Nice try John but you are wrong on many accounts. There is a good correlation also between rising CO2 levels and the rebound warming that occurred since the Little Ice Age over the same time span. Given that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for a mere 4% of the annual atmosphere-ocean interchange then most of this warming is natural. The IPCC models assume that additional, ie anthropogenic CO2 stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years as the natural ocean-atmosphere CO2 transfer is said to be in equilibrium. This is wrong - 90% of the peer-reviewed literature says that all CO2 (natural and anthropogenic) has an atmosphere residence time of 3 to 12 years (average 5). Additional CO2 from natural and anthropogenic sources has to be absorbed by the oceans according to Henry's Law Constant that maintains an ocean-atmosphere equilibrium of 50:1. Anthropogenic CO2 is still subject to physical laws.

The Vostok and other ice cores do not measure all the trapped CO2 in the ice bubbles; about 20% remains trapped in the ice itself during the 2-4,000 years that it takes for the ice to completely close itself to the prevailing atmosphere. The ice core sample intervals are 1-2,000 years; there is less than a 5% chance that the CO2 increase that has been recorded over the past 50 to 100 years, the vast majority of which is natural, would even appear in the ice core record - qualitatively, this is described as very unlikely.

The Mauna Loa observatory that has continuously measured atmospheric CO2 for over 50 years (and shown the steep rise in CO2 levels) has been so reworked with averages and smoothing trends that the figures are unreliable. Up to 600ppm CO2 have been recorded on a daily basis - not surprising, as Mauna Loa is located on a volcano and situated just hundreds of kilometres downwind from the largest known oceanic outgassing source of CO2 located in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. (Continued)

The Mauna Loa figures, and elsewhere, are also subjected to internal adjustments, called flux adjustments (or unkindly, fudge factors) in order to accord with one another, ie the figures are not accurate representations of what they seek to measure and are adjusted to match one another. This is because CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere and changes over space and time; the models require well-mixed CO2 and a long residence time – both are inaccurate assumptions. Nonetheless, these are the figures that go into the climate models that create the scary SRES scenarios upon which you, presumably, base your opinions. There is heaps more I could add.

You talk about science John but you do not practise it. We do need to broaden our energy mix though but not through the introduction of an ETS. An ETS will not only increase the price of oil and energy, that will flow on to every other aspect of life: food; housing, transport, etc. Of course, we can cap and trade – that should keep the third world populations impoverished as they sell off their carbon credits to buy extremely expensive energy for heating and cooking, as well as food. Who will measure and control all this John, as carbon credits become the new international currency and every step along the way has to be regulated and accounted for from issuance to retirement. That will involve a large bureaucracy of petty officials, further adding to the costs of production or service, involving the government in every business. Wait until carbon credits apply to households John, then everyone will be subjected to carbon surveillance and the minute of their everyday purchases will measured and recorded. The carbon laws for households have already been designed in Britain with a 2018-20-start date. But most of all think about this. As a researcher the best reduction figure of CO2 I can find for a globally applied ETS is the vague 'several'. That should reduce it from 387ppm to around 382ppm. John, what difference will that make?

Science is based on facts and hypotheses, so here are two facts and two hypotheses:

Fact 1: Measured atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily since 1998.

Fact 2: Global average temperatures have not risen since 1998.

Hypothesis 1: Global average temperatures are not linked to CO2 levels.

Hypothesis 2: Global average temperatures ARE linked to CO2 levels, but something has happened in the last eleven years to disrupt this linkage.

If you think Hypothesis 2 is a better explanation of the facts than Hypothesis 1 then answer this: what has disrupted the linkage since 1998? When you can explain how and why this 'Factor X' has interfered with AGW since 1998 then you will be in a position to predict what will happen in fifty years. Till then you don't have a leg to stand on.

There are lots of good reasons to reduce our reliance on energy imports, but unilateral carbon taxes will simply cripple our economy, and pass the initiative to other nations that are less credulous and have a better understanding of what 'science' really means.

John - others have dealt with the science, I will weigh in with a few comments on the precautionary principle. Even if we accept that rising CO2 will change climate, and we are able to calculate damage from that change the economic case just does not add up. The only economist - literally the only one - who disagrees is Nicholas Stern. He has a nobel prize but then so do several of those who disagree. Stern's mistake was to set an unrealistically low return when calculating the time value of money.
If we agree that chnage is happening then the money is far better spent on adaption, not in futile attempts to cut emissions.

Appealing to science in the AGW debate is most definitely delusional,on several counts.

1.Even if is absolutely true and even under the worst scenarios of emmission cut backs, the effect we will have on a reduction in global temperature is miniscule--not even measurable over 100years.

2. The canard that the greenoids and their camp followers, Govt funded climate scientists peddle, of Australia having the highest per capita output of co2, over looks the fact that we occupy about 7m square kilometres of land, and about the same of territorial waters.

3. If the per capita absorption is divided by the area occupied we are one of the least demanding.

4.If the area we occupy is taken into account we have no effect, and the Europeans have the worst,with Denmark and the Netherlands being outrageous in the demands they place on others, and the environment.Why does that not surprise me.

Given this and the fact that we would have no measurable effect on the temperature, it takes a particular form of irresponsibility of Governments, at the official and the political levels, to impose an ETS on this economy.

Can it possibly be any dumber than that

Reliance on the AGW science to force us to transition to more expensive sources will be ruinous to our economies.

First, is the direct effects on the cost of living.

Second, is the likelihood of domestic production, thus jobs, going overseas.

Third, is that as demand for fossil fuel goes down, the countries who compete with us and who continue to rely on cheap fossil fuel energy sources will benefit two ways. They will find fossil fuels cost less due to diminished worldwide demand. They will also find that their cost to manufacture goods for the world market has dramatically decreased, effectively expanding their market domination over all of us.

