Could you please supply a link? I tried to search the NWS site, but have not had much luck, and have had less time. Thanks.

Since you don’t seem to care for the NASA GISS data set, be advised that there is competition from the brits:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

p.s. the Hockey Stick thing was from Michael Mann, not ‘James’ Hansen.

What you are relying on is the theory put forward by people, most of whom have never worked in Climatology, that the climate is changing, and the cause is human actions. Theory is not now, nor ever has been fact. It is theory, and until proven, is as malleable as the lunatics who support the theory of human-induced climate change. Temperature data derived from sensors placed in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, or alongside hot air vents, is not the sort of “science” to support your assertions.

Now go away, Sam. I have no use for anyone who supports your silly theory-based ideas.

I am not interested in Al Gore; do you have any science to back this assertion?

If you truly believe the crap you are spewing, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Al Gore is a charlatan, an imposter, leading the willfully blind and the just plain stupid into a hell hole of “green” fantasy and hocum. He’s laughing all the way to the bank, boyo, and you and others who believe humans are in any way responsible for climate change are tools and fools.

Just because lots of folks sign on to the big lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie. The climate isn’t changing, AlGore is still fleecing your wallet, and this nation, especially, is headed for a frikkin’ disaster if we follow the idiotic concepts of the eco-terorists and other “greeners”. Luddites, and stupid Luddites at that, the lot of them.

Thus endeth the sermon. Go forth and get a life.

Now is human activity to blame? It is uncertain – the consensus is that it is more likely then not. Then again the Earth is very complex system and we do not know all the variables and how they influence each other. That said, the drive to limit pollution from whatever source or type is a good thing.

Personally, a cap and trade system on pollution in general is better then a cap and trade system that picks on one aspect of polluting activity, but CO2 is a key index of pollution. Limit the production of CO2 and you limit the production all of the associated pollution with is arguably worse then CO2 output. Particulate matter for example – particulate pollution causes and or aggravates various lung conditions. Chemical byproducts, do a number on food chains. Over fishing, depletes ocean stocks, and poor crop management destroys topsoil. All of these are byproducts of the tragedy of the commons. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]

If you understand the tragedy of the commons, you’ll understand why cap and trade systems work and why we need them.

For the record, if the theory of global warming as the result of human CO2 production is true, the results would actually be to trigger an ice age. It sounds odd http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

Personally, I believe that there is a global warming taking place, but the cause is not CO2 production but due to water pollution decreasing the ocean’s ability to absorb the CO2 being produced. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329993/

Army of the 12 Monkeys!