>>You cannot even debate the subject of this forum, CO2!<<

Pot kettle etc.

Although personally I have no problem with discussions that meander from their original topic.

>>Everything I said about a New World Gov't is true and on the record.<<

Really? I'd quite like to see that record. All google has provided me with is bunch of websites run by al-foil hat wearing nutcases.

Cheers,

Tony

There is a tiger snake in the camp. Can GK start his own thread and topic, so he can air his views.

I do not think highlighting a persons posts is quite right.
I may get caned for it.
But GK has unmasked in a thread Why not Turnbull.
I think his own words will say what I want to but will show respect for the forum in not repeating.

Co2 is colourless, odourless, and ecential to life. That is true ; But nature has been compromised by our burning of fossil fuel, so unless we correct our ways we may be in for a hectic time.
Being around 400 ppm is some sort of milestone, how long before the next 100 ppm. It's taken a century to get from 285 ppm to 400ppm.
Where will we be by 2025, a mere 13 years. My guess is around 440 ppm
and in considerable more trouble. Unless we bring about change now, and work toward stopping our dependence on oil.

Here you go Geoffrey...

Warmings take around 5,000 years and the lag is only 800 years....there's nothing to say that 5/6 off the warming wasn't caused by the rise in CO2 acting as an amplifier.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Dear csteele,

You asked me if I applaud Gough for the legislation? Yes, I do. I also applaud Gough for purchasing ‘Blue Poles’, but my congratulations and admiration of Gough probably end about there. His disastrous gov’t has only been eclipsed by our current gov’t.

As for your graph, I am not impressed.

Firstly it is unattributed. I cannot determine from which source it was plagiarized because none is offered. As for the source of the website, I can see that it is a US left-wing think-tank set up to oppose GW Bush going into Afghanistan! Your graph fails the test of being good science. One of the main reasons scientists deplore plagiarism is because it denies us the chance to assess the character of the worker that produces the paper. Another reason is that is just plain intellectual theft.

But let us analyse your graph. From 1880 to about 1970 the rise in temp PRECEDES the rise in CO2. After 1970 the CO2 precedes temp rise. We have a conundrum, do we not? You see, I could just as easily interpret the massive rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from clearing of the rainforests in South America and Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. By destroying the ‘lungs of the earth’ (rainforests). We could be looking at an underutilization of the CO2 uptake by photosynthesis. You see csteele, my interpretation may not be correct, but at least it has a scientific basis and not a political basis for arriving at my conclusion.
(continued)