AGW and the notion of the CO2 devil has it's own political and media momentum now and no scientific evidence to the contrary will change it's course.There is just too much money and reputations involved to let the facts get in the way of the AGW cult.

Even in the face of global cooling both in the oceans and the atmosphere since 1998,they move on to new distractions to avert the scientific facts.There is no doubt that we need to stop pollution but it looks like we are barking mad about a gas [CO2] that is not the pariah we thought it was.

As Prof Bob Carter says,attack the dissenter,repeat the mantra but never argue the facts.

Arjay wrote: "There is just too much money and reputations involved to let the facts get in the way of the AGW cult."

Couldn't the same be said of the steadily shrinking deniers "cult"? eg. big fossil fuel companies funding the IPA, denialists profiteering from their shock books, ... etc.

Arjay: "As Prof Bob Carter says,attack the dissenter,repeat the mantra but never argue the facts."

You should be arguing the scientific facts in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, not blathering on here. If you get an traction there, come back and talk to us, and present your bibliography. In terms arguing the facts with respect to public policy, thankfully the AGWs have won, and the deniers lost. A few deniers are desperately trying to hang on to their reputation, while a few other are just too dumb to realise they've lost: I find some of their semi-literate ramblings entertaining reading.

Sams the question is simple.Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?According to your mantra,CO2 causes global warming.Put up or shut up!

Arjay: "Sams the question is simple.Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?According to your mantra,CO2 causes global warming.Put up or shut up!"

Perhaps you misread the first time: "You should be arguing the scientific facts in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, not blathering on here."

Ajay,

Citing 1998 is cherry-picking. There was a sudden and quite remarkable spike in temperatures from 1996 to 1998, and if that had continued we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Based on five year averages however, there has been an increase in global temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This figure shows the last 25 years of globally averaged instrumental surface temperature measurements according to data collected by the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

This is the same resource used to graph global temperature changes over the last 150 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Further you have asked why the earth has cooled since 1998 with "expodential" [sic] increases in CO2 gases?

For starters, there hasn't been an exponential increase in the emission of CO2 since 1998. Rather there has been a remarkably steady increase since 1980 of approximately 1.3 ppm per annum.

Further, the release of CO2 gas into the atmosphere doesn't cause global warming immediately. There is the thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans (which is why meterological seasons don't match with astronmical seasons). Also other major greenhouse gas emissions have been decline or have stabilised (such as CFC-11, CFC-12 and methane).

Hate to say it, Sams, but your propensity to snide remarks is starting to impact your credibility.

Arjay is asking a perfectly straightforward, layman's question, based upon published facts.

It is not up to him, or me, or anyone else who views with some trepidation the almost religious fanaticism of the GW faction, to do the research and look for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

It is however beholden upon those who are qualified to do so to give direct answers to direct questions, even when those direct questions are posed by non-scientists.

In fact, it is particularly important that they answer the questions posed by non-scientists, since those are least tainted by preconception and peer pressure.

The Emperor's new clothes were, after all, exposed as vanity by a small boy in the crowd, who had not been subject to the hype and propaganda.

It is obvious that you yourself are unable to answer the question that Arjay - and now I - am asking. So the honourable thing to say at this point would be "I don't know either, but it is certainly worth the effort to find out."

Care to join us?