Slasher,
I never denied the laws of physics but merely pointed out that the variables in the equation were completely and utterly different. A planet in an asymmetrical orbit that freezes most of it's orbit but warms up at one point, with a delayed warming that can last 15 years after the closest exposure to the sun, and also with an atmosphere 1/700,000 that of Earth, is just so completely different

I apologise for misrepresenting your statements about the earth's atmospheric pressure multiplying by 3 times, but I was cranky for what I perceive as a largely side-issue. Lash out at me a second time by all means, but whatever you do DON'T address Q&A's posts. ;-)

So when you say "As other variables not changing again it is a direct proportionate relationship" I just laugh. Q&A, who works in this stuff, assures us that you are taking us into an extremely complex side issue that really doesn't debunk THIS planet's incredibly complex climate and dynamic atmospheric system. I take that to mean YES, the laws of physics still work on earth, but NO, the SYSTEM they are a part of cannot be condensed to such a trite little formula, especially when the percentages of change and margins of error are so low. If you are convinced you have the scientific clout to write up a paper on this why not try it, and see what *actual climate scientists* say? But Q&A's answers are sufficient for me. I'm not even planning to humour you by googling this issue.

I think the onus rests with you to get to the point about worldwide temperature records and whether or not you believe the laws of physics apply to them!

eclipse now, i originally asked two simple questions what was the tonnage of co2 emitted into the atmosphere from anthropoligical sources and non-anthropoligical sources. Secondly was there any data on atmospheric pressure that might add weight to the debate about whether global warming or cooling was occurring.
For asking these questions the greenhouse mafia come out in force, with bigotry and zeal which would have made Pope Urban and his committee for heresy proud.
Protgoras provided information that anthropological emmissions are 150 times that of volcanoes, this implies the total emmissions must be known.
Bugsy has alluded to a dataset on pressure that may be available.
The purpose of science is not to advance one ideological over another but to increase the knowledge and understanding of our universe. There has been debate about the method of measuring global temperature. My suggestion to use pressure was to provide a data set that could either confirm or refute the alternative theories nothing more or less. I had posed this same question to the Australian Office of Greenhouse and received no response. i suppose public funds creating jobs for bureaucrats is more important than keeping the public informed.
The standard greenhouse theory is that solar activity contributes 25% of global warming, alternative theories has the figure as high as 69%.
Unfortunately the modern day committee for heresy is using the same bile and unscientific attacks to stifle debate. Just as religious fevour seriously undermined scientific thought and exploration of ideas that challenge the power elites in the past the modern day equivalents such as eclipse now threaten open debate and the advancement of scientific methodology.

Total anthropogenic Co2? Don't you know that from memory? You're the one proposing a new tool by which climatologists can measure temperature, and you can't even quote the total anthropogenic Co2 emissions per annum from memory? Honestly! How about you google & wiki it and get back to us here. ;-) (A little homework for you on the EXTREME BASICS when you're the one trying to hi-jack this thread into an extremely complicated side-issue).

"greenhouse mafia"? Please relax, you'll live longer. This simply isn't the thread to get hi-jacked into what sounds like a very complicated technical debate about an area YOU find interesting.

"religious fevour" etc
I notice you're still talking to me? Not to Q&A, who actually works in this area? All Q&A did is point out that the subject you're addressing gets VERY complicated very quickly, and is probably beyond the technical expertise of most readers here, including you and I.

If you want to know about atmospheric pressure, please write your concerns up and post on http://www.realclimate.org/ where there are some serious experts on this stuff. It is side-tracking this forum, which is actually to discuss the position of the lead article.

This is my last post on this thread, as your rants about the purpose of science and my place in obstructing it, blah blah blah, are actually getting quite boring. Goodbye, and good luck. Ask politely at Real Climate as many there are quite professional in what they do.

Regards

I have to say, I'm disappointed, Q&A; even if I disagreed with you, I had regarded you as one of the more rational folk in the climate discussion. However, it's now obvious that you're so bedded down with the dogmatists of the Alarmist camp that you simply cannot bring yourself to criticize even their most egregiously outrageous claims.

It seems that indeed you are afraid that "you will lose the support of the people that you need the most". Which I think is a strong factor in climate change alarmism: if the hodge-podge of quangos and activists can't keep the fear factor running high, their income will simply dry up.

I'm also disappointed with your hypocrisy: you admit you're not an econometrician, yet you doubt the econometric modelling; yet, time and again, when skeptics have questioned climate modelling, the standard response is, "you're not a climatologist, so shut up and listen to the experts".

Presumably the same standard doesn't apply to you?

Clownfish?

<< it's now obvious that you're so bedded down with the dogmatists of the Alarmist camp that you simply cannot bring yourself to criticize even their most egregiously outrageous claims.>>

Which part of the following do I need to explain further?

"You say “we need to get down under 350 ppm.” To suggest this is fine, but if you understand the implications of Solomon et al, YOU MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS JUST AS NAIVE as the ‘deny-n- delay brigade’s call to do nothing. If you do not accept the conclusions of the Solomon paper, perhaps you could tell me why not".

You obviously haven't been following my discussions with Ian Castles, he is very familiar with econometric modeling of the SRES, and we both agree there are issues. What you appear to misunderstand is that GCM's (climate models) are not predicated on econometric or economic modeling (they are predicated on science). SRES econometrics must account for carbon emissions, amongst other things. Like I’ve said, econometrics is not the same as climate modeling. Do you think I need to explain my response to slasher in simpler terms?

<< Presumably the same standard doesn't apply to you? >>

I presume you presume wrong – but this does not get anyone anywhere.

Right boys and girls I have the perfect solution to the whole problem. First we stop all funding to the IPPC authority, this is a real emergency and they should work for nothing because of this.
Next all the people who think we are in danger register today and have the electricity, water and gas cut off from their dwellings that will save so much carbon that the problem will be solved.
The climatologists will prove that this is not some sort of scam by living off their savings and UN pensions (Which are considerable) and the proponents of AGW can really show us how it can all work.
Sorry is it AGW or global warming or is it "Climate change" I am getting mixed up although I really do try and keep up with all this.