Agreed, but my comment was in regards to AGW. We were discussing the morals of our excess emissions and so I was strictly referring to as it pertained to AGW. No doubt nature has put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere via volcanic activity. There has also been huge climate swings due to such activity as well.

I wasn't the one trying to make a point. You were when you said the following:

I was discussing LIFE on the planet and you bring in facts about how the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. That does little to argument my point about how life on the planet is still very fragile. The planet will survive. Life on the planet will not. Why do you think it is so hard for astronomers to find planets that are capable of sustaining life. Because the conditions that must be set for life to be sustained are actually very fragile.

The reason why those methods were discredited was because the current (actual) recordings of CO2 levels didn't match what the localized concentration chemical methods that he explained were used. That's why they were discredited. If newer more accurate methods can discredit older historic data gathering techniques, then that is when they become obsolete. I'm not the one that didn't do the research on this one.

I wonder why he didn't take his data collection past the 1960's?...because that is when we starting gathering actual atmospheric CO2 volume measurements using weather balloons and that data would completely negate his methods and show how inaccurate they really are. But once again, it is another claim to conspiracy from skeptics that AGW activists are only using methods that "support the global warming theory." ...right

...ugh, but for humans it kind of is. lol. Unless you plan on developing gills and fins.

I don't understand your argument here. Are you saying that humans can't or can adapt? Either way it doesn't explain very well your point. I said that humans can for the most part adapt to climate variations. What's wrong with that statement?

I am passionate, but not ill informed, thank you.

Well, here's to 150 years of good health. 

Being an engineer, you can be forgiven.

This is not necessarily a good thing. When there is too much nutrients in a lake or pond, algae grows alot and in your words "prospers". However, the algae blocks sunlight so water plants die. As they rot, oxygen is stripped from the water and fish die. The ecosystem is then pretty much dead even though the algae prospered.

Looking at the livelihood of a single species is insufficient. To get a proper perspective, you must take into account the entire ecosystem.

Furthermore, skeptics are not addressing the issue at hand because they are too busy accusing the greenies of being fanatics with flawed science. I havn't heard of the skeptics encouraging people to use hybrid cars or encouraging awarness of environmental damage. All they do is accuse the greenies of fanatacism. They may be right, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

It is silly to assume that all this extra CO2 will not affect the environment. Yes CO2  levels have been higher in the past, but that was in the past! The ecosystems were different back then, there were different plants and animals so it is a flawed argument to say that the effects won't be damaging in the present. Lack of evidence does not mean lack od risk.

Notice how he blithely puts this out with never a thought towards the problem he's facing.

Volcano goes off, world cools.  So much for the warming effect from all those green house gases they put out, the particulate bombs the shit out of the temperature.  Brilliant job not noting the complete lack of a warming effect from Vocanic eruptions.

While you're jizzing yourself over your knowledge of a scant 400 thousand years of CO2 history, please notice that 80% of that period has been spent covered in ice, to Kansas.

It's possible there will be a 9.8 earthquake in Los Angeles.  We should immediately raze every building in the state and establish building codes that can survive such an event!

Shit happens, altering your life in any significant way for something with no evidence it will ever happen is really stupid.  This isn't like buying a gun in case you get mugged, people actually get mugged, it's a statistical possibility based on documented observations, crime statistics.  Something like cap and trade is jumping out the window from a perfectly good sky scraper just in case there's an earthquake later.  You wouldn't kill yourself just to avoid the possibility of dying, so why cause economic distress just to avoid the possibility of it?

We know it's good for plants, we know it's bad for people around six thousand ppm, we'll never hit a thousand.  We have a largely discredited theory based purely on conjecture with not one single instance of observable cause and effect that says we might get a few meters up in sea level in return for doubling the food output of the remaining land.  There is zero evidence it's bad for the planet, zero evidence it's bad for humanity.  If the unproven and questionable theory with manufactured evidence proves to be true despite the worst intentions of it's proponents, humanity still has a net gain.  Certain real estate loses value, a few countries disappear, but the world will be more productive as a whole by far.

