My dear cohenite,

This is starting to become a concerning behavioral issue. You jump into a new playpen and you can't stop talking about the toys in the old one. Now that you are back in the old one you start on about burquas.

When you get a little older you will be able to correctly discern the two until then try your best. Remember the politics of the Middle East are not about AGW nor reversed.

Now how about attacking the author’s arguments instead of just beating up on posters you don't agree with and I will endevour to do the same.

I am still fairly skeptical and will remain so until the IPCC uses
realistic values for the fossil fuel availabilty for burning.

AGW and CO2 has apparently affected clear thinking ability of many people. Even the author of the article here appears to be of a mind that AGW is categorically being caused by CO2.

I think a bottom up approach to warming should involve the following:

1. Make a distinction between AGW and CO2. AGW is one thing, CO2 is another. CO2 may not be causing AGW, there is no complete scientific evidence to prove it is.

2. Ocean has the dominating influence on world weather, including storm severity. Ocean controls atmosphere above it. I think there is more vegetable plant matter in the water ecosystem of this planet than there is plant matter on land. Surely all influences at the bottom of the atmosphere and at the bottom of life must be considered in AGW science, complete science where and when possible.

3. Ocean algae, including unprecedented algae proliferated by unprecedented sewage nutrient loads dumped daily into ocean, has warmth retaining capability.

4. Empirical evidence indicates photosynthesis linked warmth in natural and sewage proliferated ocean micro and macro algae, has not been measured and assessed in AGW - CO2 - science or Kyoto Protocol.

5. Algae is at the bottom of life on this Planet.

6. I think warming of ocean will continue until real cause/s and solutions are identified and implemented.

7. Solutions can also be traded, with commissions and taxes.

Excellent post JF Aus.

This -

"I think a bottom up approach to warming should involve the following:

"1. Make a distinction between AGW and CO2. AGW is one thing, CO2 is another. CO2 may not be causing AGW, there is no complete scientific evidence to prove it is."

I cannot concur more. That's exactly where my scepticism is based. That's what the AGW scientists have failed to do. Make an unequivocal connection to CO2 bypassing all the other dominant factors. Why?

Your (extremely valid) point about the oceans driving the atmosphere/climate is correct. End of story. Scientific fact. The atmosphere does NOT drive the oceans. I'd like to see any scientist try to argue that one.

However, there's one more point I'd like to add to your correct post and that is that it is the Earth that drives both the oceans and the atmosphere/climate. It is certainly not the other way around, where atmosphere/climate drives the temperature of all.

The Earth. in turn, is driven by the Sun (and other factors not yet fully understood). That's the stuff the AGWists never relate to. They never put anything they sprout into established scientific context.

Arguing that CO2 drives the planet's climate is bunkum. It does not. It does affect the Earth's rate of cooling, but it definitely doesn't create heat or drive the temperature of the oceans or the planet.

True science and scientists would and should explain temperature variations in that context. It is sensible to start from the known and work to the unknown.

If they don't, or can't, why not? Hence my scepticism