I will respond to you only because you are so wrong on so many points
and with great reluctance (for reasons explained at the end of this
epistle).

Also, let me preface my comments by saying that I never said warming was
caused -solely- by man. Yes, there are natural cycles, but that is no
reason for us to add fuel to fire, so to speak.

On 4/3/2011 9:28 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the
atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous
oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

Bzzzzt! Wrong!

1) Check the references from several previous posters. Man has generated
a lot more CO2.

2) Look at the 50,000 year old ice samples containing carbon dioxide. At
the most modern (latest) end of the curve, it is almost exponential and
asymptotic. How odd that all that volcanic activity you talk about
occurred at the very latest end of the curve. A reasonable, intelligent
person would probably presume that volcanic activity occurred relatively
evenly distributed throughout the 50,000 year period of the ice core
samples.

In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And
when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2.

A *positive* feedback cycle. The warming caused by our putting CO2 in
the atmosphere makes it warmer, which then according to you, would cause
the oceans to release even more CO2.

And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey
stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause.

Yes indeed a "symptom", a symptom of all the CO2 we are dumping in the
atmosphere.

It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has
coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.

Your point is non-provable -- it is like arguing which came first, the
chicken or the egg. I contend the "eco-political activism" came about
because a problem was detected and scientists are concerned enough to
try and do something about it.

And very convenient
for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to
mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds
of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold
carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own
constituents, and has increased his own energy usage...

Bzzzt! Wrong again.

Not to mention any names either, "he" has REDUCED his energy usage by
installing solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal
heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact
fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could
have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building
Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable
design.

His improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11
percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed
by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30
percent more electricity during the same period.

Also, you are "conveniently" overlooking some other important facts.

1) "His" Nashville house is FOUR times the size of the average Nashville
house, so it would be reasonable to assume that it uses at least four
times the 'average' energy usage.

2) It is a DUAL purpose house, serving as an office for him, for his
wife and both of their staffs. It may be just a wee bit disingenuous of
you to compare a residential/*commercial* location to just a residential
location.

Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush,
has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered
the state of the art.

First, you are comparing W's -newly built- house to one that was built
years ago. Again, a bit disingenuous of you to compare their energy
usage on an equal basis.

As you are clueless as to why I despise your hero, let me give you a
clue: I do not care in the least about W's electric bill. I DO loathe
him for *lying* us into -two- bogus wars, ****ing away a TRILLION
dollars of our national treasury, the deaths of 5000 of our children and
the horrible maiming and mutilation of thousands more of our children.
Heck of a job, Georgie! (and to anticipate any comments, I don't think
Obama should have gone into Libya).

Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998.
And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the
20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according
to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government:
1934.

Bzzzzt! Wrong yet again!

Per other posters (who quote Chapter and Verse), what you say is NOT true.

Finally, as to why I respond to you with great reluctance...

When your ex-wife first married you, she probably thought you were "Mr.
Right"; however, she may not have realized at the time that your first
name was "Always".

It's generally futile to deal with a person who thinks he is Always
Right and who has no qualms about blurring the line between
disingenuous and dishonest.