EPA just said so!
May or may not - is a subject of the debate, not legislation.
Cut on sugar and salt on your own, and do not wait for government to tell you that, or bad things may happen to you.

***********.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts
<font size="+1" color="black">The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels

there were also very high levels in 1825, 1857, 1945...

as greenhouse gas it's possible that it causes Global Warming.
GW may cause bad shit to happen.
those are only hypothesis..it has not been established..

What?!
1825!!!!
I do not believe it!!! There was no cars then! It must be a joke!!! The data cannot be credible!!!
Did anybody check the air quality over Europe when the city of Pompey was covered with ashes after the volcano eruption???
I guess - the "science" was not around then... he he.

***********.nipccreport.org/chapter1.html
***********.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.pdf

Global Climate Models and Their Limitations

in a holiday spirit, Mike, to cheer you up just in case ;-) here
What matters more, it seems, is graduates' personal drive. In a surprising twist, a stronger predictor of income is the caliber of the schools that reject you. Researchers found students who applied to several elite schools but didn't attend them—presumably because many were rejected—are more likely to earn high incomes later than students who actually attended elite schools. In a summary of the findings, the Bureau says that "evidently, students' motivation, ambition and desire to learn have a much stronger effect on their subsequent success than average academic ability of their classmates."
********online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703438404574597952027438622.html

Alexei, what do you think of Myhrvold's idea -pumping sulfur particles into the stratosphere? It sounds crazy, but this guy is super smart...

Julia, I don't know much about that idea - only what I read about that in popular press. While sulfate aerosols do indeed posses sun-blocking capacity, they are also known to deplete ozone layer. I don't know if this effect is significant for stratospheric implantation, but I'd be careful not to trade warming to ozone depletion.
Also, what comes up must eventually come down -- and having sulfur rain does not sound very appealing. Also, I don't know if one can produce a homogeneous layer of that stuff...
So, it does not sound very appealing to me, but what do I know...

yes,this is what I thought - acid rains again...
well, what he is saying you need actually a relatively small amount of sulfur, so the risk-benefit seemed good.
I admire the most this guy's imagination...

That could be, as I said, I don't know much about that stuff.
Speaking of sulfur, btw. If historical CO_2 spikes have natural (volcanic) origin, there must be a correlation between the spikes of sulfuric concentrations in 1825, etc. The abstract that tells about historical spikes in CO2 does not look into that (or I missed it while scanning that website).

Alex, not sure you read this whole column, but I posted somewhere earlier that Friedman"s "Hot, flat and crowded" provides analysis of politics of oil and politics of climate, as well as ties all of it with the rise of fundamentalism - excellent analysis.
Petropolitics , geopolitics...power-all connected. And his proposed solutions are also totally sane.

Julia, what do you personally think about GW?
did you personally read the hacked emails? and if they raise questions about the data we've been relying on to determine if there has actually been warming, what's your opinion on why our government refuses to investigate it??

Sveta, i read info on climate all the time...
all the fuss about those e-mails is blown out of proportion and some stuff is just taken out of context.
but we obviously read different publications. We at home read about 3 science journals, and as far as journalists - this is where we differ.
But, GW aside, I think even conservatives will like Friedman's musings on petropolitics and the dangers of radical Islam. And his solutions are not "government involvement", but innovation, economic development, education, developing own energy independence - not too many people would disagree with this.

if you had read the emails yourselves, not the apologies, you would've definitely realized there were a lot of unethical things taken place that definitely trigger an investigation before we decide to take dramatic actions..unless you are religious about GW..(ch)
comparing terrorism to GW (ch) we HAVE been attacked..we don't need prove..
found this site describing different climate periods with temp, co2 levels..
***********.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

I am glad that this thread had become such a vigorously debated topic. Where I stand on this issue I think everyone knows - from my own posts. I don't presume to convince anyone or win them over to our side. Only to urge them to think for themselves, as oppose to regurgitating liberal-progressive dogma and DNC talking points.
To that end I will try to open other similar threads - all excerpts from Mark Levin's "A Conservative Manifesto" - from his latest book "Liberty and Tyranny", a highly recommended book and a great present during this Holiday Season. (Y) (Y) (Y)

There is a very good book i just finished reading - "Physics for future presidents" it talked about GW among other things. A very good, unbiased approach, cuts thru a bunch of political bullshit.

