It seems these climate folk are prone to anxiety disorders.

Wiki
The most important reaction of the CFCs is the photo-induced scission of a C-Cl bond:
CCl3F → CCl2F. + Cl.
The chlorine atom, written often as Cl., behaves very differently from the chlorine molecule (Cl2). The radical Cl. is long-lived in the upper atmosphere, where it catalyzes the conversion of ozone into O2. Ozone absorbs UV-B radiation, so its depletion allows more of this high energy radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. Bromine atoms are even more efficient catalysts, hence brominated CFCs are also regulated.

Let’s just make the hole in the ozone bigger and let out some of the warming out.

The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2 (the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent CO2 right now; this figure might climb to 0.07 per cent in the medium term).”

May I address this opinion piece.

The debate of the historical wpm is not central to climate change except as a noise from the echo chamber
Yes the scientist are striving to understand past climate.
The paper linked to in the story talks of a warm period of that we experienced in the industrial era
would you like to share when the industrial era was

Minuscule concentration
As a proportion of green house gas in our atmosphere it is far from your quoted 0.04 per cent
Total greenhouse gas

water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

35% of co2 has been by human civilization

O2 nitrogen and argon are not green house gasses and make up most of the atmosphere. The contribution of green house gas also depends on the strength of the individual components effects Your percentage and all you argument around concentrations of co2 are predictably framed as from the denial nutters. Easily dismissed with open eyed exploration of your link

People like you are so gullible.

By the way, why is it that your only act is just to ask questions ?

Lets try and tie it down for you.

You asked whether the head of the CIA having an affair was really a security risk.

i pointed out that asking such a question proved that you were a naive, unworldly, article.

Consider. Maybe the head of the CIA may have been opening himself up to the risk to be blackmailed.

Now if you can’t grasp that i can’t help you anymore.

Ref: http://imgur.com/gallery/50Q53

Proving that she has no idea about anything.
No worldly experience.
No worldly understanding whatsoever.

Maybe some other kind person will explain to dear mm why the married head of the CIA having a sexual affair
may be a potential security problem.

What an effing moron.

Nice Eagles reference but I think it’s more of a case of-
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination- You’ve just crossed over into…KIWIBLOG!

In 3433 posts from Griff he has revealed that his whole act is just a load of shit.
Nothing new here.

And by the way, when you have the likes of Mikenmild chiming in in your defence you know
you have serious problems. Right Griff ?

Of course, Mikenmild (typical of his ilk) Tries to help his mate by just asking questions.

This from a tosser who has never addressed a question herself. Ever.

“two many generals taking orders from their privates.”

(Limbagh)

P.S. Mrs Kelley is a real spunkrat compared to the very average looking hoe that bought about
Petraeus’ downfall.

I do not believe in a cult except for the one of scientific endeavor. I try not to allow others beliefs affect me unless they have a constructive argument that I can verify on my own. I check sources and apply critical thinking .

Maybe, but do the people informing your views subscribe to the same lofty ideals?