Let's consider the argument of the time period over which we are measuring these climate changes (in the past). Like it was mentioned in the article, 300 years of weather records is but a blip on the billions of years that the planet has existed. Even 650,000 years of climate data from the ice cores is still a blip out of billions of years. Could it be that our climate system has an element of chaos in it and we will never be able to predict climate with the type of accuracy that people would like, or that government policy makers would find useful? Now is the time to start to make the changes that we know are possible and do things better (regardless of the reasoning / motivation). Why do we need to have a reason to do something better than the way we currently do it. We all know that we can water our gardens less and therefore waste less water by planting more drought tolerant plants and breeds of grass. Why can we not extend this 'reduce' ideal to all our systems? Is there something wrong with just doing it better?

By stating

'Understanding the history of climate change is forensic science at its most elegant. For example, analysis of Antarctic ice cores show that levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for the past 650,000 years while the rate of increase over the past 100 years is greater than at anytime over the past 20,000 years.'

the author shows clearly that he does not believe in testable science. How people can sprout this nonsense as fact is beyond belief. John needs to be a bit more objective as do the many 'scientist' who accept dogmas without any true scientific basis.

Science does not supply value judgements. *Nothing* follows from the climate science as a matter of policy, even if there were a consensus, which there is not.

Also there are equally great uncertainties as a matter of ecology, and economics, let alone the ethics involved in these dreams of controlling the world.

The fact is that ecologists do not have the knowledge of the conditions of the abundance and distribution of species, to enable them to conclude, from a variation in atmospheric carbon of a few parts per million, that the results would necessarily be negative over entire continents like Eurasia, North America and Australia. There is always the possibility, for example, that the greenhouse effect would promote conditions favourable to life – you know, like a green house?

Similar incoherence affects the economic arguments.

The author’s first argument is that switching to a low carbon fuel source would put certain nations at an advantage as against those that have lots of fossil fuels. The second is that continuing to use fossil fuels will become increasingly uneconomic, or impossible, so why not change now?

These arguments are based on fallacies. They always require reliance on the notional decision-maker “we”, about “our” resources. The fallacy can best be demonstrated by the author’s answer, or silence, to the question: who exactly is this “we” you are talking about? Answer please?

The second fallacy involves the same collectivist error of thinking. People are not herds of animals owned by governments. The values to all the individuals in issue cannot be accounted into huge aggregates, and divided, and subjected to mathematical operations.

The entire argument is based on assumptions that are themselves based on incoherent nonsense.

It is true that the science of climatology has provided no value judgements that would justify government action on climate change. Neither has the author.

As no convincing scientific evidence has been found to substantiate AGW -- remember that the IPCC has been searching unsuccessfully for over 20 years -- it is just plain silly to proceed with any form of carbon taxing. Global warming, if any, is due to natural processes.

The only sensible course is to adopt a do-nothing policy and adapt to whatever global warming eventuates. To do otherwise would be an absolute waste of resources, and would cause irreparable economic damage in the process.

The title:

"The Appealing to science in the AGW debate is delusional"

misses the point. Science is doing fine and the debate between real scientific experts in the field is much narrower that in the general community.

We Laymen read articles by knowledgeable non-experts, and pronounce excerpts as if fact. And they get all muddled. Its true that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for only 3-5 years. So whats all this 50 to 100 year thing?

CO2 output, and CO2 absorption - without excessive human activity - is in equalilibrium. We add a small amout every year that the environment cannot absorb. The CO2 sinkholes (i.e, rainforests, oceans) cannot take in all the extra output. There is a little extra in the atmosphere every year. Over 100 years, thats a lot! About fourteen percent of CO2 in the atmosphere today is from man made fossil fuel consumption. And its growing every year.

The Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration in parts per million (ppm)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) ppm was 280, and today it is 383. That is an increase of 36%. Taking out the effects like the natural solar changes from from the mini ice age, the addtional human-created atmospheric CO2 is calculated at just under half of the total increase. And that would correlate with the finding that about 15% of CO2 in the atmosphere today is from man-made activity.

It is hard enough to follow, but when people say that CO2 only stays in the atmosphere only 3-5 years in the context of arguing against a longterm build up in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it should be said that:

"Appealing to the layman in the AGW debate is most definitely delusional."

bpors I agree I should have made it explicit that my concern was with the way laypeople are responding to the debate. The debate is further muddied by those scientists who have taken an ideological stance on the issue. The position I am advancing is best summed up by coothdrup regardless of your stance on AGW it would seem to be obvious that there has to be a better way to manage our scarce resources. Many of our inventions rely on materials that are grouped under the heading "rare earth" the reason they have that label is because they are rare eg- mobile phone technology uses Tantalum to coat capacitors -80% of known reserves are in the Congo - mining is destroying not only the habitat but are also removing one of the 'carbon sinks'. It is not necessary to make a luddite response, rather we need to start thinking that the AGW argument is largely a distraction; we need to be thinking about ways of living sustainably.

bpors:

Thanks for your thought provoking comment. I have a few questions regarding the part where you said, "CO2 output, and CO2 absorption - without excessive human activity - is in equilibrium. We add a small amount every year that the environment cannot absorb. The CO2 sinkholes (i.e., rainforests, oceans) cannot take in all the extra output. There is a little extra in the atmosphere every year. Over 100 years, that’s a lot! About fourteen percent of CO2 in the atmosphere today is from man made fossil fuel consumption. And it’s growing every year."

My questions for you are:

1. If, as you say, CO2 output and CO2 absorption without excess human activity is in equilibrium, does it matter what this level of CO2 concentration actually is?

2. Given that if question #1 is answered “no”, how can you claim that “We add a small amount [of CO2] every year that the environment cannot absorb?”

3. Given that if question #1 is answered “yes” (the level of CO2 concentration DOES matter), then at what level of natural CO2 concentration will the addition of manmade CO2 cause the equilibrium to become unsustainable?

4. Given that if question #1 is answered “yes”, and if you don’t know the answer to question #2, is it legitimate to claim that “We add a small amount every year that the environment cannot absorb?"

Jon,

What most people fail to appreciate is that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC) – comprising about 180 member countries from the gamut of differing political, economic and cultural ideologies – accept the ‘message’ given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) – itself promulgated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). These people/organisations are not stupid (although a few here on OLO may disagree). Indeed, ‘climate change’ poses such a worldwide threat that it has been placed on the United Nations Security Council’s agenda.

