C02 v The Sun

im gonna try 2 conduct an experiment on my own to see what warming effect co2 has

the gover ment are dumm they increase TAX

**NOTHING in the scientific literature discredits AGW, which I may add is a THEORY. It is a scientific theory.**
And theories are mostly ideas until proven by the scientific method involving observation, testing,testing for repeatability, testing to include all other answers, and testing to exclude all other posibilities.
A whole bunch of people accepting or beliving something is true via a "consensus" does not a actual "scientific fact" make.
CO2 driven Global warming isn't a proven fact

jffryfnt says "the IPCC is the single most largest peer review scientific process that has ever been done."

The following articles raise concerns about IPCC procedures:

"ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007 BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE "HOCKEY-STICK" AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS" by David Holland (peer reviewed)

"Caspar and the Jesus paper" (Not published in a peer reviewed journal, but an interesting read)

Perhaps jffryfnt will offer his views.

No it isn't.
There are many more scientists than there are with the IPCC that disagree with the IPCC hypothesis.

The IPCC is a complete sham.
It's objectives are political NOT scientific and as such has NO commitment to the scientific process.
It's history is one of cherry picked data and complete misrepresentations of science and history.

Since when does an hypothesis become theroy without following proper scientific processes?
Cont...

To become a valid scientific theory an hypothesis MUST be shown valid by scientific methods. This means it MUST be tested and validated and show repeatable empericial results. Without this it is an hypothesis.

Empericial data is the entire basis of science. Without empericial data science would not be exist.

AGW has no supporting empericial evidence thus it will remain an hypothesis.
Cont...

"NOTHING in the scientific literature discredits AGW"?????

You obviously don't read much or only read the propergander.

FACT - There is more empericial data showing AGW false than there is to support the hypothesis. All empericial datasets show temp leading C02.
FACT - Never in the known history of this planet has C02 been shown to drive temperature.

The IPCC thought they had with the Vostok ice cores and anounced it before even getting the detials - but again they were wrong.

You're arguing the hard scientific facts with those that are not at all scientific.

Think about that really hard for a while, before you come back with something ill-thought and impulsive.

The IPCC attempts to produce a 'synthesis' report. Do you know what that means? It means they're attempting to summarize the existing research-->the reason the IPCC exists is because so many compelling papers from an incredible number of disciplines yielded similar findings-->changing climates w/human signal

jffryfnt,
"changing climates w/human signal"

This is complete rubbish and like usual with this silly hypothesis there is absolutly no scientific basis for the claim.
Claims of the human signal within the climate "noise" are fantacy and nothing more than propergander.

Dr Vince and others have shown their research data and have been UNABLE to find any signal.
Yet - you keep claiming stupid crap like this even when you KNOW its completely false.
By doing this you damage your own cause.

The scientific basis has been in existence for over 100 years. If you weren't so disconnected with the actual science, perhaps you'd realize this.
WTF is Dr.Vince? Let me throw this at you: the AAAS, every national academy of science, the royal society, NASA, NOAA, AGU, API, etc, etc-->every major credible scientific organization on the planet explicitly endorses the findings of the IPCC. AGW is a THEORY, that's not a term that is used lightly in science.
But,you're not interested in the science