Please be patient, I’m fairly busy these days and don’t have tons of time so I might be a bit slow to answer.

Have you really put in that much study on the issue?

Anyway I’ll not let you get away with the claim that I didn’t address each of your issues.

If you want to go through this in detail I will respond to your claims one at a time on my blog;

http://ablankspotonthemap.blogspot.com/

See you there.

Here is the point you missed:

The fact is that when people realize energy savings they enjoy cost savings as well. As a result of the cost savings, they often increase other activities (since they more money available). Those increased activities often result in higher total energy use. People’s behaviour is not static. That’s what Seth meant by “it’s not a zero sum game.”

For example, higher gas mileage cars tend to get driven more. The increased number of miles driven uses as much or more gas than efficiency increase saved. The result is and total gas usage is either flat or goes up.

The way you simultaneously made the point was by continuing the efficiency argument while missing Seth’s point.

But I’ll give you a gold star for excellent snark.

“Not at all. The warming is way off from normal and the major change is CO2 levels that are higher then (sic) they have been in more then 400,000 years. Nothing else explains this warming.

It all fits… it’s all pretty straight forward.”

So you’re saying, “It’s really warm now, and CO2 is elevated so that must be the cause of the warming.” Again, correlation does not prove causation, so your logic is wrong – this is not proof of anything one way or the other. On top of the bad logic, your statement isn’t even true.

As you have pointed out multiple times, woody plants have been discovered under melting glaciers. Obviously, many years ago, the planet was much warmer than now or those plants wouldn’t be there. That proves conclusively that present global temperature are within historical norms.

Next you fall into the fallacy of personal incredulity Daniel mentioned before (i.e. “I can’t see any other explanation, so it must be CO2”). Not only that, but we’re discussing the anthropogenic component of warming not total warming. One of the links you provided earlier shows that anthropogenic CO2 is ~4% of production. IOW, natural processes produce 24 times more CO2 than human activity. When you understand that CO2 has much less impact than water vapor on warming and see how small the impact of human activity is on CO2 it is difficult to believe we have an imminent catastrophe looming before us. Of course, I’ve made these comments before and you’ve yet to address them.

Even further, the hypothesis that the CO2 concentration increases we’ve seen will drive substantial warming has not held up well to reality. Computer models built with those assumptions have consistently been dramatically wrong. The inescapable conclusion from that is the computer models are worthless. Obviously, we do not understand the global climate process as well as you seem to think. I’ve brought this up before on other threads and you’ve never addressed this point either.

What of the missing hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels Sam keeps asking you about. You’ve never addressed that either.

But other than that it all fits. (that was sarcasm in case you didn’t realize it)

“Do you understand that when Dr Hansen stood before congress and warned of major man made warming many of these findings of 4,000 year old vegetation HAD NOT EXISTED or been discovered.

Isn’t it a little likely more then a coincidence these discoveries are recent and happened only after the claim was made.”

This is the kind of argument you find convincing? No wonder you’re so confused.

“Now if no such finding were available, if the surface data showed cooling or even no warming then I’d be embarrassed to be pushing claims of man made climate change.”

Funny thing is the surface temperature shows just that for the last decade even though the models based on the hypothesis you espouse show we should have seen steady warming. What that means is we do not understand the global climate system as well as you thing we do – it’s definitely not as simple as you think it is.

“But you guys push claims that are just as proposperous (sic). You claim the warming is natural when there is no evidence to support it and a huge CO2 elephant sitting in the room to explain the man made hypothesis.”

Here you try to lump me in with some imaginary group you can demean. I’m not pushing any claims; that would be you. Since the temperatures we see now are within historical variation and we do not understand the global climate process well it is obviously possible that the warming we have now could be natural.

And, as I wrote above, the “CO2 elephant” is more like a miniature jade elephant you bought in Chinatown for $5 (that analogy means it’s small, not huge in case you didn’t understand).

“You guys simply do not want the truth. It’s very clear..the truth… but you can’t handle the truth. Kicking and screaming and denying and throwing tantrums and being illogical like some of the 2 year olds I see here everyday. It’s pathetic.

You really are creationist equivalents and there is just no way for you to see it. Very sad.”

And of course, you have to throw in the obligatory ad hominem hoping to distract readers from the fact that you have no argument. What’s humorous is that (like most of your ad hominems) it describes you fairly well. So please fess up – the parody is intentional, right?

If Mother Gaia was that warm 6500 years ago, what caused the globe to cool to the point that glaciers covered these plants for 6500 years? Why was the globe warm enough for those glaciers to recede 6500 years ago? It was colder 12,000 years ago than it was 6500 years ago. Why? (Please note that twelve-thousand is a bigger number than six-thousand.)

It’s been both warmer and colder on this planet than it is now. Why? It’s been both warmer and colder on this planet than it was 6500 years ago. Why?