You are right; we (humanity) must find a more ‘mature’ way of growth and development. AGW is a symptom of humanity’s immaturity, and while there will always be ‘debate’ about the nuances and details in the corridors of the science academies/institutions, it is (as it should be) left up to politicians (and those that elect them), economists and captains of industry ... the decision makers, to decide what to do with the scientists’ consensus message.

This is what the current ‘debate’ is really about (and will be played out at the UNFCCC’s Copenhagen meeting in December) – it will not be about the science. It will be about how we (humanity) are going to adapt to a changing climate, and how we can live in a more sustainable way. Those that think the real debate is about science (in general) or ‘climate science’ (in particular) are stuck in the mud (at best) or are deluding only themselves (at worst).

Notwithstanding, we (humanity) must act to overcome a global problem.
My question to you (and others) is; do we have the leaders to take us there?

BAYGON, my post was in relation to the misinformation in the first few posts. Yes, I agree with what you are saying in your last post.

I stumbled upon a George Monbiot piece (2005) that dealt with what has become known as "junk science":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

From then on for quite some time I tried to find a strong argument against AGW, as an excercise to test its validity. Every publication, article, argument, or claim I could find ended up smashed against the research done by the IPCC and other world authority publications on climate. I checked out claims of cloud formation and solar cycles, cosmic rays, that CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, temperature records in populated areas giving biased readings, heating oceans are the source of the CO2...etc.

Just one example: if warmer oceans are emmitting more CO2 and thats the source of the extra atmospheric CO2, why is it that the CO2 level of the oceans is increasing?

One lie rears its head and gets knocked down, and its replaced by two more. Are the oil companies the source of all this stuff, or did it start that way and then got a life of its own? Who knows.

And what did I find doing this research? For me about 90% of the anti-AGW so-called research is junk science. I could write the same stuff, if I read scientific publications real fast, missing paragraphs here and there and not trying to understand in depth what it was I was reading. Then I would just cherry pick a few "facts" suited to my POV, and run with that. Its no wonder scientists get fed up with all the misinformation floating around.

Minor quibble bpors,

The IPCC don't do the research (insofar as 'climate science' is concerned) - they correlate the 1000's of published and peer reviewed research conducted by 1000's of 'climate scientists' and disseminate the results.

The simple fact remains: the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere are not absorbing the GHG's as quickly as we are emitting them (this is simple arithmetic). The rest (chemistry, physics, etc) is well founded and very robust.

Again, is it not better to concentrate on how to adapt, and develop in a more sustainable way? This is where everyone can have profound input.

Agreed Q&A, what concerns me is the attraction to some people of trying to stop, reverse or control the climatic process.

There is a great folly in the AGW thought school in my opinion, to think we can tweak this or that gas and get such and such result.

It makes some people feel better about change if they can blame someone, e.g."those deniers are the problem", when really refusing to deal with and accept change is the problem.

You can see a stage of this on this site through anger, which appeared to reach a crescendo a week or so ago when there were a lot of Climate Articles around.

Yes, we should just try to adapt, spend money on development of areas that will help, not just spin, marking time or going backwards.

The climate is changing, we have never been more aware of it as a group in all of history, some people want to stop it and blame others, some want to accept it and move on. Currently we really don't know enough about climate as much as our egos tell us otherwise.

A watershed moment approaches us in Denmark later this year. There will be disappointment, and it will be interesting to see how that is dealt with.

To Q&A and Daisym's questions:

"1. If, as you say, CO2 output and CO2 absorption without excess human activity is in equilibrium, does it matter what this level of CO2 concentration actually is?"

Yes. Higher CO2 concentrations will dramatically affect the weather closer to the poles due to the greenhouse properties of CO2. That in turn will affect global weather. In the hotter climates there is so much water vapour a little extra CO2 wouldn't make much difference. But where the air is dryer at the poles it will.

2. Given that if question #1 is answered “no”, how can you claim that “We add a small amount [of CO2] every year that the environment cannot absorb?”

3. Given that if question #1 is answered “yes” (the level of CO2 concentration DOES matter), then at what level of natural CO2 concentration will the addition of manmade CO2 cause the equilibrium to become unsustainable?

You mean when the feedback effects causes runaway climate changes? I have recently read where the upper CO2 limit of 300ppm is the ideal, and we are above that now. I have also read where if great methane deposits frozen in Siberia get let out due to warming it would have a major effect on climate.

Do what I did and look it up, and test what you read.

Also, we are in the middle of an abnormally low and long solar minimum which is dampening global temperatures. Some people who love to say that the sun is the major influence on global temperatures (true), also tend to forget to mention this when discussing the flattening out of recent global temperature readings.

Q&A,

you are right. But it is hard to concentrate on how to adapt, and develop in a more sustainable way if there is such a large push saying there is no need as there is no threat. The claims made that there is nothing to worry about influenced Bush policy for years.

there is little doudt some major media deceptions going on,here is some more of the story revealed
extracted from
http://www.infowars.com/banksters-love-cap-and-trade/

Obama,..who was instrumental in helping set up the Chicago Climate Exchange http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

for his political cronies like Al Gore, who already has a company which he uses to buy carbon credits from himself http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232
and the smartest guys in the room
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zMakN-EMLg
who helped concieve this enron scam
http://cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm
and the same boys club all ready plundered 12 trillion
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide

and who had made multi-million dollar investments in companies developing carbon tracking software that will be essential to the new carbon-swindle economy.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

the entire idea of “cleaning” the atmosphere of carbon dioxide seems a bit ridiculous when you realize that by historical levels we are living in a CO2-starved environment,
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm

that global surface temperatures are dropping,
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

that global ocean temperatures are dropping,
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-ocean-temperatures-drop-to.html

that key proponents of the manmade global warming theory have been caught faking data to support their arguments,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

that Arctic sea ice is expanding,
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
and that sea levels are not rising.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

But why let actual science get in the way of a good scare story,
http://mediamonarchy.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-bill-congress-didnt-read-coming.html
especially when that scare story can be used to create a new trillion dollar industry for the banksters?
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html

Why is it that people like 'One Under God' scour news clips (some very dated) from media shock-jock op-eds or 'denialist' blogsites to proclaim that we are all being conspired against?

