Absolutely wrong.
I have said nothing about faith, you have.

You believe that Science is Truth: That is faith.
I believe that Science presents theories and I evaluate those theories on their merits and make my own decisions.

You say try freeing the market? You mean as in allowing Nestle to monetize the global water sources?

Beats me, it is hard enough to explain things that happen but the real skill is explaining things that don't happen. This rare ability predominates in our new governing classes and progressivists.
On solubility, yes there is irregular behavior of various gasses in various liquids perhaps related to surface tension, compounds which change with temperature, and energy at the molecular level. Even the concept of 'things that happen' is not solid, ie data. A relevant example is how NASA and various other government agencies in several countries manage to revise temperature records so as to support prevailing policies.

Economist Amartra Sen, (mainstream, not a compliment) said "there has never been a famine in a democracy". Interesting point, I wonder. I suggest- there has never been a famine in a capitalist economy. I'd like to see a discussion on - -water crisis, try freeing the market.

Looked into it and I stand corrected on that point. There is still a water crisis in the world. Your use of the Acronym is amusing.

I have know for quite some time why the Antarctic responds differently to Global Warming.. .There are actually a couple of scientifically proven reasons.
1. The Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by sea and thus the warming sea has no affect. It also reflects much of the solar radiation back into the upper reaches of the troposphere. and it is a couple kilometers thick (Think Ice Age). Different than the Arctic where the floating sea ice melts seasonally more and more as the water and atmosphere are warmed it melts the ice. It has a much faster compound effect on the speed of change. You should also know that the mass of the sea ice is drastically reducing as well in the Arctic it is getting thinner. This cold dense melt water has a profound effect on the Thermohaline currents of the oceans which have a huge affect on the jet stream which have a huge effect on local climate. The thermocline is also responsible for transporting nutrients Zooplankton and Phytoplankton (which provides almost half of the oxygen we breathe) and mixing of the water.
2. Antarctic is mountainous and the higher you go the colder it gets. Things will change much slower in Antarctica... That is expected. Ice over land reacts much different than ice over water to temp change. And the mass of Antarctic Ice is much greater than Arctic ice.

You got me on that one, Not sure anyone has tried to calculate that and honestly don't see the point. And the oceans are already acidic. Coral reefs are disappearing, dead zones exist in the seas globally. Jellyfish colonies are blossoming in the millions because they are almost the only animal that can survive in such anoxious conditions. Can you even explain how the CO2 causes Ocean acidification and how that is important to life on the planet, Ever taken a basic chemistry class? You realize of course that those who are actively pounding the science around climate change are fully funded by billion dollar multinational corporations who would be in big trouble if the truth they are trying to debunk. ever gets out. Give me some science to back up your claims. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

Expand the graph in the link that you posted up by accident. There are many others on the web. Al Gore showed a version in his first propaganda movie, I cannot recall if he got the labels right or wrong but he said there is a link, the implication of what caused what was the wrong way round. There have been statistical analyses that show a cycle of 10,000 years, and temp leading CO2 by 900 years. Of course another interpretation is that CO2 leads temp by 9,100 years.

OK... Then explain how that happens?

The IPCC (Inter Planetary Carbonic Conspiracy) put out a forecast that the Himalayas would melt in 35 years. They 'only use peer reviewed' studies, that one was a wet dream from a Greenpeace activist picked up by a New Scientist (Climate Change Weekly) journalist. The IPCC were forced to retract.

