Huge increases in CO2 with little increase in temperature - is it really CO2 or just Solar cycles?

Ok, not a climatologist here. But maybe someone can tackle a question on the effect of CO2 on temperature.

Science argues that the temperature of the Earth without the Greenhouse effect would be 0 degrees F. The result of CO2 in our atmosphere adds 59 degrees F for an average planetary temperature of 59 degrees F.

Science is claiming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 280 PPM (parts per million) to 380 PPM. Alarmists argue that these levels have never been higher in the last half-million years and that CO2 levels of this level, and increasing, spell doom.

So again, not being a climatologist, I have to wonder where the complete effect is of a 36% increase in CO2? In simple terms, if 280 PPM has resulted in a 59 degree F increase in the Earth's temperature, why wouldn't another 36% increase in CO2 result in a further increase of 21 degrees F? But the alleged planetary increase is just ~1 degree F.

Alleged evidence of increasing CO2 levels above the magic 280 PPM go back nearly 200 years. But why have planetary temperatures not been in a steady increase since the beginning of that increase in CO2? Why has science argued in just the last 100 years of global cooling and colder temperatures while CO2 has been consistently increasing with growing worldwide industrialization?

What if historical CO2 levels have been the cart behind the temperature horse, and current CO2 increases are simply the result of industrialization, but with little real effect on global temperatures? In other words, two separate causes for CO2, with one being a natural link between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere, with a second component being man-influenced increases in CO2 without any "real" effect on temperature?

I too believe that global warming - and global cooling - is the result of fluctuations in solar output. Recent articles point out that Mars has seen a planetary temperature increase that compares to Earth's, but there is no identified reason why Mars would see an increase in CO2 or other cause, if not simply attributing that planet's increase to increased solar input.

The sun is the most influential source of energy in the Solar System and is an inconvenient source of energy for the Global Warming advocates. An even more inconvenient reality is that the sun's output varies over time, and not measured in just years, but centuries, or even millenniums.

But while measured CO2 in the atmosphere may be the result of increased industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, measured temperatures, themselves coming under assault as impossible in our dynamic and variable atmosphere, don't reflect much of a change when considered in an atmosphere with an alleged 36% increase in CO2.

In the end, I can't help but consider the messenger when looking at alleged crises like Global Warming. The political benefits of this issue for Democrats and leftists aligning to this crisis are monumental. The willingness of the left to grasp this crisis with so little real certainty also attacks the credibility of their arguments and the alleged crisis.

I just heard Al Gore refuse to commit his own lifestyle to the changes he calls on others to make. I heard him talking about Carbon offsets and his being a carbon-neutral household. He uses more than others, and buys unused credits to justify his excessive use. He's a hypocrite, but the champion of the Global Warming cause.

So in summary, if CO2 is accountable for 59 degrees F of Earth's temperature, why hasn't a 36% increase in that gas caused a commensurate increase in global temperature? If it had, this whole argument would have been moot for a hundred years by now, and Democrats wouldn't be using it to create the climate of fear they accuse everyone else of doing.

Oh, and please don't fire back with the easy rebuttal that the effect of the CO2 is delayed for decades, or even centuries. That I won't buy.

Democrat hypocrisy - So what if Bush fires some US attorneys?

It was March of 1993, when Bill Clinton's new Attorney General, Janet Reno, announced the firing of all 93 US Attorneys across the United States. All were Republican carryovers, but Republican disgust and outrage at the firings, and especially with two of them involved in the middle of corruption investigations in Arkansas and Washington DC, was all but ignored by the Democrats in control of Congress and the mainstream media. There were no hearings, no threats to call administration officials before Congress to testify, and no daily media headlines on the alleged outrage.

So what is the difference today? President Bush has decided to unload 8 US attorneys that he feels are not cutting the mustard. He appointed them, and he's not satisfied with their record. Several have either dragged their feet, or completely ignored voter fraud charges levied against Democrats, like our own John McKay here in Washington. But listen to hypocrites like Charles Schumer (D-NY) and you'd think the Democrats had found their first genuine Bush scandal.

Message to Democrats and their allies in the media; this is no scandal, and you know it! These appointees work at the pleasure of the POTUS. They can be hired and dismissed at his discretion, and certainly at any time they fail to follow the administration's goals and concerns.

And while you're reading the daily rehashing of this trivial event by papers like our Seattle Times, take note that they completely neglect to place these dismissals into perspective. No mention of how Clinton fired all 93 and the investigations he squelched. Bush's 8 are likely out because they refused to take on corruption in government, and that's just the opposite reason Clinton fired all 93 just after taking office.

So now another Bush administration official, AG Alberto Gonzalez, has to respond to trumped up charges and calls for resignation. Maybe the purveyors of these false charges should themselves resign, such as Charles Schumer and John Conyers, (D-Mich)? At some point shouldn't those making the false charges be held accountable? I know, when are Democrats ever held accountable for their actions? They certainly never take responsibility for their actions, and feel perfectly comfortable living by a different standard than Republicans.

But it sure would be nice, some day, if the voters of this country would hold them to the same standard as Republicans. I suppose that will start the day the old media starts to act fair and balanced.

Why do Democrats appear to so hate fair, honest, and uncoersed elections? Are they simply working for their real masters?

First it was the minimum wage bill, aimed at elevating union wage scales. Now it's helping unions to coerce employees to approve union representation by forcing their votes to be public. Today's Wall Street Journal discusses this latest action, not "for the people", but for the unions that spend union dues to help Democrats. Democrats vote to bar secret union ballots

Also check out this video prepared by Republican Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA).



If people really understood what the Democrats were really doing, would they vote for them?

UPDATE

Here's a great piece from the Wall Street Journal this Friday on who really pulls the Democrat Party's strings and the first real disaster Pelosi faces as a result of her dependence on the party's radical liberal base.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110009737