OUG, you say; "But why let actual science get in the way of a good scare story"?

Indeed, why not go to the actual science - you know, the stuff that is published in the reputable peer reviewed journals of science?

You appear to be just trolling for stuff in the popular media that supports your own ideological agenda.

wow a convincing rebuttal of facts...NOT...lol..clearly in the short time of posting you havnt been able to confirm them all

[i hear the high priests of global warming/carbon tax/cap and TRADE their limeted franchise..quoting million year old figures..[with 1000 year gaps in their data...yet somehow that dated/stuff..is relitive..when used by the claimed busines/science classes..and their 50 year window to carbon based/armogeddon

the best you can come with to rebut my points..is its dated..[my stuff is all from this milenium..[recall enron..[who tried to corner the energy market..via clever/deceptive accounting..[recall leighman brothers..getting bail-outs as long back as 70 years ago..[still getting govt bailouts as recently as THIS year]

its said those who dont remember the lessons of the past..are doomed to repeat the same mistakes..[carbon trading was first raised at the first bilderberger meeting..back in the fourties..[also on their adgenda was a common currency for the europeans

[well they..got their fiat euro currency..[and got..their carbon trading..[we seen how that failed there..[we seen how in spain the green jobs cost 3 non-green jobs..

[there is a huge tissue of lies..its roots..lie in our past...im quoting the recent past..[not million year old fictions..you global warming lot..are pulling out of your buttt...lest we forget..there are huge dinosaur finds found in the north pole..

[meaning at one stage there was no ice there..[possably between pole shifts..[a regular cycle..[search magnetic/drift numbers..[that is due arround 2012]...but that old info..for you lot..with your heads in the sand...but we dont talk about..[nor prepare for..a possably/real pole shift

because you carbon tax speculators/nutters are too busy...distracting with your new global big buisness tax..planned to suck trillions out off us tax payers..to give to big busines dudes mentioned in the links

[we could have been preparing for a real threat...but no we follow the adgenda..set by the moneyed elites[see links]..needing their new global-tax...THEIR PEPETUAL..TAX PAYER BAILOUT...direct

read the links
try rebutting what was posted...not what you think was posted

I am constantly amazed and appalled by the strength of opinion that global warming isn't happening and the complete lack of substance behind such opinions. Give me every institution that actually studies climate over these opinionators any day - opinionators who see no real downside to keeping on pumping out GHG's at ever increasing rates (more somehow not resulting in worse) and stick to their scientifically unsupported beliefs that what humanity does can't change the climate! That is so last century. Actually climate science had already knocked that belief off it's pedestal before the end of the 1900's and some la nina's and PDO shift hasn't altered that. It does seem like very this century to imagine all experts (except the few who say what you like) are all wrong in every way and references to mass media and blogs are "evidence".

The last decade - 8 of the 10 hottest years on record (surface air temps), the lowest ice arctic ice extent on record, the highest ocean level on record, the highest ocean heat content on record, the greatest retreat of glacial ice on record ... a decade of cooling is it guys? What a joke. But I'm not lauging - actually dreading the next strong el Nino, when OZ gets it's worst droughts and heatwaves.

Yes 'One Under God', I have read them - when they first came out (do try and keep up).

As to the rest of your post ... do whatever you need to calm down, maybe pray.

________

Ken

It never ceases to amaze me that people who have no qualified background in science think their unqualified opinions are going to overturn the fundamentals of science or the qualified opinions of the world's science academies.

I'm quite happy to debate the pros/cons, ways and means - of adapting to a changing climate, or to live in a more sustainable way. However, because some people have both their feet and head buried in the sand, it is impossible (therefore pointless) in trying to engage.

“analysis of Antarctic ice cores show that levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for the past 650,000 years while the rate of increase over the past 100 years is greater than at anytime over the past 20,000 years. When we consider that evidence we note that the rate increase over the past 100 years has been keeping pace with our industrialisation one is tempted to the conclusion that there is a link between human activity and current climate change.” No, one isn’t, there are several steps to take before jumping to such a conclusion. For example, is there any evidence for unusual climate behaviour?

In respect of warming, it is clear from Carter et al’s “Due Diligence” paper that current temperatures are within patterns of variation established since the end of the Little Ice Age, that increased greenhouse gas emissions have not led to a measurable deviation from these trends and that temperatures in the last decade are well below those projected by IPCC modelling.

If it were established that there were unexplained changes in climate, we could not assume that human activity was a causative factor without a better understanding of what drives climate and the magnitudes and interactions of various factors. Many scientists with relevant expertise argue that increased outputs of greenhouse gases by humans have only a modest effect, and that the geological record and climate understanding show that there are stabilising effects which maintain the earth’s temperature withing a modest range; there is no evidence for “tipping points” or runaway warming.

I am not aware of any basis for your statement that “future generations will be facing consequences that will be anywhere from mildly uncomfortable to catastrophic.” The BBC has recently reported that “Climate change is shrinking sheep.” No, warmer temperatures in part of Scotland have allowed smaller sheep to survive and breed – a benefit for the breed rather than a catastrophe.

326 words, little hope for the rest of your article, so I’ll leave it here.

"It never ceases to amaze me that people who have no qualified background in science think their unqualified opinions are going to overturn the fundamentals of science or the qualified opinions of the world's science academies."