Looked into it... No such thing as Nitrogen off gassing except to the atmosphere via geological processes such as Hydrothermal vents and volcanoes. We do not add or take nitrogen from the atmosphere. It is a central component required to support all life on earth other than perhaps some 'Extemophiles". The basis of proteins and amino acids required for any cellular system. It cycles through the planets systems through natural fixation and nitrification. It is human caused fixation, a result of industrial processes which causes problems. This video is a bit hokey (sorry for that) but it explains very well how the Nitrogen cycle works in simplistic terms. http://youtu.be/FCuuibZR6NQ

There is very substantial CO2 emitted thru fissures that could be described as small volcanoes but not included in your 300 b.tonnes figure. (It could be as high as several times, calculated to better accuracy than the $1b pa conservative group spending to fight action etc). But, do not worry! Neither volcanoes nor CO2 cause climate change. Further, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the oceans varies and declines unless replenished being absorbed by plant and animal organisms and becoming acidic in sea water. You may care to do a calculation- at the current rate of anthropomorphic CO2 production, if all goes into the oceans, in how many years will ocean pH go from alkaline to acidic?

And with that in mind can you provide me any thing that states CO2 rise is a result of temp rise and not the other way around?

You are correct, over the ~30 years there is a declining trend of Arctic sea ice extent tho' this year there is more ice than last year. (as stated in my post). You may care to look at the corresponding data for the Antarctic. You may be interested in the historical records for and stories about ice extent and how it has varied.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index...
Sorry.. sent the wrong link by accident.

The only graph in that link is of CO2, temp. against time which runs from left to right. It shows red following blue. Thus, to the extent that this graph means anything, carbon dioxide follows temperature changes.

Metaphysics: Aristotelianism phylosophy. At the heart of which lies the following questions: What is existence, and what sorts of things exist in the world? How can things continue to exist, and yet undergo the change we see about us in the natural world? And how can this world be understood? You have obviously chosen faith to explain that for you but will respectfully decline that argument. We are at loggerheads as I do believe in science. I believe in a proactive approach as opposed to your faith based approach which (correct me if I'm wrong) gives you faith that all will be well as the creator intended.

And you would relocate them where Hiragm?
Yes and as the Himalayas melt away as the Glaciers in North America are doing where does that water end up my friend? In the ocean. And it stays there in vast saline quantities for thousands of years before it gets evaporated into the atmosphere and falls again onto lands so dry that it evaporates again almost immediately or it falls onto tilled agricultural lands and washes away more nutrients creating even more unfertile soil.
Your perspective sir is flawed.
http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.asp...

Of course the idea of state run science being biased in a communist state would hold true. You do realize that most governments in the world today are run by corporations and not Government. That all the denier organizations are corporate funded. What would happen if Climate Change was proven true. What would those corporations do then? That is why the Koch Brothers and MANY more fund the anti climate organizations. They need the truth concealed so the create confusion and fill the media with red herrings, causing doubt and more and more debates like this one. Merry Christmas

The NIPCC is operated under the Heartland Group... Now that sir is unbiased science . Pleeeeze.
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative...

Hey, I just posted an article... I am not being rude and just having a friendly debate... If you don't want to take part in it that is your choice. I hold no ill feeling to anyone in this debate. believer or not. Merry Christmas

No, I do not believe in Science, because science is not faith.

Science deals in theory, i.e. our best current understanding; not truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith.

So, a better question would be, do you believe that the current understanding has merit.
The answer to that is, no, I do not.
I think the current understanding is thoroughly driven by politics,

See Lysenko-Minchurism, and then go troll elsewhere.

N2 is inert Hiraghm. It is the largest component of the air we breathe. When you say thinner do you refer to vertical distance or concentrations per volume?

Obviously a denier of science can I assume? LOL

Albedo is a red herring used by deniers. No science:
The albedo of a vegetated surface determines how much shortwave energy is absorbed or reflected, however, it is not an exact indication
of local climate. Other physical factors of
vegetation such as canopy height, surface
roughness, and soil moisture affect local surface temperature, humidity and energy fluxes.The albedo and surface temperature
associated with various land covers differ latitudinally and seasonally although 28%
reforestation and afforestation occurring within
the Eastern U.S. would probably cause local cooling. You really should take a lesson in basic ecology and soils. http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bit...
As for the apples to apples I was only pointing out that trying to use volcanic activity to explain rising temps and CO2 is also a red herring. However comparing a crowded room to standing at an active volcanoes edge. Well there is a science study you can take part in. Phhht.