Yes but it has done this beforewithout any help from man(n)

2. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS SHOW THAT CARBON DIOXIDE ABSORBS ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION IN THE INFRARED, AND THEREFORE IS CLEARLY PART OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

Yes it is, but at only 0.038% of the atmosphere the only reason why the lefty greenies focus on it is because CO2 is part of industrial development. The positive feedback CO2 to Wayer Vapour that all alarmist computor models assume is not what really happens.

3. THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS GOING UP (AND WITH IT, THE ACIDITY OF THE OCEANS, AS THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS EXCHANGED AT THE AIR/SEA BOUNDARY).

Again that may be true, but CO2 is not a polutant. Without it we would not be able to breath as we and all animals require pCO2 levels in order for respiration to take place. Without CO2 photosynthesis in plants would not take place. Higher CO2 levels = greater biomass.

4. ANALYSIS OF THE ISOTOPES OF CARBON SHOW THAT CARBON DIOXIDE ORIGINATING FROM FOSSIL FUELS IS INCREASING IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

Again that may be true, but does it indicate disaster? – only if you accept the alarmist viewpoint

5. OF ALL THE FACTORS THAT CAN BE THEORISED TO AFFECT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, RISING CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IN RECENT DECADES.

No it isn’t – Water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases.

6. CARBON DIOXIDE IS SHOWN TO AFFECT PLANETARY-SCALE TEMPERATURE IN PLANETS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF LIFE.

What were it exists as a solid block of CO2 ice?
By far the greater affect on planatary scale temperatures of planets without life is solar
But you alarmists dismiss the sun as having any effect whatseover and that is why most other scientists have a quiet snigger at the Alarmists expence

7. PROJECTING BACK INTO RECENT EARTH HISTORY WITH CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS SHOWS AN EXCELLENT FIT FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURES (REPLICATING VARIATIONS AND TRENDS).

Back projection give the 20/20 hindsight so beloved of the alarmists.

Nice try at attempting to escape through the back door. Everyone noticed that you were caught making a statement you acknowledged you couldn’t prove, had no answer for, and, in true alarmist response, chose to change the subject. And to what:

“IN ORDER TO FALSIFY THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING YOU WOULD NEED TO FIND ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FALSE:

1. THE EARTH IS WARMING UP.

SINCE NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED, WE NEED TO ACCEPT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.”

No, all we need to do is find a event in Earth’s paleo record where CO2 went up (or down) and temperature did not track. After all, according to AGW theory, CO2 is THE main driver of temperature.

I could choose any number of these events but, since you are so fixated on recent history, I’ll settle on roughly 1940 to 1970. Given the logarithmic nature of CO2, temperature should show a higher sensitivity to increases of CO2 from lower levels of CO2. Since, as alarmists note, CO2 began its significant anthropogenic increase around 1940 but global temperature fell FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS. Since there is no correlation and correlation is a prerequisite for causation, TA DA! Done. AGW falsified.

The best example is when CO2 was much higher than today and the Earth was a complete iceball. I didn’t use it, though, because it occurred before 1900 and, as we all know, alarmists refuse to acknowledge anything that happened before 1900.

C’mon, Jo, you choose the hard path of attempting to prove that CO2 is a boogeyman when it is so easy to show it is not. You gotta let go of your anger and come back from the dark side.

Just a few comments that you might want to consider….

IMO, claiming that climate science is not political is a naieve statement. It is very much political. It is a very well funded topic that is driving major policy considerations. It is ‘very well funded’ because of politics.

I want to study the growth of fungus X gets no funding. I want to study fungus X and see if it may be linked to climate change… Bingo! Funding! This is politics, and the way science and politics are linked. It has always been like this, and always will be.

Honestly, I think you shold try to be more open minded about opposition to AGW. Us sceptics don’t want to destroy the world, we are just very hesitant to give all we have away for something that we are not sure is true.