It never ceases to amaze me the size of Q&A's ego, and the lengths he will go to silence others, hence his difficulty in engaging. When you say "fundamentals", I think you mean fundamentalism - of your breed of science anyway. I'm happy not to have the vested interests of "publish or perish". I trust my own intelligence. By repeatedly using the word denialism, you are by definition demonstrating fundamentalism - I know the truth, you don't. I have previously shown you to have unjustifiably smeared someone, but no acknowledgment was ever forthcoming, such is your unwillingness to engage and your own experience of pointlessness. I'm sure you will now say something like "get over it", or I'm afraid "you're going to harass me" or basically anything to avoid engaging as you have previously declared with me, as your hilariously overblown ego can't seem to cope with the slightest prick lest it pop like a CO2 black balloon. Easier just to say people have their head in the sand. As I imagine this is an example of your scientific honesty, then I choose not to unquestioningly trust your self-proclaimed authority, or the world's science academies. How dare anyone question the authority of the Church!

You have stated previously that "we" continue to search for the negative feedbacks leading to previous lowering of CO2, but didn't seem to acknowledge that this was a case of your failure to find them, and their obvious existence, as you don't seem to deny that levels have come down markedly before.

Engagement? If you don't want to engage with the public, why do you spend so much time here?

Faustino: "In respect of warming, it is clear from Carter et al’s “Due Diligence” paper that current temperatures are within patterns of variation established since the end of the Little Ice Age, that increased greenhouse gas emissions have not led to a measurable deviation from these trends and that temperatures in the last decade are well below those projected by IPCC modelling.

...... ..... there is no evidence for “tipping points” or runaway warming."

I'm interested in this, Faustino.

I'm interested in the scientific peer reviewd publications put out through - lets say the IPCC - and approved by that body. Obviously you have read them and know that they are incorrect in their research, incorrect in their analysis, and incorrect in their conclusions. They would have to be for you to be right in what you say. Climate scientists say there are tipping points, for instance. And they do make conclusions that AGW is responsible for a good share of the increase in temperature this last century or so.

Which recent particular scientific publications are you referring to that would be wrong about that.

I'm sure you must have read them in detail. So please share.

As for Carter, his speciality is not climate. He has not published anything on global warming through the peer review process that I can find.

And as for the hapless Mr Fielding and the questions he was given to ask, they have been done to death even. It might amaze you to know that when climate scientists do their modelling they take into acount many variables, like the solar cycle, El Ninos, changes in circulation and overturning in the oceans..etc. Yes, climate scientists actually know about that stuff. Maybe you should drop Fielding a line and explain that to him. He will be excited to find out there are things like a solar minimum. I bet his brand new friends haven't told him that stuff yet.

bpors, Carter, like others who advocate a head in sand approach, doesn't do climate science in any sense. Natural climate changes are pointed out when convenient and ignored when not. It was Carter who complained that 1998 should be excluded when estimating warming in the few years following as it was an outlier that would skew averages. Later, the same hot spike in a rising trend is the foundation stone of his arguments that we've had cooling since! And people take what he says seriously? Utter rubbish but very popular with the disbelievers. Meanwhile the quiescent sun isn't quiet any more, we're headed for el nino conditions and it doesn't take a GCM to predict ongoing warming.

As for the 'Decade of Cooling' - 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record, the lowest arctic summer ice extent on record, more ice shelves gone than ever, greater loss of glacial ice than ever, the highest sea level on record, the greatest ocean heat content - if that's cooling then the next round of warming will be frightening.

Ken - does it matter what Carter or Gore or Pachaury says?

The climate is changing, as it always has, except now there are people who want to keep it exactly as it is right now.

Whether you cut CO2, or measure temperature in the ocean, the air, or there is or is not stratospheric cooling/warming is irrelevant.

We have to adapt, though of course it is easier to complain and argue, rant, assign blame and responsibilty for whatever and scream than face and accept reality.

I cannot understand why some people want to bankrupt the world and put us back to the stoneage technologically just because they are so frightened of change.

Doing something stupid is not better then doing nothing.

Climate change, yes it can and it will.

Odo, you are right - it doesn't matter what Gore or Pachaury say.

And the climate goes thru natural lchanging cycles. But how does that cancel out AGW. This isn't about making the climate static. You might be amazed to know that climate scientists know what you know, that their are variations in the climate. Wow!

It sounds to me that it is you who want to keep things the same, unchanging.

If you were curious, you might want to read up on what their research says.

If the majority of climate scientists' reseach is correct then cutting pollution is important. If their long term projections are correct, then we might not adapt to successfully.

As for ranting, screaming, assigning blame, what are you talking about?

If the projections are correct then bankruptcy will be the least of our worries.

Doing nothing when when we have had several decades worth of warnings about this would be criminal.

As for technology, we have stagnated in an inefficient, outdated fossil fuel powered economy for too long. Maybe its time we cranked up technology, instead of holding it back.

And now for something really cheerful: http://www.alternet.org/environment/141081/the_dark_side_of_climate_change%3A_it%27s_already_too_late%2C_cap_and_trade_is_a_scam%2C_and_only_the_few_will_survive/?page=entire
The Odos of this world, and they are legion, are a bit like the flint miners of the neolithic period fulminating against the introduction of bronze - they can only see the threat to their livelihood, the threat to the way they live now.
I do not know if Lovelock is right and that it is already too late. What I do know is that those communities that will survive and indeed prosper are those that are able to develop local resilience. Such communities are already beginning to emerge, far from returning to the stoneage, such communities are at the cutting edge of technology - true they may not have plasma telvisions but if you are too busy living life you have not the time to be a spectator.

bpors I just reread my post, how did you interpret it to say I was against the climate changing, I have accepted that the climate changes and have no problem with that.

I'm curious but no one can read everything there is on climate and there are always new papers.

In the end it doesn't matter, we need to adapt as the climate changes as it has always done.

Fear of change, "And the climate goes thru natural lchanging cycles. But how does that cancel out AGW", how do you know it won't?

"the majority of scientists", science is not a democracy, where majority thought rules.

Ranting and shouting, articles on this site about climate change, there is a hard core of AGW believers who are apopleptic about anyone who disagrees, to the point of abuse.

"Doing nothing when when we have had several decades worth of warnings about this would be criminal", doing something stupid would be worse than doing nothing.

If the projections are not correct, and in time we learn more than we would be foolish to gamble everything on a solution now. Are you of the opinion we know everything there is to know?

You say you accept that climate changes yet you have been terrified by professional alarmists that there is some great doom approaching.

