.........."get around the peer review process"......... Skeet please, I very seriously doubt that was the intention of the author. An author will always publish in the realm of his related industry.

When reviewing any articles in the scientific literature one of the first things many scientist look at is where it is published. There are journals such as Science that are very difficult to get into because of their peer review process. One that I am very familiar with is Estuaries, they actually want to see all of the raw data and statistical analyses in the review process. Some journals do very little in the review process. I do not know about that journal, but it is not a well known.

As to some of their specifics, I do agree with one of their points-- we need to remove obstacles to the building of nuclear power plants and begin building more.

I can also say I do not believe some of their data-- being from the Gulf Coast and having been through and aware of most hurricanes for the last 50 years, I do not see a point on the graph that represents the near 30 storms we had several years ago. The question of whether the increasing number of storms is part of a 70 year cycle as NOAA claims or is related to warming is still debated-- logic tells me that since storms only occur during the warm months that warming will increase the number and strength.

The stregnth of storms is another point where I do not believe their data---I can remember only one cat 5 storm (Camille--1969) before 1990 (actually 1992--Andrew), but since then we have had several years that had 4 or 5 in the Category 4 and 5 level.

The fact that Mars is warming is irrelevant-- it has a different orbital pattern. BTW-- the interglacial warm periods that occur every 100,000 years are not caused by CO2-- climatologist know these cycles as the Milankovitch cycle and they are caused by a coincidence of two orbital varitions in the orbit of the earth--- one that causes the earth's orbit to change from eliptical to circular and one that causes a precession in the axis of the earth--one has a period of about 20-22,000 years and one about 24-26,000 years. When they coincide we get stronger sunlight and more heat. The CO2 increase follows several 100 yrs but is believed to extend the warm period several 1000 yrs.

I give up on this thread, it not worth continuing. Count me out.

Millet, before you leave this, could you provide a link to the IPCC page that you said shows human activities only contribute 0.12% of the CO2

This IPCC link: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

does not seem to support that.

Since it is pdf format I can't copy and paste it, but to quote a part of it: "The global mean CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66[+/- 0.17] Wm-2. Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three-quarters of the current RF"