"So far every last scrap of existing scientific evidence confirms overwhelmingly that industrial CO2 release is good for people and enhances the biosphere/environment." (Keiran)

Keiran. The above is a ridiculous statement and defies simple logic. Seriously, which planet are you on and where are the links confirming this stupefying swill?

Any increase in industrial CO2 results in additional air pollution, therefore: Ind. CO2 = pollution.

All carbon based chemicals, when burnt, convert to CO2. The chemical reactions and the lag times for conversion, I do not know though I recall the conversion of CO to CO2 is around a month, others could be much longer (perhaps years?).

Prior to conversions, the fossil fuel chemicals do their dirty work simply by many containing carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic compounds. These toxic compounds are invading the bodies of humans, animals and ecosystems wreaking havoc wherever the prevailing winds take them. One can't see or hear them and often can't smell them.

The industrial CO2 releases which you claim are "good for people" were once, prior to conversion, amongst the most hazardous chemicals in the world and kill millions around the planet. Benzene alone, is a Category 1 carcinogen and it's spewed out by industry, by the truck loads in Australia and without regulation.

You may continue to be a member of the "Anti-green" brigade who challenge their opponents to supply supporting links and when they do, they then declare they're not interested. These are indeed the desperados, ignorant of the science and selfish to the extreme whilst avariciously clutching their share portfolios.

Author and Stanford scientist of the following link has stated:

'Ultimately, you inhale a greater abundance of deleterious chemicals due to carbon dioxide and the climate change associated with it," he said.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/teratogens.html

I had hoped Keiran that you would have taken the advice to read up on environmental toxicology before blundering on to make additional ludicrous statements. How long will it now take you to remove the additional egg from your face?

Dearest Alzo,

Typical of your posts, you snip and snipe like a rabid terrier. What is most disappointing, you twist and distort what is being said to suit your own blinkered beliefs – very banal.

You obviously confuse weather with climate; don’t understand linear regression/trend analysis or ENSO – the focus of my previous post. You certainly did not have anything to say about the latter.

I am well aware of the 2007 – 2008 temperature anomalies, I am also aware that fruit-loops will say GW has stopped because of it – hey, they think global warming means temperatures just keep getting warmer and warmer year to year.

Climate “change” is statistically measured over longer time frames (I said decades, you ‘conveniently’ miss that) than weather. BTW, it is not my definition, ask your local high school science teacher.

Yes, the temperature anomalies show cooling for the past 12 months, but this is not a decadal trend. If it continues for another 5-10 years then yes, we can say there has been a cooling. But you know twat about trend analysis and are too tunnel-visioned to have a cogent and rational discussion with.

“If you look at the satellite measurements, especially for the southern hemisphere, temperatures are definitely declining.”

Hello … Alzo, please try and keep up.

We could talk about relative land mass between NH/SH, we could even talk about albedo – but did you notice in my previous post I talked about ENSO? You ‘conveniently’ missed that too.

Let me be more specific – La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) appear to be driving the cooling from 2007 into 2008.

You really do have a problem with Real Climate. I am not so averse to climate scientists like you. I even go to sites like Anthony Watts’ (more reasoned than you could ever be) below:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/this-la-nina-likely-to-have-legs/

Mainly though, I keep most up to date with weekly feeds from the AGU:

http://www.agu.org/

Being a member has its advantages, particularly when you get access to all the published papers, not just the abstracts.

Are Keiran's cosmic rays lost?

Dickie, it seems you suffer bad breath through eating and burning up carbon based food. Well, should you have an imposed carbon charge then? Also if you are large or suffer obesity perhaps then let's have some additional charges, too. Is this what you are saying?

However, i gather you are pure and when you exhale your CO2 it is not a pollutant but only when some business and technology is concerned does it seriously change. Well you point to two websites.

Let's take the first one where we have a report about some joker that has used his computer model to then make a few vague assertions. We see this sort of stuff nearly every day ... people who inflate information to their own ends and I must say that this joker looks no different. Granted this is a report but will simply be good sucker bait for the unscientific mindset. e.g. There is his presumption at the outset that carbon dioxide causes the temperature changes responsible for global warming which is the give away because this certainly isn't a scientifically established fact. When he follows with ... "This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation," he gets into pseudo-science territory. We don't have much here at all other than garbage-in-garbage-out.

Of course when temperatures go up it will lead to increases in human mortality ..... but not on the same scale obviously as when temperature go down.

It’s also worth remembering that CO2 at 90 ppm/v is when most photosynthesis stops. No photosynthesis, no oxygen, no life. Life, both in diversity and quantity, thrives in a warm wet world with plenty of CO2. Cold and dry with minimum CO2 is not so good.

Keiran I note that your blowhard assertions have again failed to include any links to support your previous rubbish:

Where is the evidence, Keiran?

And:

"There is his presumption at the outset that carbon dioxide causes the temperature changes responsible for global warming which is the give away because this certainly isn't a scientifically established fact."

Here is the basic chemistry for all combustion Keiran:

When anything that contains hydrocarbons is burned, the bonds that bind the hydrogen and carbon atoms together are broken. This releases heat energy, which can then be put to use to power a motor, heat a boiler, cook a meal or whatever.

However, you will need to add to this, all the CO2 that's being produced by every motor vehicle that's being driven, by every furnace that's burning some type of fuel, by every flame that's burning anywhere in the entire world and it adds up to zillions of tonnes of heat from combusted hydrocarbons resulting in CO2.

Probably, if it were not for plants, we all would have suffocated in our own CO2 a long time ago.

Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases and Immunology from Sydney University had this to say in his OLO article on 23/11/05:

"A compound found in diesel exhaust fumes may be the most carcinogenic agent ever analysed, say Japanese researchers (New Scientist, October, 1997). They warn that heavily loaded diesel engines are a major source of the chemical.

"Alarmed by such documented findings, the WHO recently reported its serious concern about the health effects of vehicle pollutants and of the cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which can coat fine exhaust particles or exist as vapours.

"Diesel exhaust is around 40 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke on a weight/volume basis (Gong and Waring, 1998)."

"people who inflate information to their own ends and I must say that this joker looks no different." (Keiran)

That's trash talk, Keiran. Trash talk which has no substance and makes no sense which simply adds to your motor mouth overload.

Ah, our prophet of gloom never stops. She is bound to die
from too much worry :)

All these supposed carcinogens everywhere, yet people are
living longer then ever before. A great deal of those
who live to their 90s, land up in homes, losing their minds
from alzheimers.

Best a good old heart attack a bit younger! :)

Ah der ya r Yabby I cudnt unnerstand a wurd yo sed yo bein from ranch country an awl.

i jes red back over what i writ thar n i reelize aint nuthin much a hillbilly kin git frum it bout how karbs werk. tiz a hard thang to rite, but leest ye no the names.

an eres dat respee yo bin askin fo:

Drayne Opener
1 Cp Bakin Sodee
1 Cp Salt
1/2 Cp Whyte Vineger
Put in Sodee. Put in Salt. Pour in Vineger
"Run like hell"
Kume bak in 15 min. Pour in 1/2 gal boylin water
Dont wurk? try agin. then kall a plummer.

pee s n no Telin Tales R Gosipin Wach Yer Mouf n Git Yoresef Ta Sundee Meetin n larn mo bout karbs!