There have been so many doomsayers, they are inevitably wrong, but have often been involved in mass hysteria. Note there is never a specific time or date, within reason, of the catastrophe. it is always some time in the future, how handy that after 30 years as you say, it still is in the future.

odo agreed that some AGW advocates are extremists and overly defensive about legitimate questioning.

Just as there are doomsayers there are also naysayers who deny the evidence and risks. Both are a risk to serious discussion and risk evaluation.

Clearly we don't know everything yet, the science is not perfect however the weight of evidence suggests that we should be paying attention and reducing the risks associated with greenhouse gases.

It's correct that the climate is in continuous change however our civilisation has developed within a certain range of that change. We can probably adapt to change slightly outside that range (but at a large cost), it's unlikely that we can adapt beyond certain extremes.

As an analogy, the temperature in my fridge is not constant. Food in the fridge will keep for the expected periods if the temperature stays within a certain range, once the temperature goes outside that range stuff starts to spoil rapidly. I can't turn the power off or leave the door open for an extended period just because the temperature is not always the same.

The article points out that there are other reasons why we should be taking many actions which would reduce AGW other than just the risk of AGW. A reduction in reliance on fossil fuels being one that will cost initially. Changes in technology can be expensive during the transition phase but history seems to show that once the initial transition is done the payoffs can be huge.

I doubt that the answers to those actions lies in extra government charges and taxes. I suspect that such taxes reduce the money available to transition and that governments tend to become reliant on the income stream from such taxes and hinder anything that reduces them.

Rather than denying the possibility of AGW we should take the risk seriously and look for measures which reduce that risk while providing other benefits.

R0bert

Odo, at no stage did I say you thought the climate does not change. I stated the opposite, in fact. My problem was that you say (as far as I understand) that the only things changing the climate are natural and nothing to worry about if we just adapt to the changes. You don't make it clear that you think there is any effect from man made pollutants. You dismiss any possibility of large-scale global warming that would make it very difficult to easily adapt.

Fair enough, that is your opinion. But if you haven't read any serious scientific publications about it - and I can only infer this from what you say - how can it be reasonable for you to say about people that may be concerned and have read at least some of it that they are "ranting and shouting".

And no, I didn't demand that you have to "read everything there is on climate". Something published from the IPCC would be nice, just so you can know what you are talking about.

Also, "how do you know it won't" is no kind of an argument.

If the projections aren't correct the worst that we would have done is come up with newer better technology, and live in a cleaner world. Boy! What a disaster.

You seem terrified that any changes put in place to adjust for man-made global warming can only end up with doom and gloom scenario. I disagree.

And yes there have been many people concerned about the climate. I remember reading an article on the American economy in August 2008 entitled "What Recession?" The author triumphantly announced all the doom and gloom in the US economy was a lie and the economy was not about to go into recession and if it was, he sneeringly asked where was this recession they were predicting?

Could someone please suggest some medication for these guys :http://www.clim-past.net/5/183/2009/cp-5-183-2009.html

John, if I send my dog to your kennels, is he permitted to breathe out? Speaking of science, I understand CO2 has some sort of effect on candles which singularly explains the history of climate on our planet, and gets Eclipse Now very excited.

At least one of the sources cited by OUG (6/7 0908) is known for being fake.

Dailytech will print anything: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/03/climate-change-poles

How many people do you think know that much of the shiny, professional-looking data from that link is fake? Not many. I only know because someone quoted it at me recently and I looked into it.

How many more of those links are deliberate lies? Not that I think a site like "exposingtheleft.com" might be careless in its presentation of scientific data, but throw it in there with a bunch of links to fringe ideologues and frothing bloggers, and it looks almost like a body of evidence.

And this is the beauty of it. Most people won't validate the science for themselves, so it's just two competing barrages of scientific information. It doesn't matter if the source is a peer-reviewed scientific research report or a couple of Young Liberals furiously quoting from a Michael Crichton omnibus - the public can be made to think there is a genuine divide among scientists on the subject of climate change.

It's morally and intellectually bankrupt, but a clever strategy.

fungochumley

I don’t mind engaging, but we have been over your issues many many times before (as you well know) - you just don't like what I have to say (I can live with that).

Yes, scientists generally have big egos.

Roy Spencer (another scientist with a strong ego) does try to find a strong negative feedback mechanism to overturn AGW (I wish him well, we all do) ... BUT, he has not been able to establish it, let alone convince the scientific community.

Ergo, it is not “obvious”. You seem to think otherwise so perhaps you can enlighten us, with citations of course.

Q&A,

You say, "Roy Spencer...does try to find a strong negative feedback mechanism to overturn AGW ... BUT, he has not been able to establish it, let alone convince the scientific community."

I didn't say anything about overturning AGW. What I asked was, what caused the lowering of atmospheric CO2 from higher levels in the past (over 1000ppm)? You don't seem to be disputing that levels have been higher before. So, if you or any other scientist can tell me what it was, I would be grateful. But if you can't, it would seem clear to me that it's due to a failure to find it yet, because something did. That is what I'm saying is "obvious". And I applaud Spencer if that is what he is looking for - sounds like good exploratory science.

What is difficult to understand here? I don't know how to ask it more simply.

fungochumley, You raise a major problem we had in making the kennels zerocarbon. The dogs breathing is not the only problem - they fart too. (Any dog owner will be able to share with you the joy of smelling a dog's fart at a dinner party) Our first solution to that problem was to accept only dogs that had been stuffed by a taxidermist but we then looked at the chemicals involved and realised the environmental damage was considerable also the problem is that it is not readily reversable. So instead we did what should be anyone's first step - we conducted an energy audit. Energy audits are not just about reducing your co2 emissions they are also about making your use of energy more efficient. We reduced our energy usuage by 30% without sacrificing anything - all sorts of little things added up to a big saving. We then reduced that further by switiching to renewables. This left us about 50% of Co2 we could not get rid of for that amount we planted trees (we are on 10 acres). As more energy efficient technologies come on the market we will continue to apply them. But thanks for asking.

