Thanks for the wishes. You may need them more than I, as I suspect I will be gone before you, and You will be left to ponder your own foolishness.

David

In the early days of our planet, the atmosphere had 20% CO2 and trace amounts of oxygen. However life discovered this neat trick of turning CO2, energy, water and some trace elements into complex carbohydrates with a spare bit of oxygen, ..... would you believe? Well it wasn't long before atmospheric ratios reversed to 20% oxygen and trace amounts of CO2 that we see today. So the question arises ... are we capable of doubling CO2 no matter how much fossil fuel we burn?

Isn't it also feasible to say that as long as plants have those three basic things, water, energy and CO2, and enough of the nutrients they need, they will keep growing and pumping out oxygen? Isn't it also feasible to say that life, both in diversity and quantity, thrives in a warm, wet world with plenty of CO2?

ps
AGW is a furphy that deserves to be sequestrated and if we are concerned about climate then let's understand the solar/cosmic climate modulation. Of course solar climate may be a challenge for many but cosmic climate is at the cutting edge of discovery. i.e. our evolution and survival was a close run event.

Ah, Indigo Jones – long range weather forecaster – now enters the debate. A man famous during my youth, at his zenith more than half a century ago.
He was a privateer, therefore more believable to the skeptics than the peer-reviewed mob from the scientific establishment.
After starting in metrological matters under scientifically-embedded Clement Wragge in Brisbane, he went out on his own - financed from donations mainly from the agricultural community. Matching sunspot-cycles with weather patterns was the backbone of his work at his Crohamhurst Observatory in southeast Queensland. Many in the agricultural community retained faith in his work in spite of two Government Ministerially commissioned investigations concluding that his forecasting methods had no scientific basis.
During his time, the community was divided as to the usefulness of his forecasts. From my memory, he had a good record. There were three possible outcomes from his forecasts – right, wrong, or something in between - and his forecasts never missed scoring thirty three per cent on each.
Half a century down the track, we have more data over sunspots and a great range of other impacts on climate. And we have better tools for investigating that. Personally, I believe we have advanced a bit since the 1950’s

Hi Keiran, Thank you for your clarity. I am enjoying the flips in the weather cycles and the suns convenient gift at this time. Oh what effects these changes are having on earth and its inhabitants especially mankind. The he and she mood swings reflected in the minute weather temperature changes, the cause and effects are one interesting result ( where would this global warming, waring band be without air conditioning). The facts presented so far are much more interesting given the human ability to develop beyond photosynthesis. Solar weathers cause and effect sure advances the reverse position of the not in my backyard coterie and highlights the large hole some have dug themselves and now find it very difficult to move past their fail safe point. Presenting more facts will reason old truths and present positive changes for this and younger generations and then we will have support to develop the skills unrealizable by current and past generations of hunter gathers and their advanced collective farming practices. It is a pity that solar activity and its effect on our worlds enterprise has taken so much out of society's generated wealth but then trying to social engineer our communities and its failure,well... I'll put it down to european resources,control and their transitions and fashion. "Made dogs and englishman in the mid day sun" No pun intended but europeans are not especially suited to this pacific sunshine without some forethought and adaption does take thought. kind reflections Dallas.

The ‘thinking’ behind climate change inaction – this is a contradiction in terms … some posters in this thread have clearly shown they can’t think with any semblance of raison d'être.

Do any of the ‘wanabe’ scientists on OLO want to comment on these issues raised by Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/the-debate-is-just-beginning-on-the-cretaceous/

Hey Dallas, maybe Keiran can ‘clear’ it up for all of us (even the stupid real scientists) so that we can all understand why countries and business the world over have got it so wrong

Q&A, I feel you should ask some questions like .....

If Dr. Pierrehumbert is a respected scientist what is he doing posting on this UNrealclimate website with the likes of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann? Also, why would he use moral high ground political argument to fend off debate with what he calls "skeptics " because, in his words, it would actually "give the appearance that these skeptics have something to say that's actually worth debating"?

AND you may get answers like ...

Oh dear, I feel Dr. Pierre's article indicates he is a supercilious lawyer. e.g. A decent scientist would certainly understand the albedo effect of clouds over Antarctica.