Just for the record, this is among the most vile and scary pieces of hate literature I've read in a long time.

Having just sat through a 7 (not in order)of a series of 23 University lectures on the known global warming science it is clear to me that most deniers/sceptics simple don't understand what's being spoken about.
e.g. outputs:
- Volcanoes put out on average: .1 giga tonne of CO2 per year
- Industry : 7.0 G/T p.a.
- Deforestation : 2.0 G/T p.a.

Natural absorption
- Trees : 2.5 G/T p.a.
- Seas : 2.5 G/T p.a.

It is clear we're producing more CO2 than is naturally absorbed.

From Ice cores science is able to determine the CO2 levels in the air in history, specifically they have determined that these levels were relatively constant for a period of 1000 years untill the 1700s at about 280 parts per million. Today its almost 350 ppm.

The science to this point is incontestable except around the irrelevant, extreme edges.

From there the chemistry and mechanism of natural uptake is also well known and largely undisputed.

This happen in three stages
-Ocean Invasion (sea absorption): 75% of airborne CO2 will be absorbed in about 1000 years .
- next the Calcium Carbonate cycle: will absorb another 15% over 2-10000 years.
- The final stage "the weathering thermostat" will take 500000 years to absorb the last 10% i.e. to 1700 levels.

Also known is what is called is the band saturation effect which means that the temperature will not decrease at the same rate as the CO2.
There will be a large blimp before the long tail.

As I understand it not much of the above is in dispute at all.
What is less sure is the rate of change. What generally accepted is that the IPCC report was on the low side of change. However recent results have suggested a faster rate.

Given the *known science* as outlined above coupled with multiple sources for raw data, the tinkering by EAU CRU is a blip in an otherwise unequivocal scientific conclusion

Oops posted to the wrong topic, sorry, but what the heck.

News flash, Phil, Who is Inigo Owen Jones?

CJ Morgan - your observation that the global economy must slow down is sound. Western economies not only live to consume, but also waste much of what they and developing nations produce.

It's interesting to note the sheer volume of information available to the average OLO poster. We have so much information available to us - perhaps that is our problem - we humans are too clever by half.

Evolutionary Biologist, Ernst Mayr, on the subject of biological success, refuted the idea that it was better for an organism to be smart than to be stupid. He claimed that beetles and bacteria were infinitely more successful than humans in terms of survival.

He observed:
"We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the question will "not" be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error", using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else.
The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that, and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the last few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well".

Dear Col,
What is the definition of a fool and what do you get when you educate a fool. I am not calling you a fool as you say i don't know you. I am seeing where your answer comes from
Regards Richie