I too will join the chorus of voices, congratulating sjk on the excellent link.

I would be interested in how the good professor responds to the following facts:

Global warming is an observed fact of the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. In the 20th century the near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 °Celsius and particularly sharply in the last fifty years. This variation is more significant than the "medieval warm period" of the 11 century, and is about the same as the "little ice age" of 16th to mid-19th centuries.

The overwhelming scientific opinion is, as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Research Council, the American Metereological Society, and, as reported in Science in 2004, 100% of revelant articles from referreed scientific journals from 1999 to 2003, is that most of recent warming is due to human activity, especially the increased release of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture. Greenhose gas emissions account for a +0.7 °C change to temperatures over the last 100 years, solar and ozone changes to +0.2 °C and +0.1 °C respectively, sulphates to -0.25 °C and volcanic activity -0.15 °C.

From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm per annum; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm per annum; since 1992 satellite altimetry indicates a rate of about 3 mm per annum]. Glacial retreat is almost universal (mainly sections of Scandavia excluded) with cumulative mean thickness declining by some 14 meters since the mid-1950s, with the most extreme instances in New Zealand.

Just a seasonal variation I suppose?

Lev,
I can tell you how he will react, he will try to baffle us with BS as usual. Bob may be out of touch or the rest of the world is, I tend to think it is Bob who fits the biblical term "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

"From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm per annum; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm per annum; since 1992 satellite altimetry indicates a rate of about 3 mm per annum]." (Lev, Saturday, 30 June 2007 5:01:38 PM)

'Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2] The IPCC notes, however, "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." [2]' (Wikipedia)

Whether the global temperature rise of the last 100 years is so steep that it can only be explained by attributing it solely to human activity is, at best, debatable. Why not consider that we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age?

All these contentious assertions are based on the assumption that conditions at 1900 represent some optimum.

Get used to it.

There is no 'optimum' sea level, there is no 'optimum' global temperature.
The Earth's climate system is an enormous, chaotic system (like the oceans) and, at present, is impossible to predict let alone control.

By the way, personal attacks on the author does not improve your case.

@Admiral
"All these contentious assertions are based on the assumption that conditions at 1900 represent some optimum."

No it doesn't. It simply reflects the fact that there is a correlation between global warming, rising sea levels and the prevalence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"There is no 'optimum' sea level, there is no 'optimum' global temperature."

Actually there is if you think about it. The optimum global temprature is the one which allows for life on the planet to flourish. The optimum sea level is the one which doesn't destory lives and livelihoods.

"By the way, personal attacks on the author does not improve your case."

If a scientist is unfamiliar with scientific methodology and is either engaging in deception or ignorance it is right and responsible to point this out. That is not a personal attack, but attacking the argument. A personal attack would be questioning (for example) his sexuality as a reason for why his argument is incorrect.

HTH HAND

Dickie said: "All life forms will be struggling to survive due to climate change created by excessive amounts of CO2."

Alzo retorts:

"Like they struggled in the Jurassic when CO2 was 2000ppm. Hardly any life forms around then was there."

Dewey McLean, Emeritus Prof. of Geology at Virginia Polytechnic University in Blacksburg; Paul R Renne Ph.D, geochronologist at the Inst. of Human Origins, Berkeley CA;
and Asish Basu, Prof.and Chair of Dept. of Geo. Sciences at the University of Rochester have written papers on the volcanism of the Siberian Traps and the Deccan traps in India.

Their recent theories have the scientists questioning previous hypotheses of extinctions, such as the asteroid theory.

These suitably qualified scientists are now attributing large previous animal extinctions to volcanic eruptions suggesting these were the major culprits behind the global warming,
caused by the volcanic sediment and ash, and the release of massive amounts of CO2.

"More than half of all marine families and most groups of mammal like reptiles were killed off - a total of some seventy percent.

"The dust blocked sunlight preventing plant photosynthesis, food chains collapsing or CO2 trapped the sun's heat sending temperatures on earth soaring and killing many forms of life.

"Earth's suficial systems with CO2 were faster than they could have absorbed it.

"People do not realise embryos are easily damaged by environmental heat and that the reproductive systems of mammalian embryos is currently being destroyed on a global scale by
greenhouse/embryo coupling."

It's estimated that some 30 million acres of forest are felled each year and there has been a 43% growth of CO2 in one hundred years.

At this rate CO2 levels would reach over a 1,000ppm in 3 centuries.

Of course humans (and other life forms) will only witness part of this event as they are slowly eliminated by being cooked to a crisp, as perhaps most life forms were, millions of years ago.

Luckily, volcanic activity currently accounts for only 1% of atmospheric CO2.

And do the sceptics on this thread greedily believe that humans can continue playing tit for tat with Mother Nature?