In reply to tony:
> (In reply to EZ)
> [...]
> No, it didn't really debate that at all.
To debate means to discuss or deliberate not just to argue from an opposite stance. So yes my post does debate. Semantics are dangerous when words are ill-chosen. I choose mine carefully.
> To do that, you need to discuss the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, with reference to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the past 100 years or so.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
This is a paper submitted to and published by the American Physical Society. Though they note that it is not peer reviewed it should be considered that the peer review process is predominantly an aide to editorial boards not a proving of the science being as it is used to edit out known errant data or methods and not to confirm that given data and methods are correct. In it the IPCC methods and scope are questioned and the consequence of co2 rise is debated.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
In this article it is suggested that: "Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer."
Maybe the cause of a rise in temperature is not greenhouse gases, if one even believes that there is a rise and that the data is not skewed.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chillingar_Atm_Cooling_due_to_CO2.pdf
This is a peer reviewed (as some people seem to think that that is important) study which uses accepted scientific method to demonstrate that the effect of co2 increase is not a global rise in climate:
"Anthropogenic Impact on the Earth’s Climate
The adiabatic theory allows one to evaluate quantitatively the influence of anthropogenic
emission of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s climate. The carbon content in the atmosphere
was increasing by approximately 3 billion tons per year at the end of century. The rate
of the total human-induced CO2 emission to the Earth’s atmosphere is currently about
5–7 billion tons per year (Schimel, 1995; Robinson et al., 1998), or about 1.4–1.9 billion
tons of carbon per year. This amount of carbon dioxide slightly increases the atmospheric
pressure.
To evaluate the effect of anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide on global temperature,
one can use the adiabatic model together with the sensitivity analysis (Sorokhtin,
2001; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004). At sea level, if the pressure is measured in
atmospheres, then p D 1 atm and
T T p (12)
If, for example, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases two times
(from 0.035% to 0.07%), which is expected by the year of 2100, then the atmospheric
pressure will increase by p 1:48 10
.4
atm (Sorokhtin, 2001). After substitution
of T D 288 K, D 0:1905, and p D 1:48 10
.4
atm into Eq. (13), one obtains
T 8:12 10
.3
C. T will be slightly higher at the higher altitudes (Khilyuk
and Chilingar, 2003). Thus, the increase in the surface temperature at sea level caused
by doubling of the present-day CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be less than
0.01
C, which is negligible in comparison with natural temporal fluctuations of global
temperature.
From these estimates, one can deduce a very important conclusion that even considerable
increase in anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide does not lead to noticeable
temperature increase. Thus, the hypothesis of current global warming as a result of
increased emission of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere is not true."
-- Please note that there are symbols used in the above quote that do not translate in ascii. You will need to download and read the pdf to see the data correctly. --
> They may think that global warming requires global action. They certainly didn't come up with the idea of global warming
I didn't say they did. They said that they came up with the idea of using it as an agent for global unification.
> the role of greenhouse gases in maintaining the planet's temperature has been known about since the early 19th century, and the idea of increasing concentrations of CO2 with a view to increasing temperatures was first put forward by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century.
No. The role has been posited by some. If I agree to your premise that there is a KNOWN role of greenhouse gases in temperature reglation then I undermine my position. You may agree with this premise but it is only in the realm of theory as to what the causes and effects are.
> Trying to roll global warming into some sinister elite conspiracy doesn't actually deal with the science.
The point I am making in general is that the use of the alleged science to demonstrate global warming is being beaten like a drum. Everywhere that one looks there is some comment about how people are the cancer on the planet and that the earth will never survive if we do not do something about ourselves. This inevitably implies that some will do to others, as we have an unelected global entity called the IPCC who, with other institutions that will play the legislative and policy bearing roles, are being given power of proxy over our lives and it is articles like the one in the original post, in which there is a presupposition that man is the problem, that are enabling them to do it. WE ARE LOSING WHAT FEW RIGHTS WE HAVE LEFT because we have no indignation. We have lost the ability to think clearly for ourselves. Now men in white coats wearing labels like "expert" and "scientist" are the new priests and their religion will enslave us for years.
Just because I didn't agree doesn't mean that I do not have valid points. As I have said to others, if we just keep reading the rags and watching the box we are sure to be buying a bridge sometime soon.