Is there a lot of alarmism? Yes
Have there been some serious, and illegal activity (FOI) by Climate Scientists? Yes
Is this a politically charged topic? Yes
Is the base data questionable? Yes
Will this require major sacrafices? Yes
Will the outcome of desired changes gurantee a good outcome? No
Have big issues come up under limited scrutiny? Yes. (Himilayas)

Given these basic questions and response, all of which I feel warrant examination, why would I not be sceptical? I see big cost, low benefit, you see low cost big benefit.

Please try to keep an open mind. (I have doubts about my position, but I do have basic unanswered questions that I have never seen addressed anywhere)

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WRONG. IT'S TIME FOR ME TO TALK LOUDER AND TO A WIDER AUDIENCE. ]

as Al Gore the big fat rat, has.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : PERSONAL ATTACKS CARRY SO MUCH WEIGHT (TONGUE IN CHEEK). I SO BELIEVE YOU (NOT). ]

There is nothing you can say that can salvage the sinking AGW ship. And it deserves to sink.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE ARGMENTS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER-SCEPTICS HAVE NEVER REALLY FLOATED. SCIENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS BUOYANT, AND WILL RISE ABOVE THE WAVES TO WRITE THE MESSAGE IN THE SKIES. ]

The rats will scream and flail in the water, but my recommendation to you is to not offer them any planks, lest they somehow get to shore and try to start another plague. Luckily, the most recent plague they tried to start was circumvented by the facts.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I DON'T SMELL A RAT, BUT I SCENT A POOR ARGUMENT. ]

Note these rats, or prior generations of them, have tried to cause this same plague, twice with “global warming” crazes, and twice with “global cooling” crazes.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I THINK YOU MIGHT BE DISTORTING THE FACTS SOMEWHAT. THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF OPINION IS THAT, GLOBALLY, TEMPERATURES WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. SOME SCIENTISTS OPEN UP THE DOOR TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD COULD BE COLDER THAN THEY ARE NOW DUE TO DISRUPTIONS OF THE OCEAN HEAT TRANSPORT CURRENT LOOPS. ]

I guess there will always be rats….

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THERE WILL ALWAYS BE FOSSIL FUEL LOBBYISTS PAYING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL... ]

]

Jo, I had written responses to other comments but found there was no need. The following tells everyone everything they need to know about your position on AGW. In the space of 4 paragraphs, you state:

“WE HAVE SHOWN THAT WE CAN RELIABLY CLAIM THAT THE EARTH IS HEATING UP AND THAT MANKIND’S EMISSIONS ARE THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN THIS.”

and

“WHILE IT IS NOT REALLY PRACTICAL TO DEMAND EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM … ”

In the top, you are making a statement of fact about the Earth as a whole. In the bottom, you are acknowledging that there is no way (yet) to validate that claim on the Earth as a whole.

The bottom is a clear statement of truth based on our present lack of understanding of how the biosphere operates. Stating a belief in something you acknowledge you cannot prove is, by definition, faith. And, in your case, it is very parochial.

So, please, stop lecturing skeptics as your message of faith far exceeds your pseudo-scientific argument.

We had a fridge magnet that summed up the juvenile certainty that Jo portrays – it said

“Teenagers please leave home now – whilst you still know everything”

Jo – you have more twists and slippery turns than a well sucked liquorice twist.

You really should sit back and whatch the show as the AGW bandwagon implodes. The only comments you get are those that beg to differ with your religious zeal.

Imploring and pleading with people to read the flawed science and then also post saying that the science is not important but influencing the media is, is doing more harm to the AGW bandwagon than you could ever imagine!

You are infamous for bullying a BBC reporter into changing the facts to suit the AGW agenda and even in the face of the reality of the collapse of the house of cards you put so much true “faith” into, you still repeat the same tired old diatribe like a cracked record.

You do realise that the vast majority (95%) of the greenhouse gas IS water vapor? CO2 makes up a very small portion of the total greenhouse gas total. And mankind only adds about .35% of the total CO2 amount.

