Neither my study nor Krellins study disproves that man is causing climate change. What we are refuting is the bullshit claim that we need to reduce carbon emissions. We don't carbon isn't the problem.

Well here is a direct quote from the NAS site:

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
"United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates."
"suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades."
It doesn't say EPA directly, it just claims the new environmental regulations in Europe and America have lead to an increase in global temperatures.

That said multiple news papers have reported this study as EPA is responsible for global warming, since EPA is responsible for the environmental regulations in America, including the ones that lead to the increase.

But the EPA has no effect world wide. China is the worst polluter, followed by the US. While they may have an effect on what is emitted in the US, the majority of pollutants come from the rest of the world.

The IPCC is bullshit. Its a bunch of environmental activists that released a bunch or scientific papers that a lot of liberal governments deemed credible in the 90s and now everyone things their the leading researcher on the effect of global warming.

Does either the EPA or NASA have data that show modern CO2 or other greenhouse gasses leading temperature?

"But the EPA has no effect world wide. China is the worst polluter, followed by the US. While they may have an effect on what is emitted in the US, the majority of pollutants come from the rest of the world."
Not during the 70s, 80s and 90s. China only overtook America in 2008, before then America was #1. And as I said, the NASA article specifically mentioned Europe and America, it said the that reduction of Aerosols in Europe and America during the 70s, 80s and 90s lead to 45% of the increase in global temperature over the same time period.

America pollutes more then Europe combined, America today (after the reductions) is 19% of emmissions, compared to 23% in China and 13% in all of Europe.

@Abgemacht: The IPCC might, NASA doesn't, NASA claims that a reduction in Aerosol emissions caused the increase in temperature over the last 40 years, not carbon dioxide.

@faces, the fact that you mentioned "conservatives" and "liberals" several times in your responses should be a giant red flag that you are not discussing science, but politics. Here's how science works:
1) propose a theory based on something, data, math, anything.
2) make a prediction that can be verified and repeated.
3) if your predictions turn out wrong, revise or scrap your theory, but at least admit that the data doesn't match

Here's how politics works:
1) read about a scientists theory
2) figure out how you can profit from the theory
3) award grant money to other scientists who can link their research to the theory
4) if the data turns out to not support the theory, change the NAME of the theory, but still claim you're right

@Fasces - No. NASA does not claim that the reduction of aerosols has increased the temperature as apposed to carbon dioxide. It says that it has increased it. It does not refute carbon dioxide also increasing it.

@Jimgov, but it says that over half of the temperature increase has been caused by Aerosols, which suggests that it is a bigger factor then carbon.

@Philcore: What I did was:
THis is what conservatives think
This is what liberals think
this is why they are both wrong.

So it was following the scientific method, it had a hypothesis (based on politics) and then looked at data which contradicted what the hypothesis was saying, and so concluded that the hypothesis was wrong.

God damn, this IPCC is going to take a long time to get through.

Regarded CO2 leading temperature:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
This claimed that 80% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, which would suggest that Carbon plays a large role in determining temperatures.

That said I don't like this study because it ignores the carbon lag mentioned in all the other studies:
"The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods."

IPCC is bullshit, don't bother.

By the way, religion works in a similar fashion as politics. Just replace "profit" with "confirm your belief in a literal translation of your holy book"

Creationism (intelligent design) parallels global warming (climate change) almost exactly. Both start out with a conclusion for purposes other than knowledge. Both follow a psuedo-scientific process to "support" their claim, and both attack real science if it contradicts their claim.

philcore actually read my responses before you presume to know what I am talking about.

@faces, ok but your still talking about political ideology, rather than scientific thinking. If I leaned more left than right, I would still know that AGW is bullshit. It shouldn't be about libs vs cons. It should be about those who respect the scientific method, and those who don't.

@Fasces

I'm looking at the study that article is based on now.

Whether or not you agree with pro AGW crowd or the con AGW crowd, doesn't change the fact that you used political terms to state your case. This is nothing against you, but rather the thinking that this is a lib vs con issue. You're not the only one, you just happen to be the one that mentioned it here.

Your saying I should have used AGW skeptics and AGW supporters rather then conservative and liberals. Sue me. The meaning was implied and it doesn't effect the overall message.

@Abge: A lot of studies have been posted in the last few minutes by me and jimgov, which study? lol

Lacis, Andrew, et al. "Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth's temperature," Science, Oct. 2010.

I agree it doesn't affect the message, but it does point out the problem with the subject. That people (not just you) equate it with political ideology. That's all I'm saying.

Here is why the IPCC synthesis report is bullshit:
A list of some authors and past accomplishments:
Rajendra Pachauri, Bill Hare: work at Greenpeace
Osvaldo Canziani, Saleemul Huq, David Karoly, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Monirul Mirza, Leonard Nurse, Nijavalli Ravindranath, the late Stephen Schneider, and Gary Yohe: Work for the WWF

Of the 32 members of the IPCCs core writing team, 11 of them work for environmental NGOs, which would lead to a conflict of interest in their work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InIQkyKYfv4

@Philcore: Fair enough, I wasn't trying to politicize the issue, I was trying to just use the simplest words I could think for those who believe in global warming and those who don't. In two cases I chose to use the word conservative and liberal.

Ok, I won't belabour the point, since you were just trying to make convenient reference points, but it still bothers me that there is even a political equivalence with anything to do with science. It makes me wish I was liberal, so that my opinions on the subject wouldn't be dismissed as being "conservative" because my opinions on the subject are nothing but scientific.

Everything that I have said here has been based on various different scientific reports. But rather then talk about politics, I would rather talk about the science. so back to the topic on hand what is your oppinion on the matter?

I have many many opinions on the matter - most of which I've expressed here before. So I'll just choose one to reitterate for now.

Signal Versus noise: The daily temperature at any place on the gloce varies by about 20 degrees. The day to day high/low temps vary by about 5 to 10 degrees, and the seasonal variation from summer to winter is about 40 degrees. To think that a tenth of a degree measurement over a decade on a baseline of 80 degrees and with the variances stated is significant - and then to take the fractional degrees to to 3 significant figures - is absolutely ridiculous!

If these temperature graphs were plotted on a scale representing anything other than 10th degree increments, the line would be flat.

This would be like tracking a stock whose price is $80 on a 5 year average with swings of $5 or more in a given day being common, and then looking at a 5 minute chart which shows the price going from 79.52 to 79.63 over a one hour period during a day and screaming to your investors - we have momentum! BUY BUY BUY!"

The broker (Al Gore) still makes his commision so he doesn't really care if he's right, only if he convinces you

Granted that wasn't a scientific argument as much as a data analysis argument (but as a physics graduate, I can tell you that was a HUGE part of my scientific education), but I have many scientific ones as well. Hell, click on my profile and go to my "replies" link and search for AWG, climate, warming etc and you'll find plenty of my prior posts on the subject.

fair enough, I am sure there are lots of people (mainly thucy) who would heavily debate you on that.

I would ask your reaction to the ice caps melting in the north (while expanding in the south) but it seems your not particularly interested in the the topic given how many times you have talked about it before.