JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

I said "rises", not "peaks".

Over the last decade, the atmospheric CO2 level has increase, on average, 2.1ppm per year. At that rate, it will take less than 1000 year to reach those "five times higher" peaks you talk about --- which took tens of millions of years to occur previously.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

The lag isn't "repeating". It's stable. One thing happens every 100,000 years. 800 or so years later, another thing happens. In 100,000 years, both things will happen again (and again about 800 year apart).

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I'll tell you how they measured this. They did not. They use an unscientific principle that is considered a no-no by every credible statistician in every other field. They average temperatures that they have measured out to many more decimal places than their instruments can measure. For instance, when your thermometer readings are only in whole number amounts, like 50, and 100 degrees, you are only allowed to average them into whole number amounts because without greater accuracy, your 50 and 100 figures could in reality be 50.2 or 99.7. As you said yourself- it is just a trick of averaging.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

You are really grasping at straws here...

Let's imagine for a minute this nonsense you claim is true....

You suggest that tens of thousands of scientists have formed a secret conspiracy to put their professional credibility at risk, by telling what would be, to every other scientist in the world, very obvious lies all to get a few thousand dollars in grant money (while ignoring the fact that the party in power in the country that funds the most research, would be much more willing to fund them if their finding were the opposite), and all these all scientists in other fields, who clearly see that they are lying, nevertheless choose to stay quiet, while the ONLY ONES who stand-up for honesty just so happen to be the same ones who's work in funded by the corporations who have a financial interest in us ignoring climate change.

If that seems a little-farfetched to you, try this: A handful of scientists are being paid off by corporations to lie to you, so they could make more money.

McKinneyMike Loc: Texas

Thank you James.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Absolutely, except that it is not "a few thousand dollars" grant money to fund Global warming research, it is Billions. The money that goes into funding GW research is something like 20 times the amount that goes to skeptical scientists.

Why do you think that the current administration would be so happy to fund skeptics? The fact that they don't fund any skeptical research at all should tell you something right there.

The people who stand up for honesty are not solely people being funded by corporations. Just for instance, the majority of U.S. Weathermen do not believe in Man-Made Global Warming. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/
I think you probably have just never heard much from scientists on the skeptical side of the GW theory.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

The truth is that the measurements for claiming that theywere the warmest years is suspect in that they were said to be warmer by .01 degree. fact is the the instruments are not that accurate, so the statements are suspect.

Phreedom Loc: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

Sorry, we must have watched two different debates.

I saw Plimer giving “long and informed scientific answers” and avoid straight answers to simple questions about claims he made in his book on global warming/climate change. There were no “very deep questions” that required “instructive answers”. Both the moderator and Monbiot tried to keep Plimer on point but he resolutely resisted.

Several times when pressed by an exasperated Monbiot to please answer the question given, Plimer was quick to spout, “It is the height of bad manners to interrupt.” Then he blithely continued speaking off subject, as though giving a lecture.

Plimer also felt the need to denigrate writers not trained as scientists but who had the audacity to question him. One doesn’t need to be a trained conductor to know when an orchestra is not in tune.

Finally, when questioned about a quote in his book that, being out of context, gave the exact opposite meaning of the full quote; he smiled, ignored the question and lamented the difficulties of getting exact data from sounding balloons and satellites.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Don't be absurd. The EPA's research budget is $550 million, only 15% of that goes to basic research ($82 million) and that's divided over many topics beside climate change.



I actually said those in control of the budget -- that is, Congress

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Here is a quote form the Federal Government's "Fiscal Year 2014 report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures." "The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $21.4 billion for climate change activities. This amount is $1.2 billion, or 5 percent, lower than the 2013 enacted level for climate change programs, activities, and related tax policies."

You can look at this yourself at the Government website http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
Here is their breakdown of expenditures. The figures are in millions, 1,000 = 1,000,000,000
Climate Change Funding.jpg

(Download)

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Only the top line of the chart refers to RESEARCH, which is what we were talking about. And of that amount, (2.5 billion), if you actually read that report, you'd learn that 1.5 billion is going to NASA to launch satellites.

Which means that your theory is that 100s of thousands of scientists are lying, just for a cut of remaining billion (that would come to a couple thousand each).

One the other hand, how profitable it is to be a climate change denier is unknowable, as the Heartland Institute and other funders of denial, hid behind the non-profit organization laws, and don't reveal their income, donors, or expenditures.