Here is what Dr. Fred Singer, one of the leading climate researchers who does not buy the MAN-made GW idea says:
- Climate change is a major political issue with many conflicting claims of causes and possible solutions. We attempt to separate what is scientifically known from what is not, and what is economically practical from what is not.
- Climate is always changing. For the last 2 million years , nearly 20 ice age periods have dominated the Earth's climate, interrupted by warm periods lasting 10,000 years or so. During the current warm period the climate has been both warmer and cooler that today. For 3000 it was about 5 dgerees F warmer.
-GW is real. But not in a way indicating CO2 is the cause.
30 years of satellite observation show a warming in the northern part of the globe, little warming in the tropics and the southers portion -and distinct cooling of Antarctica. Global warming stopped a decade ago.

-There is no climate crisis. There is no scientific basis for concluding the climate is doing anything unprecedented or dangerous.
-Many well -meaning politicians are in the grips of a mania led by political, not scientific studies.These studies ignore past warming and cooling periods. Science must never aignore physical evidence. Politicians believing there political documents believe they can control climate by controlling human activity.
-Several distinguished scientists formed the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) to study these reports. The 2008 NIPCC report concluded that the government reports and their models are biased, obsolete and wrong and that nature, not human activity, rules the climate
***.nipccreport.org

one of the leading climate researchers
I don't want to comment, just to ask a question: how do non-scientists define a "leading researcher"? What criteria do you use? I am honestly curious here.

weird question from a scientist..I mean if someone who wants to know, they can just look it up..I guess it's a person who conducts research, analyzes data, publishes papers, also has experience in Environmental Science and Climatology...imo..
********en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Well, the emphasis was on "leading" -- any researcher "conducts research, analyzes data, publishes papers, also has experience in ...". Also, how do you know that the research conducted by the said researcher is not bogus? Wikipedia?
In application to GW -- say, a researcher A says that it exists, while the researcher B says it does not -- who would you believe?
I'm actually interested in that question in general -- for example, there was (is) a guy named Walter Wagner who said that LHC would create black holes that will end life on Earth... and I say "no" -- who would you believe?

the problem HAS been (and it's becoming even more obvious) the GW crowd has been trying to discredit people with opposing views and preventing them from making THEIR views known (by stopping them from publishing their findings in respected publications..
many scientists who don't subscribe to their model of GW have been complaining of being marginalized and ostracized in the scientific community...this is crazy..I want an honest debate among scientists..

Aleksey, on LHC i believe there is a non-zero probability of creation of black holes that would start consuming matter around it. At least that was my understanding..
As of leading scientist - i believe a definition would fit someone who publishes a lot of stuff on the subject in peer-reviewed magazines... i am not sure what's the definition of "a lot".

Ok, but what if researcher A and researcher B both publish a lot in research journals? Who would you believe?
I understand that many would not care about a discussion of black hole production at the LHC (or Rezus-monkey mating patterns) -- but this question has some relevance for GW discussion.
BTW, I'm happy to defend my point of view regarding black holes at the LHC and the end of times associated with that.

Aleksey, u don't believe nobody, you put them in a cage and have them fight it out.. i mean it's obvious :)

Regarding the honest debate -- how does it suppose to go? Normally, people do research and publish their result in scientific papers. Or not publish -- if the results do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is called "peer review" -- and it is part of honest scientific debate. There are also conferences, where people report their results.
It is usually considered a bad taste to go to press when your papers are rejected from the professional journals. Well, maybe not in GW discussion. But there are many crackpots (at least in my field) that send their papers to the professional journals. I deal with that as a reviewer and as an editor. In many cases, those people say that "scientists want to suppress new ideas" -- and in all cases their "theories" don't hold up because of elementary mistakes!

