If I understood Mr. Graybeal, he not only took air samples underground, but also above ground, and never measured the ammount of carbon dioxide, but the precentage.

He said that the world standard of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, .93% argon, .04% carbon dioxide, and 1% of inert gases was used, and that the percentage of carbon dioxide had remained constant over the time he was taking samples.

One thing we learned from Gore's chart tracking the temperature vs carbon dioxide levels, is that the rise in levels of carbon dioxide follows the rise in temperature.

Maybe the reason the percentage of carbon dioxide has remained constant is that the temperature has not risen enough, or the time lag is still too short to register any increase in percentages of carbon dioxide following a temperature rise.

OK...html tags didn't work.

Here's the source:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece

For those of you interested in "the rest of the story" from the judge in the British court trial referenced by Mr. Graybeal...

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

It's also worth noting that of the 9 errors found by the judge, not one of them appears to identify evidence showing a rise in CO2 levels as false.

Link text

It should be entitled inconvenient truths. This isn't the first time Gore has been challenged on what he says about global warming, now called climate change. I love how the left likes to turn the tables when they are cornered or challenged on something they say. It is either "we have to do something now before it's too late", or "they are too dumb to understand the complexity of this dire situation". I read about the possibility of a shortage of rare metals needed for green technology. Shortage usually means that the price will soar and someone will make alot of money. I still believe some people are going to become extremely rich from this cap and trade bill. I have also read that China, India, and some other industrial countries aren't going to Stockholm. The third world companies are going only to continue to get money from the US. I saw a video on YouTube that shows a clip from Gore's movie that actually is fake because it comes from a motion picture. It shows the glacier ice breaking off in chunks into the ocean. And they say the right used scare tactics to promote their agenda. Hey lefties, look in the mirror, ROFLMAO.

Eric Taylor said "Global warming is real, there is not room for debate, or playing word games with pompous, uneducated children."

I'll take Twenty eight years of experience over four years of college education 100% of the time. Education today does not include common sense and real world experience. Live in the real world for a while. The "educated economists" are the same people that have given us 33 consecutive years of trade deficit, and debt your grandchildren will be able to pay off.

Try disagreeing with someone without insulting them .

Mr. Jones, you feel that comparing the air deep in mines is comparable to the air above ground? Global warming is real, there is not room for debate, or playing word games with pompous, uneducated children.

James Wilson said "Alaska is losing 70 yards of shore line a year right now."

I assume you have seen this with your own eyes? Has it been going on for several years? Lets say ten years at 210 feet per year hmmmmm..... lot of shore line. I assume also that this ocean is attached to the same one that sits in front of myrtle beach and I have been staying at the same hotels down there since I was a kid. Same beach. Hmmmmm...

I happen to have a few hundred acres of prime real estate in the middle of the Everglades I would like to sell you . . .

"that's about the silliest counter"

So Taylor, your response is that the fact that he has more experience measuring atmospheric CO2 levels than anyone else in this region is irrelevant?

What is truth ?

You left out the amount of Helium lost and the CO2 trapped in the oceans with cheimcal that slow the release.

Tell the people being displaced by rising water levels about your theroy. Begin with Alaska and the Corp of Engineers who are spending Millions to relocate whole villages over 600 years old.
Alaska is losing 70 yards of shore line a year right now.

Aside from this obvious red-flag: "During my 28-year tenure as a federal mine inspector...", that's about the silliest "counter" to global warming I've read in quite awhile.