Reading Republican blogs?

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2) We are producting it at a great rate.

3) CO2 Levels are rising.

4) Average temperatures are rising.

5) That H2O is also a greenhouse gas is both true and irrelevant. The issue is raising Earth's temperature not why it is above what it would be without water or any of the many other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Anyone who makes statements like this automatically labels himself climate moron in my book. Since H2O is a greenhouse gas is one of those Genn Beck/Rush Limbaugh type talking points it makes me wonder where the guy is getting his info from.

6) Show me the numbers that says human generated CO2 is only a small fraction of the recent rise. The numbers I've seen say exactly the opposite. That's a relatively easy calculation that if the astronauts statement were true should prevent most scientists from supporting CO2 induced global warming as a serious issue when the opposite is true. It is true that the human contribution to annual CO2 turnover is small but it is that small increase that is causing a steady rise in the CO2 level. It's probably easy for people like Rush and Glenn to get the two confused.

7) It's also clear that Canada and northern asia would benefit greatly from global warming. Unfortunately the poor tropical counties that can least afford to adapt to chaning conditions are the ones most likely to suffer.

8) Another nontechnical talking point is that warming proceeds CO2 increases. I don't see enough resolution in the data to support that, but even if true that's utter nonsense as disproof of human induced global warming as a) see point 1, b) obviously past increases weren't human induced, and c) it ignores the possibility of a natural positive feedback loop.

9) The very fact that Earth's climate has changed radically and rapidly in the past should serve as a warning that recent stability is an unstable equilibrium that can be upset, not something we should consider a norm that nothing can change. Those that say "it's changed so much in the past why should we worry about it" ignore the fact that we can control this potential source of an upset. That's the same dumb "something else will get me" logic of those that make excuses for not wearing seat belts or using condoms.

When a technical illiterate like Gore can get accolades for promoting the issue I can see why so many others toss their two cents in, but I wish actual climate scientists were the ones most quoted rather than celebrities.

Regards,
Mark