(Posted by fungochumley): "What I asked was, what caused the lowering of atmospheric CO2 from higher levels in the past (over 1000ppm)? You don't seem to be disputing that levels have been higher before."

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

I have not read where climate scientists are saying that CO2 levels, once the CO2 levels go up, they never go down. But they do say the CO2 levels take a while to go down.

In the past 650,000 years CO2 levels have not been as high as they are today, let alone 1000ppm.

If you want to go back nearly half a billion years ago concentrations were nearly 4400ppm. But everything else was different back then too. The sun did not shine so brightly, for instance.

On a scale of about half a million years, the CO2 levels have shot up dramatically and studies have shown when there is a rise in CO2 levels there is a rise in temperatures. Makes sense, because CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas. And there has been a dramatic rise in CO2 levels.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

Obama's Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill -

A Stealth Scheme to License Pollution and Fraud

On May 15, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) was introduced in the House purportedly "To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy."

In fact, it's to let corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel as well as create a new bubble through carbon trading derivatives speculation.

It does nothing to address environmental issues, yet on June 26 the House narrowly passed (229 - 212) and sent it to the Senate to be debated and voted on.

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1524

http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/index.php?bShow=5&cat=4

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/antarctic-ice-shelves-show-sign-climate-change/

http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-Haven-County-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Solar-Physicist-Predicts-Ice-Age-What-happened-to-global-warming
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07082009/news/regionalnews/snow_plows_remove_hail_after_summer_stor_178218.htm

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/economy/climate-bill-result-coalplants-higher-emissions/

see previous article links[goldmansax is going to trade carbon credits
here is how they insider trade right now]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/business/07goldman.html?_r=1&ref=business
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1519

Ok fungo, I misunderstood your post.

Yes, [CO2] has been much higher in the geologic time series, extending back 100’s of millions of years (bpor’s link shows less than 1 million years - clearly indicating the Milankovitch cycles - but doesn’t show the [CO2] you are referring to).

It is important that we understand the ‘evolution’ of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship with climate and ‘radiative forcing’. Atmospheric [CO2] in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) is believed to have been about 2000 ppm (it has been even higher than that).

While there is some disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales, it is important to realise the planet was a vastly different place back then.

Nevertheless, you (someone) asked what caused the decline (I think).

From the late Palaeocene to the early Eocene (say 60 million years ago) atmospheric CO2 hovered around 2000 ppm then had an erratic decline to about 40 million years ago - most probably due to reduced CO2 outgassing from volcanoes, ocean ridges and metamorphic belts, plus of course sequestration in fertile soils, formation of silicates and uptake in the oceans. Since about 25 million years ago (Miocene), CO2 has remained below 500 ppm, although much less during periods of ‘rapid’ cooling at roughly 15 and 3 million years ago.

If you want to get an understanding of climate in the geologic past, I can recommend “Origin and Evolution of Earth – Research Questions for a Changing Planet” by the National Research Council (US) of the National Academies. I am not going to recommend Plimer’s book, for obvious reasons.

As far as Roy Spencer goes, he is searching for a ‘negative feedback’ that is counter-intuitive to main-stream science. My bet he won’t find it, but good on him for persevering.

Now, can we get back on topic (Appealing to Science in the AGW Debate is Delusional)?

bpors,

Fine, but you didn't answer my question.
Thank you, I am familiar with AGW greenhouse theory. I was first educated on it when I worked for Greenpeace. We were then taught by someone (I think his name was Fagin) on how to use it to extract money from people on the street.

Q&A,

Thank you for your time and response. I assumed something like this, but am delighted to see a climate scientist use the words "probably" and "some disagreement". However, it raises further questions for me about climate complexity and variations in the capacity and amount of sequestration and absorption by oceans, but much as you choose to engage in a public forum, I can't expect you to oblige me on all these, and I thank you for your response.

There are clearly other climate forcers, and I wonder if the world started cooling again due to these, would people consider pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as was done in the 70s (the considering, that is) ‘cause things were getting a bit cold. I'm dubious about trying too hard to "get the climate right", but I have no huge problem with reducing carbon emissions in a sensible way, so long as it isn't done in a panic that produces worse immediate consequences.

On the topic, the philosophy of science is an interest of mine, and I liked where John was heading, but then he went off in a direction that I wouldn't. Personally, I question the validity and usefulness of a number of the constructs and dichotomies in eco-environmental science and discourse.
I believe there are limits to what science overall can tell us, and I think, somewhat like you, if I have understand you correctly, that public policy is about more than science and must take into consideration an array of competing values.

Cont…

Which makes me wonder why you are so vehemently opposed to "right wing think tanks" contributing to policy formulation, unless you are simply declaring your own left wing ideology and agenda, and why you only see economics as muddying the waters. The world, the climate, the economy, and human psychology is muddy.

On a sweeping note, and don't quote me, I reckon the 21st century will see evolution in energy use, as in the 20th - it already seems to be happening and I don't think it needs to be pushed through fear or urgency - the dire forecasts will not eventuate as predicted (although dire things will still happen), alarmists will say it's because we did something, skeptics will say because it was never going to happen, anyone who makes a correct prediction will cry why didn't you listen to me, those who get it wrong will offer a hundred justifications for the impossible-to-foresee events that made them wrong, people will continue to have the same kind of arguments in different forms, and the world will go on, and sadly neither of us will be around to follow the rest of the story. And even our environmental (over)consciousness will change as surely as the world has gone through enormous cultural transitions in the past - animism, renaissance, art deco, disco........ And if I’m wrong it’s because…

Having linked to some of OUG's sites, I understand that there are people who would wish me tried and executed for such thoughts, and even for asking the innocent question above. I take comfort in the fact that I harbour no such violent malice towards even the most strident alarmist. And if I were to go to trial, I imagine I would quickly and cowardously subscribe to every aspect of AGW. Not worth it, martyrdom is a dying act.

John/Baygon,

How clever. I can never get my dog to hold the shovel properly. You are very fortunate on your 10 acres.

