I wish you had commented on the substance of my last statement. The fact is the IPCC does discuss the “billions of years of history” you say it ignores and you continue to cite non-peer-reviewed articles to support your own view.

Thanks for the tip on the book. I will definitely look it up.

Quite frankly, the who man as the cause of global warming movement is complete and utter bullshit. If you really believed that Man was the cause, you would get your ass in gear and actually modify your lifestyle. But you don’t.

Tell you what: go buy the book “The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills To Stop Climate Change” or borrow it at the library. When you are following the majority of the skills, let me know. Then you might have some credibility.

No scientist should be personally attacked for presenting their evidence. However you have yet to actually provide any of that peer-reviewed evidence and if ad hominem attacks are an indicator of the weakness of one’s own argument maybe you should take a look at your own blog.

Teach said: If it was actually interested in the reality, it would mention Earth processes, you know, those things that have gone on for billions of years.

It does and in great detail. In fact there’s an entire chapter devoted just to the palaeoclimate (Chapter 6). Here’s the link, in case you are interested:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

The fact that you don’t know this and the fact that you continue to misquote the IPCC seriously damages your credibility on this subject. You can’t argue against something you haven’t bothered to read.

It’s funny, though, because peer reviewed articles that say Man is not at fault are poo poo’d and attacked ad hominum. Why is that?

Why is it that all these articles out there ignore billions of years of history in favor of Man being the sole or primary culprit? Why do the goal posts keep changing? The time when global warming supposedly started keeps changing.

And, yes, for the most part, I think the IPCC is a bunch of trash, based more on beauracratic wishes then actual science. If it was actually interested in the reality, it would mention Earth processes, you know, those things that have gone on for billions of years. If they were actually honest, they would live the life they want everyone else to live, but, not, like yourself, they do not.

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.pdf

For a while I thought your arguments were getting better but it looks like you are back to your old methods again – incorrectly quoting the IPCC and using non-peer reviewed/unsubstantiated assertions from magazine articles.

But, hey, the Sun could decide to go thru a huge, long, non-active phase tomorrow, and we could have a glaciacion. No one really truly knows in full.

Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration.

The article also states the Earth will start cooling by 2012. Do you agree with this?