Mike, I think you are on to something! Darwinian solution! Oh, wait a minute... :-)

This healthy skepticism is applicable to science and scientific discoveries in general, as it should be. So based just on such skepticism and history of scientific discoveries and how frequently many scientists were wrong with their "sure thing" findings it is preposterous to claim that GW caused by humans is "a settled science" as the inventor of the Internet claims.
Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was challenged and not conclusively proven for over 15 years - from when he first proposed it in 1908 until 1922, when examination of total Solar Eclipse proved that gravity manifests itself through curvature of timespace.

Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed climate journals are compromised now. They do not have the authority anymore to say who is leading researcher and who is not. They crewed themselves up.
So, not publishing there does not make a skeptic scientist's research less valid.
The non-political scientists keep working on the climate research and they reached the conclusion that it is NATURAL and is not related to MAN activity on Earth.
The issue here is the politics of taxation in the name of saving the Earth. If man is not responsible for the climate change -there will be no excuse to tax people.
What's not clear here?
The EPA ruling that CO2 is toxic -это такой маразм, что просто слов нет.
I'm sure when the political power moves to the other side, the CO2 will become what it should be - an indispensible ingridient of life.
We can regulate some tetrafluorodiethylpolyvinylbnezoyl because it's not natural, but we should not mess with CO2.

they reached the conclusion
THEY did? :) When will the lunacy stop? There is not definitive conclusion right now and it's not even possible with a current state of technology. There is not one serious researcher that denies that fact that men have had an affect on our climate, the question is only how much.. Is it .05C different or 2C difference.

The non-political scientists keep working on the climate research andthey reached the conclusion that it is NATURAL and is not related toMAN activity on Earth.
How do you know that they are non-political? And how do you know they all conclude that it is natural??? I mean, are there no non-political ones who say that it is man-made??? Just curious...
And again, Geophysical Review Letter publishes papers in climate and in geophysics. Is it compromised as a peer-reviewed journal? Do you have authority and credentials to claim that?

I mean..people who uses the words lunacy definitely don't qualify in the scientific debate..not even published in the peer-reviewed journal, doesn't matter if Al Gore says so..but I would put him in a cage for sure..:-|

Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was challenged and notconclusively proven for over 15 years - from when he first proposed itin 1908 until 1922, when examination of total Solar Eclipse proved thatgravity manifests itself through curvature of time space.
So, when do you decide that it is "conclusively proven"? What is your scientific criterion? :-)
BTW, General Relativity was introduced in 1915 in the presentation to the Prussian Academy of Sciences -- not in 1908.

Svetlana, i just call it as i see it :) i am sure u read many scientific journals for breakfast though.. so mad props to you ( yeah i know, i am not supposed to say mad props either ).

This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of
the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely
to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations”. Discernible human influences
now extend to other aspects of climate, including
ocean warming, continental-average temperatures,
temperature extremes and wind patterns
********ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
this is from the IPCC website..does it sound they have not established it? what does "very likely mean to you"?
Мишань, if I "call it as I see it" after every post you type, тут бы мат столбом стоял..;-) but I choose to be civil..*-) (v)

here is another one..
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions will continue to contribute to warming and
sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the
time scales required for removal of this gas from the
atmosphere...
to me it sounds pretty established...

Likely = 90% chance in science speak.
Very likely = 95% chance
Link the second article.

ok, now I want to hear your opinion on GW, what causes it, what are the chances it's man-made,..AND
if you were president, what would YOU do except resigning..(ch)

well..
1) it's a fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas
2) it's a fact that we pump out a lot of it into the air
From that we know that there is at least some correlation between increase in greenhouse gasses and increased temperature ( unless there is some negative feedback somewhere else, like cloud formation due to higher temperature, which causes cooling ).
3) as we move off oil in the next 30 years or so the next cheap alternative is coal, processing of which exhaust significantly more co2 and that can make it worse
In my "pulling from my ass estimate" there is maybe 10-20% chance that we will have some major issues due to GW.
I would say it justifies at least some kind of precautionary measures.
investment is nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc sound like a great idea.

Go nuclear!
BTW, is Westinghouse the only company that makes reactors? Need to buy some stock...