Now Scott--how much more affirmative can I be than starting my post with "We all Agree AGW is a FACT?  I believe it.".........But one of the most persistent arguments we will get from Deniers will be failure to predict weather.  Why do you so perniciously attribute this faulty argument to moi?  I did not advance it except as analysis of the battle plan.  Jeesh--you'd think we were discussion politics, or religion, or eugenics, or the Mets?

If everyone agreed with you about everything, there would be no interest in posting the issue?

Here's another popular Denier Argument I don't actually have a position on:  the historical record shows that co2 increases AFTER the temperature rises--indicating a release of co2 from ocean waters.  A result of natural GW, not AGW.  Now, I think I did read on a "How to Answer AGW Deniers" type website that this is a mistaken read of the ice core records or that there are feedback and delay loops that explain this.  Who knows?  And my mind is already made up----so who cares?

BTW, did you know that in Python, the computer language named for Monty Python, they do not use foo and bar as the metasyntactic variables. Instead, they use spam and eggs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

I haven't coded anything for a while ever since that last contract with the govt. that I can't even talk about which really honks me off.

You just did. Though, you didn't say much and probably are allowed to say what you did.

You can get real data without much trouble.  Not biased data, just real, raw data.  It's then up to you what to do with it, how to analyze it, which models it supports, etc.  Why believe politicians or projects funded by major corporations with possible conflicts of interest?  The biggest problem with climate models these days is that they seem to predict exactly what the funding entity wants to predict.  The Reason for these rather biased studies and results?  You can't get paid working for yourself or with other scientists that have no funding, and there aren't many studies with funding supplied by generous benefactors with no axe to grind or desired results.  There are just too many ignorant people and a lot of money to be made.  Ask yourself why Al Gore is a big global warming doomsday fanatic.  It sure isn't for humanitarian reasons.

I'm planning a series of articles with Misanthropic Scott on "global warming."  We're not getting paid for it.  Scott and I have different opinions and beliefs about global warming and whether or not it is occurring, to what extent, and can we change it.  If I can stay out of trouble, we'll get it done.  Maybe someone will actually comment, who knows?  I'd set up a poll as well, but based on past experience that would be a big waste of time.

In particular, I would love to see the paper that shows carbon by percentage of the atmosphere rather than by parts per million and how it claims such a radically different amount of increase just by using different units. Seems to me there would be an easy conversion from parts per million to percentage of atmosphere and that the percentage increase would be the same when expressed either way. In fact, for percentage of atmosphere, wouldn't one simply divide PPM by 1,000,000 and then multiply by 100 (resulting in dividing by 10,000)? Wouldn't that put CO2 at 0.00383% of the atmosphere now versus 0.00280% at the start of the industrial revolution and 0.00220% at the dawn of agriculture (which is sometimes cited as the start of the anthropocene era)? What am I missing here?

If you want to argue models, you'll have to at least demonstrate from whence the data came and give some clues as to its authenticity.

I'll have your CO2 data for you when and if I wake up.  It's 06:15 CDT and I don't plan on dreaming about global warming unless Angelina Jolie and Barbara Eden ca. 1965 have something to do with it.

So far, I've not mentioned models. I've just asked for a link explaining why you do not believe that we have significantly increased CO2 from 280 PPM to at least 383 PPM, an increase of at least 36%.