StevenlMeyer,

Your links demonstrate the basis for a greenhouse effect, but they don't they don't do so quantitatively. In effect they establish what is widely known. Greenhouse gases have the effect of warming the planet. This is a trite question with a trite answer.

The relevant questions of the debate about what we should do is how much warming will occur due to our CO2 emissions and what can we realistically do about it.

Upon realising that all our pee ultimately goes into the oceans, do we start building sea walls to stop the flooding of our coastlines or move to higher ground or stop drinking so much in order to reduce our pee footprint? No, before we do anything so daft, we have to think hard about how much of a sea level rise we should expect from all that pee and that requires a quantitative analysis. Something the AGW camp just isn't able to give us at present.

There may be good reasons to reduce our use of CO2, economic/peak oil reasons, but the evidence on AGW does not establish it as one of them.

Finally, I note your response to JBoyer:

"Heat "dissipated" – as you put it – by evaporation returns when the water condenses and falls as rain. Higher temperatures should lead to more evaporation and more release of latent heat when the water condenses possibly driving stronger storms."

This is not correct. The point is that evaporation takes heat in at the surface and "releases it" high up in the atmosphere above a very large chunk of the greenhouse gases that otherwise trap it. It follows that evapouration is in fact a very significant mechanism by which considerable heat escapes without having to pass through the entirety of our greenhouse gases. As I have read this is mechanism is not well accounted for in the computer models because. as with clouds it is complex, chaotic and difficult to measure.

Runner, the last Fundy "pastor" I met in my home town had done time for fraud, which I think disqualifies him from ever having a moral opinion about others ever again. He espoused a similar position to you.

Meanwhile, honest scientists, who *must* publish their data, are employed *by* government institutions, not the other way around. The only time Scientists don't publish is as a result of private funding restrictions (such as Lateline described re: climatechange). These are in turn controlled by the shareholders. Try harder.

Rusty.

To answer stephenLmeyer,

A sceptic would have to show that fourier was wrong about the properties of certain gas mixtures that result in greater heat retention.

Then they would have to demonstrate that all the "mechanisms" by which this retained heat would be removed will do so without (a) unpredictably altering atmospheric convection of both water and air (b) lagging perceptibly, so as to not change the amount of heat temporarily stored in the atmosphere and transferred to long-term sinks like the ocean and the polar ice (c) explain whether they did high school chemistry calorimetry experiments involving heat sources and melting ice and whether they actually learned anything that day, or remain just as ignorant as before.

We know some are depending on divine intervention, but that may not be good enough for the rest of us.

Rusty

Kalin1 thank you for coming to my rescue re evaporation. The supercillious Stevenlmeyer invokes his science but! I have an ordinary common sense approach. When someone tries to get my money by spinning me a line I am immediately suspicious. When there is talk about lots and lots of very necessary tax I am disbelieving and when one of the originators (Al Gore) is a multi millionaire with links to cheating and thieving banks well, Whoa boys I am not as silly as you think.
Steven look at the EU the most bloated organisation on the planet where faceless, useless public servants rule and rort the roost. The IPCC is the same meat different gravy.
Once the taxes are in there will be no more investigating the "Problem", everything will be improving just like the Ozone layer. Money has been made, the sucker has been milked, on to? Tell me again, is started as global warming, then AGW and now climate change there is a clue here steven. You really think you are such a hero but mate you are going to be milked just like the rest of us.

Shorter JBowyer (and other climate delusionists):

"I don't anything much about science, but if it's going to cost me money it must be wrong".

CJ Morgan,

The trite dismissal of other people's views is one of the major problems with this debate. Both sides indulge this all to frequently, but the believers have been especially vocal once their 'leaders' took their line that there was a clear scientific consensus and the debate was over. As the Climate Gate emails show, that consensus doesn't exist.

Your misleading and contemptuous dismissal of any alternate views just demonstrates your own narrow-minded view of the world, an approach adopted by the feeble minded on both sides of this debate.

Is all that sensible skeptics are asking is that their doubts and reservations are answered before their lives and the economic welfare of their families are turned upside down. Being effectively told, "your too stupid to understand, so I'm not going to bother" is never going to win support in a democracy. Unfortunately for "believers" the more they rant that the debate is over, instead of answering legitimate questions, the less credible they will look to everyone with doubts.

So believers like you, ought to either answer the doubters concerns or otherwise ask yourself why you believe so fervently in something you can't explain to others?