You have a point Crock.

Just over 100 years ago, Svante Arhenius, a Swedish physicist/chemist (Nobel 1903) put forward a theory in relation to CO2.

He was a denier of the then current orthodoxy.

More can be learned here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Ah Sams 'I made you answer my question.Read my analogy and point out the flaws in my arguement without vague references to a higher authority.The figures are correct so expose the flaws.

Q&A,Tyndall again like others talks about amplification and feedback influences of CO2 but cannot exactly explain how CO2 actually does this.Could you explain this simply for us idiots in your own words without references to a long winded expose that circumvents my exact analogy?

Crock: "Sams, you should be ashamed of yourself. You resort to the worst trick of argument: appeal to authority. It doesn't matter how many people say something is true".

Good point. I note our illustrious "Minister for Climate Change etc" Penny Wong on Lateline Tuesday night when attempting to explain the demise of the Murray-Darling system used the IPCC "forecast" for 2050 of reduced rainfall (like it's only 2008 isn't it?), and " a vast body of scientific evidence", none of which she could quote, as "evidence". Lambasting the Opposition for "denialism" does not explain the state of this great river system. She dodged the question.

I would have thought that over-allocation of water from upstream was the major culprit, but who am I to spoil a good story from our Climate Change Fuhrer?

For your interest, here is a link to the Ionospheric Prediction
Service and their sunspot counts.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6

Arjay there's no dispute among the scientific community CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Back-of-the-envelope calculations don't really do climate analysis justice.

Ah Samso, the smear-and-run king. Like a cane toad - a poisonous mud-thrower. By his own definition, the dregs of the earth. Don't hold your breath for an apology keith. But who cares. His comparing of climate 'deniers' with flat earthers destroys any claim to be taken seriously. There is more evidence in these comments that he is just stupid than there is for what he sees others denying. It is he who is in denial of the failure of evidence to match models. And why shouldn't other factors be considered like sunspots? His beleif in this as an 'armoury' of denial is just bad science.