I'm afraid you don't understand the word "slander." I've posted the key facts of the case. You're getting pretty wildly off-topic here. If you wish to ask any question about global warming, please feel free.
What misstatements? First of all "neither Hansen nor the GISS made any such announcement." (about 1998 being the warmest year on record.) Secondly it wouldn't matter if they did, (which they didn't), since a single year doesn't define a global long term trend. Let's see a link to their announcement since you say it exists. Here's the data, by year: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt Look for negative signs after 1996 or so. What do you see? Since you're varying your measurements to get the results you want (single years, best of five, then best of ten) and using insufficient sample sizes of five and ten, this isn't meaningful, but tell me which years you mean and we'll examine them together. Too bad there are these things called "satellites."
There is not one study that proves the higer concentrations of C02 and methane CAUSE global warming. Not one. All that article and others like it say is that there is a correlation. It could be that the rise in temps causes a rise in C02.
It's the nature of the CO2 molecule. It absorbs IR energy in two ways due to the vibrations of the bonds between the atoms. You can verify this by looking at a laser absorption spectroscopy chart of energy absorption. You will see two peaks (and in fact I posted the chart of energy absorption itself in another thread.) Your statement is false. Except that it's been proven that the CO2 comes from man.
Awesome post. Glad you took the time to read, edit, and comment on a pointless post I wrote... which started with "Read this only if bored". Have fun with Obama Lucrum.
I haven't read this whole thread, but to draw any kind of reasonable hypothesis, step one is have an adequate data set. In this case, it is impossible. We currently lack the tech. It is hubris to think we can kill a planet. We can only kill ourselves, and the planet may do that for us anyway. If Yosemite erupts, it's all over. It has happened before, it will happen again. I personally believe that global warming is the creation of people with no worries about survival and as a consequence, lack a sense of purpose. So, they joined the church of the Green. Businesses recognize that the church of the Green needs services and products to promote their agenda. There is money to be made from the Greenies. Government sees the opportunity to get all types of Green <del>taxes</del> contributions from concerns citizens. The schools, not wanting to appear behind will <del> brainwash</del> educate the children to the new religion. Government may c fit to <del> bribe</del> contribute the educational cause. With all this behind the Green movement, it is a fait accompli.
Huh? Ice cores, boreholes, tree ring analysis, lake and ocean sediments, coral analysis, etc. etc. What kind of technology did you want? That's kind of the point, to prevent extinction and at the very least, massive problems. Or, an asteroid could hit, therefore we shouldn't do anything about arsenic in river water.
How far back does that data go??? If is less than half the estimated age of the planet, long term cycles cannot be established with any real degree of certainty. Massive problems will be dealt with as they occur, as humans have always done, with great success I might add. The government is not trying to impose taxes on us for arsenic in the water.