Belly, drop into "Tallbloke's Talkshop".

Do a bit of reading of some of the real science.

If you can't understand it, try studding up on your math.

When I first started to doubt the cr4p the UN were feeding everyone, I had to spend 4 months getting my math back up to scratch. Took even longer to be able to do it again, with out getting a headache.

If you don't do this, & follow some of the better stuff on WUWT, & some other sites all warmists avoid, you are simply parroting what is fed to us in the media, by the Greens & the UN.

You don't believe the cr4p the media feed you on other stuff, why do you believe the AGW stuff?

Ask for a discussion again, after you've put in the work. It is only then, that you can see through the veil of half truth, & cunning bull we are being fed by the Greens, & others who would enslave us.

"Nasa says the increased co2 in the upper atmosphere is delaying the reentry of space junk,
and an increased risk junk collision."

An this is a bad thing ? Lets delay this enty and HOPE that all this junk smashes itself to little itty-bitty pieces and thus burn up harmlessly on re-entry. Or would you rather have a Volkswagon size piece fail to burn up because it remained in tact, and demolish a high rise somewhere ?. Because of the percentage of area occupied by people on this planet [ oceans occupying 3/5ths of the surface area alone ]; the chances of catastrophy happening through falling INTACT
space junk is minimal. Having said that - YES! let this crap smash away in space and there will be NO chance of any damage to population area's. Another valid reason to increase CO2 levels.

" I could similarly state a goal that there would be no greenhouse gas emissions by 2013, "

Since water vapour is the greatest green house gas, do you prepose we stop clouds, evaporation ?
This IS pure BS.CO2 is less than 2% of all other greenhouse gasses combined

I am quite comfortable with the position I find myself in here.
Most see me as a victim of a con, others ,thanks hasbeen tell me what to do if I do not under stand
Davidf at least tells me he does not understand part of my questions.
So Dave here it is, climate change for parts of the world will be good, warmer climate more rain, growing more food.
Bad for coastal towns and city,s under higher tides.
I chose willingly, to believe man plays a roll, not just in using dirty fuels but clearing land and forests.
Dumping poisons in to the sea and water ways.
And am quite confident, most of the world will follow us in reducing our foot print.

Dear Belly,

You have clarified. You questioned whether climate change is good or bad for the planet. Actually you seemed to really be asking whether it is good or bad for humans. That is an entirely different question.

Belly that is a cheap shot & not worthy of you.

You know I was not doing that.

Well for fun here is my take on global warming;

1. The world has been warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum in the 1700s.
2. The effect of CO2 on temperature is not linear but exponential.
3. Doubling of CO2 will have very small or nil effect.
4. CO2 will be increasing for next 20 years at least.
5. IPPC computer models use dud data in their projections.
6. Is it more effective to mitigate any climate effects ?
7. There is no scientific consensus.