO2 aside from humans?
And how will they understand logic (or skepticism which is just an extension of logic) without proper grammar and communication skills?
Logic and skepticism are fundamentally about asking questions. How can you ask a question without the knowledge or ability to communicate in a comprehensible way?
I have to wonder if it would be a more accurate link between the amount of time a child spent in near proximity to vinyl flooring and not just whether or not the household had it.
In other words, if children who spend more time sitting in their homes, crawling the floor, etc, are more prone to Autism than children who spend a greater percentage of their time outdoors.
Additionally, I wonder if a similar correlation exists if there is extensive parental exposure to phthalates prior to conception.
But google was such a substantial donor!
The problem with this is simple: the author of a Wikipedia article controls your opinions about a topic by selectively choosing his sources. He can make what he writes seem extraordinarily accurate based on the sources he chooses — or more significantly, the sources he ignores.
If Britannica wishes to secure their reputation, they do not have this luxury.
What about total solar energy output?
BLISS is ignorance.