Interesting. I had never heard of anything like that before. However, he is in a small minority I'm sure. What I said still holds true for most of the politicians who deny AGW. It also holds true for many of the politicians who do believe in AGW as far as I know.

That is because volcanoes dont pump out pure CO2. Volcanoes also release sulfur dioxide which reacts with water to produce sulfuric acid. This leads to a colling affect due to the reflective nature of sulfuric acid droplets.

If anything that shows you how open and stringent their procedures are and willingness to make corrections. Go to their IPCC.ch website and they have all their full reports to read and a pretty easy Table of Contents format that is easy to read. I recommend doing so to avoid making harsh conclusions about a single paragraph error like this one.

In fact, I think the last line in that article sums it up pretty well: "We should be cautious about making sweeping­statements about the IPCC based on a single error."

Also, in the official IPCC retraction statement, they first reissued a new paragraph statement to replace the one they initially reported and it is as follows:

“Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice
caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

Skeptics are not allowed to.  As soon as a proponent of AGW hears a negative word about their religion, they immediately shoot the messenger and label them a "denier".  A slur that signifies nothing.   if you had read half the literature from the skeptic side, you would not only find many advocating polution reduction (and CO2 is not a pollutant, but a necessary part of the eco system).  Indeed, Greenpeace has never been in favor of pollution, but one of its founders is clearly a skeptic.  A contradition that is ignored with the specious labeling of all skeptics as deniers.

Yes it will affect the ecology.  But then that does not appear to be a tenet of the AGW creed.  Like your Algae analogy, it will promote growth in areas that may not always be beneficial.  But it will promote plant growth (as has been demonstrated in the past).  And given that CO2 has been higher in the past, and global warming has not gone on a "runaway" self feeding catastrophy, it begs the question why would it do it now?  So beyond the question of whether AGW is even legitimate or not, there is the question of "if it is true, then what?"  And the answer from the body AGW religious is always "doom and gloom".  In order to arrive at that end conclusion, they must ignore all facts that show it to be an hysterical knee jerk alarmism that has no basis in observed history.

As you failed to do in your example, JuleTron.  Were it not for stromatolites, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

2 errors, they were? As I mentioned, my discussion was in relation to AGW (as it was a direct reply to a conversation about AGW) and thus comparisons to other natural exhaustions of CO2 such as volcanoes were out of the scope of the debate in that post. Secondly, your rebuttal with a source from a chemist who's techniques have been proven to be inaccurate and you go and call me the ill-informed one?

I don't mind when someone makes rebuttals, but don't call someone ill-informed when that is not true. We all have our sources. Just because you list a completely lame source for CO2 levels, doesn't mean I go and call you ill-informed. I instead point out the reasoning behind something being untrue and let the reasoning prove itself.

And can you elaborate on this statement?

I should have qualified that to say "some of the" as clearly you have not done that.  My apologies.

These 2 statements are wrong:

A large part of it seems to be large groups picking up on dubious sources and exaggerating the information thats available eg. the belief that all glaciers in the himalayas would be melted by 2035 according to the IPCC. This information was taken from the WWF and them from an artivle in New Scientist and New Scientist from a virtually unknown indian scientist who himself has stated that this is a false hypothesis from about 20 years ago and he has withdrawn this statement.

Its not maliciousness, its just laziness.

You see (and I did read the Arnell report) that is exactly what Watt is talking about.  The statement you made was based on a comment lifted out of context, and the truth is that the "scientists" that are predicting what the hydrology is going to be 5, 10, 20 years from now, cannot even predict what it is going to be 1 week from now.  The main point that Watt was making (and you may have missed this) is that as the world warms, we will get more, not less precipitation, and no one knows where it will be more or less.  The Sahara desert was not always a desert, nor was the Vancouver rain forest always a rain forest.

So the premise, and the point I was contesting you on, that AGW is going to cause massive world wide droughts (implied although not stated) is false.  And I would also point out that Watt is not contending that the whole world is going to be milk and honey, only that the hysteria being generated by the AGW crowd is at best misleading and at worse just another example of scare mongering.

That is the lesson to take away from this.  Not if it is going to rain in Somalia or not.