That's probably the best I've seen you post, fungo.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue. Right now, my better half beckons :)

fungochumley,

would had have thought it too obvious as to where the excess CO2 went in the past. Plant life. And we we dig it up and drill for the fossiliized remains and then burn the stuff. Didn't Fagin tell you that?

Interesting posts Fungo and Q&A – may the dialogue continue. Fungo, I was interested in your comment “it raises further questions for me about climate complexity and variations in the capacity and amount of sequestration and absorption by oceans”.

Knowing a bit about the climate, this comment is of great interest to me. My original post above mentioned, “CO2 from natural and anthropogenic sources has to be absorbed by the oceans according to Henry's Law Constant that maintains an ocean-atmosphere equilibrium of 50:1. Anthropogenic CO2 is still subject to physical laws.”

Q&A, you would know something about this. Can you explain how the assumption of a long residence time for anthropogenic CO2 (up to 200 years) arose given that atmospheric CO2, from whatever source (natural or anthropogenic), is subject to Henry’s Law? I know that the IPCC assume that naturally-derived CO2 was already in ocean-atmosphere equilibrium and that additional anthropogenic CO2 is added to the atmosphere, leading to its accumulation there (and presumably the long residence times) but it begs the question: how come it is not subject to Henry’s Law?

E. Sundquist’s 1985 paper lists the results of 36 separate studies, based on a number of different measurement methods, that give an atmospheric CO2 residence or turnover time ranging between two and 25 years. Is it possible that the assumed long residence time for anthropogenic CO2 is an artefact of the modelling?

Either anthropogenic CO2 is relatively quickly absorbed into the carbon cycle, as per Henry’s Law, and the ocean-atmosphere equilibrium is maintained, or there is an unknown physical mechanism that applies only to anthropogenic CO2 (thus allowing for its atmospheric accumulation) that overrides Henry’s Law. I may not have this right but in my mind there is a significant problem here for the AGW hypothesis.

Please, no ad homins.

raredog - no doubt that AGW is subject to physical laws. The question becomes, and this is the exegis of the original article, can we be certain that our existing physical laws provide an adequate explanation? Our notion of the physical laws is basically an extrapolation of the known into the unknown. We treat them as universals but in general that is altogether too strong an assumption to make about any of the physical laws. (In that sense I am an old fashioned sceptic).
So my attitude to AGW is to argue that to claim certaintity about the impact of human CO2 is a bridge too far - too the best of my knowledge AGW is a unique event so one has a right to be sceptical about the claims that are made about its impact but that scepticism applies both to those who deny any adverse impacts and those who claim it will cause catastrophe. I therefore go on to argue the prudential case- I fail to see why we do not apply to AGW the same yardstick as we do to other areas of public policy. For example when Darwin was rebuilt it was rebuild so as to withstand another cyclone Tracy - yet realistically the chances of another cyclone Tracy hitting Darwin are minimal. When we engineer bridges etc they are engineered to withstand the most unlikely events. In short we set a standard of prudence that we refuse to apply to AGW argument. So if we cannot be absolutely certain that there will not be adverse impacts due to Human Co2 emissions should we therefore not apply the same prudential standards as we do in other areas? The scientific debate will continue to be interesting but it cannot set public policy. We do have the right to ask the question are politicians entitled to demand that we take the risk that AGW is mistaken? Or should prudence dictate that they take action to shift our socio-economic systems so that they are not dependent on CO2 emissions?

Thank you Q&A, but, with respect, I don't post here for your approval or disapproval. And unfortunately I think meaningful dialogue round here is about as likely as between Osama Bin Laden and Donnie Osmond. We come from different worlds. But at least there is an OLO community that may bring some benefit where open minds exist. All the best.

Sorry, Baygon, climate policy is not the same as building a bridge.

Fungo, I was acknowledging a good post from you, that is all.

‘Climate science’ is complex, but that’s not to say we know nothing (we know lots). Baygon and I differ in this respect - I think "our existing physical laws (do) provide an adequate explanation" (of AGW). And John, all scientists are sceptics, certainly in the scientific sense.

In this respect, Humanity’s ‘problem’ (really a symptom) is: the rate of ‘carbon’ being released into the Earth System is more than the rate at which the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere can absorb. Raredog mentions Henry's Law, I'll come to that later.

Our problem has much to do with how we use (abuse) energy resources and the impacts that stem from that. We cannot continue this way (with population expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050) without also expecting some unpleasant consequences (on water resources, agriculture, food, infrastructure, town planning, trade, immigration, defence, etc, etc, etc).

You are right; we have to solve this “in a sensible way”. All I can say is that the ‘powers that be’ are trying (they’re not squabbling over the science of global warming like you see on popular blog-sites). Whether we've got the ability to move forward in a positive and mature way is another thing.

I am “vehemently opposed to neo-con right wing think tanks”. I am ALSO vehemently opposed to the extremist left or dark green think tanks. As I tried to explain on another thread (with spindoc); to overcome a global problem we must work together (recognising each others differences).

In other words, it is not a binary problem requiring a binary solution. In my opinion, the 'new right' are not new at all, they are repeating the same old policies (albeit with new spin) that got us into trouble in the first place - with them it is 'business as usual'. It can be argued that the 'left' are doing the same.

Cont'd

Cont'd

Of course economics is not the only 'muddifier'. But as we have seen, in the last 12 months the global economy skirts on a knife's edge. It is just silly to be able to buy oranges (for example) from half way around the world at a cheaper price than what our own farmers produce them, imo.

________

Raredog

Have you come accross the book "Global Warming, Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer? Here is a PDF of Chapter 10 you might find interesting.

http://geodoc.uchicago.edu/archer.ch10.perturbed_carbon.pdf

He posted an article on Henry's Law at RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/is-the-ocean-carbon-sink-sinking/

It is sickly incredible how many of our OLO's believe that mankind can't do harm to our planet.

The very fact that Nature has grown forests and vegetation to make use of carbon waste, must show that mankind was on the way to destroy the globe, ever since the beginning of industrialisation.

In fact, all teachers worth their salt, plus their students should know that.