Groucho

That's because you're a creationist

Your statement is one large fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc "It came after therefore it was caused by"

The CO2 changes in the atmosphere are neither rapid nor unprecedented. Also, the clear witness of ice cores is that rises and falls in CO2 in the atmosphere are a centuries delayed response to climatic warming and cooling. Since 97% of CO2 is from natural sources, the man-made contribution is tiny compared to the natural evolution of CO2 from our oceans which originated in the Medieval Warm Period.

Using Henry's Law only works if there is carbon dioxide equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere. There isn't.

+1 Funny

It's a shame no-one noticed but me.

"...than normal..."

We see the problem right there in that statement.

But clearing the underbrush causes CO2 to be produced causing temperatures to rise...

"Ah, nothing like quoting an anti-AGW blog as if it were the equivalent of a published article"

Ah nothing like quoting Skeptical Science or Real Climate or DeSmogBlog or HughPickensDOTcom, because those are outlets of pure unvarnished truth that no sane man may object to.

In fact the WUWT article points to an article in "The Australian" and quotes the NSIDC.

I assume you get your answers from Genesis because you like things handed down as Holy Writ, probably because its easier than thinking. Climate alarmism is deeply religious and very much creationism without all of the messy stuff about Cain and Abel.

Like "The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is 50 below zero, so how is it melting?"

But that's for people who understand science and critical thinking, something you're not capable of.

Why bother allowing people to comment if you're going to insult them with reference to Holocaust Denial?

Alternatively, exactly who died that a claim of climate modellers about future events became Holy Writ that may not be challenged or questioned?

That's right, because before 1950 climate was stable.

"Motivated reasoning" - the new phrase for "Possessed by the Devil"

Refusing to invest in coal industries does not help reduce carbon emissions and pollution one jot. If there's ever a polluting industry it would be the so-called renewables which use rare earths and cause massive pollution.

Can't post. Playing Dota 2 in a coffee shop

Is there a sweetheart deal for Slashdot's owners to post every deranged end-of-the-world scare story from HughPickens?

Inquiring minds would like to know, because every single scare story has been rebutted many times (although Slashdot never gets to see those stories because the debunkers are in league with the devil/big oil/republicans/illuminati/adam sandler (delete as appropriate))

The modern term for this is "motivated reasoning" but in the past it was called "moral hazard" or "moral depravity". Different words, same result - an attack on the motivation of the person who denies the coming Apocalypse/Judgement Day/Zombie Outbreak (delete as appropriate)

In Russia they have a word for this: Lysenkoism

"This means drastically more land area and more water is needed than for growing traditional, primarily vegetarian diets."

Step away from the keyboard, out of your mom's basement and take a look at the real world