I hear your planet exiles it's Enviro-wackos to interstellar space.

In fact, we got this guy who adopted the Earth name
"Al Gore" who is from your planet. Can you take him with you on your way out?

And don't let the asteroid belt hit you in your thrusters as you accelerate to a significant portion of C!

At our technological level, we pose no danger to anything off this planet.

It would be like saying you'll sterilize a grain of sand to protect the planet.

Such a silly scenario...

If we ever develop interstellar travel that is fast, cheap and practical, maybe then this scenario starts to have legs.

Not going to happen. We've seen about a tenth of a degree warming in the first half of the 20th Century (now reversed), that occurred LONG before the rise of automobiles and factories adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Every prediction I've read about how much temperature change that the draconian measures would reverse are similarly in fractions of a degree over a period of a century.

Human activity just isn't affecting the climate all that greatly.

Any predictions of climate change on the level of several degrees is just scare-mongering.

It's not supportable based on what we've observed thus far. In fact atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by about 8 percent or so since the mid-1990s. According to climate alarmists, this should have caused measurable global warming. But none has been observed.

Human activity may indeed affect global climate, but it's like pouring a thimbleful of dye into a swimming pool.

Sorry, but I trust my sources. Like Dr. Roy Spencer and others.

His data is based on much more accurate satellite data, not tree rings, or meteorological stations placed inside heat islands like cities.

You might want to investigate that, as well as the Center for Climate Research at East Anglia University.

Data is only as good as the sources. And the data set you showed me has a lot of bias in it.

I trust satellite data much more.

Do let me know when you'll stop attacking me personally, and start discussing this subject intelligently?

And, applying critical thinking skills would be wonderful!

I said that because that's what the facts say.

What you have posted is unsupported hearsay.

I've told you where to find some of the data. You obviously are ignoring it, as you are getting a lot more mileage out of calling me a liar.

That's not how adult, intelligent people have a discussion.

And they are the people I take the time to produce data for.

All others are welcome to do their own research.

Since I googled to verify the data is still there, and it is...

I can only assume the whole point of your replies is to troll this thread.

I've long learned not to get into pissing matches with people who are either too intellectually dishonest, or too lazy to go look up easily found facts.

Find someone else to pester.

LOL!!

You seem to think that ad hominem attacks are a valid way to have discussions.

It's obvious you never took the time to actually research the data yourself.

You'd be red-faced and apologetic if you had, rather than just being a troll.

Fabricate?

Do you realize that you said that 2011 TIED 1998? The year the cooling started?

You didn't provide any actual numbers. You just made an assertion that 2011 tied 1998. If 1998 was cooler than 1997, just how does that prove that there's warming?

And remember, the observed warming was a fraction of a degree. My house differs in temperature MUCH more than that from the sunlit side to the shady side of the house.

You are repeating stuff without applying critical thinking skills to it.

You have yet to prove I fabricated anything. I simply repeated the conclusion from data gathered by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that showed that between 1998 and 2005, global temperatures didn't increase, but in fact slightly decreased. Enough in fact to reverse the fraction of a degree rise observed previously.

Tell me again I fabricated it.

Just so. How do we know that any set of conditions in the climate is optimal?

Maybe optimal is a degree warmer. Maybe not.

Squandering trillions of dollars in wealth and productivity just to maintain the status quo seems silly.

I like Bjorn Lomborg's approach which is to spend that money on clean water, medical care, and feeding the hungry instead. As well as simply moving people out of areas that might be impacted.

We can save more lives, and vastly improve the quality of lots of poor that way, rather than chasing a fraction of a degree of temperature rise.

I suggest you use your preferred search engine to do your own research.

Someone like you who so quickly jumps to nasty ad hominem attacks as a first response, would probably not trust any data I posted.

I suggest you do your own research.

I won't be holding my breath for an apology,

That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.

The assertion that the calm Sun activity won't reverse the warming is true only in that there is no longer any warming to reverse.

Bush didn't push a "every family stimulus bill." He did a banbk bailout that was mostly repaid. It was Obama that pushed a "stimulus" bill that failed to stimulate anything but Democrat donors. But, I agree that I'd rather see tax benefits and grants to upgrading the grid to be more efficient than funding ethanol, or other wasteful things. I'm having panels installed next month at no cost to me via a program here in NJ. I only pay a montlhy lease payment (20 year term) around $50US. I get all the power, I don't get the tax incentives. Sounds like a good deal to me!

Only parts of it. I actually just downloaded it from Gutenberg.org

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815 - Volume 1
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815 - Volume 2

I've got a bunch of reading to do before them though. I'm cuurently reading "Blink" by Gladwell, and have two others of his books next.

Snopes.com is not a reliable source. Two people over a kitchen table who have been found to be inaccurate a lot of times, is not an impeccable source.

Since there's a lot of scholarship on the fact that the founders despised Democracies as a form of government, you are going to have to accept that.

Remember, Democracy as a form of Government, and democracy as a practice are two distinct things.

As we can see, despising the former had nothing to do with them incorporating the latter into our Representative Republic.

No Democracy lasts long, and usually devolves into the majority voting themselves largess from the public coffers.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Professor Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

Here's a link:

http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/why_our_founders_feared_a_democr.htm