And yes as the world warms up the atmosphere can hold more water. Interesting then how the AGW proponents then try to equate the recent snowfalls with global warming. Especially in light of the hysterical prognostications of “our children won’t know what snow is” or “the few breeding pairs of humans will be living in the antarctic”

And all the while they ignore the fact that to get snow it has to be COLD!!!! Please show me the perpetual motion machine that can generate cold from heat without the use of a refrigerator!

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

]

As for H20 vapour not being a primary infra red absorbing gas, you must be kidding. Are you seriously claiming that if there was no CO2 there would be no water vapour in the atmosphere?

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

]

If not the water vapour that does happen will rapidly ensure there is near saturation with water vapour near the surface which is not a bad approximation of a certain blue planet third from its sun that I know of. The tropical oceans are a large part of this planet and the near saturation bit is true there.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

]

sojourn – noun – A temporary stay. Paranoid response. You gotta work on that.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : ME ? PARANOID ? I WAS JUST TRYING TO ASCERTAIN IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE INCREASING NUMBER OF SCEPTICS URGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ANYBODY PERFORMING OR PROMOTING SCIENCE. ]

“I DETECT A NOTE OF DISMISSIVENESS IN YOUR WORDS TOWARDS THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF THE TRUTH. LET’S HEAR A LITTLE RESPECT FOR ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS AND THEIR INVALUABLE WORK, CAN WE ! THEY’VE SLAVED AND SWEATED LONG AND HARD OVER THE ANALYSIS OF THE RAW DATA, STRIVING TO PRESENT THE BARE FACTS IN A WAY WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLE.”

Dismissive is the word rightly applied to the way alarmists have treated skeptical researchers who have slaved no less hard for much less money (sometimes none) and whose only goal is NOT to disprove man’s role in global warming (which ALL climate scientists believe to be true) but to quantify it.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR HERE ABOUT WHO IS A GENUINE SCEPTICAL RESEARCHER AND WHO IS JUST A "SCANDAL-MONGERING LIAR" TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE PROGRESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE. OOPS. I'VE BEEN UNKIND. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ACCURATE WHEN DESCRIBING THE ACTIVITIES AND ATTITUDES OF SOME OF THE SELF-STYLED "SCEPTICS". IF THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ACTUAL RESEARCH, IF THEY ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS TAKING THE SCIENCE FURTHER, THEN I CANNOT CALL THEM "SCEPTICS", JUST "OBSTRUCTERS". HOWEVER, SOME GENUINE SCEPTICS ALSO DISPLAY SIGNS OF OBSTRUCTIONISM. I THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION WITH PATRICK MICHAELS FOR EXAMPLE, BUT ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO EXCHANGE WITH STEVE MCINTYRE, WHO I MIGHT START CALLING AN "ARCHBLOCKER". ]

In providing data, analyses, and alternate theories showing man’s role to be minimal, these researchers have been disparaged, ridiculed, and marginalized.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : LOOK, IF YOUR RESEARCH IS SHOWN TO BE UN-REPRODUCIBLE, OR UN-VERIFIABLE, OR HAS CLEAR ERRORS IN IT, THEN YOUR WORK SHOULD BE DISMISSED. AS A RACE WE HAVE DISMISSED THEORIES AND EVEN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTED THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE LESS INTELLIGENT THAN WHITE PEOPLE; THAT WOMEN CANNOT PERFORM MENTAL ABSTRACTION; THAT THE CONTINENTS ARE IMMOVABLE AND THAT THE EARTH IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD. ALL THAT RESEARCH SHOULD STAY LAYING ON THE LIBRARY SHELF GATHERING DUST. ]

For someone seeking the truth, as you say you are, this should have been your first indication that the scientific method was not operating properly.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT IS NORMAL FOR SOME THEORIES TO BE ABANDONED TO THE GREAT CIRCULAR FILING CABINET OF HISTORY, TO BE SHREDDED AND MADE INTO COMPOST. DEAD-END THEORIES AND UNSOUND RESEARCH EVENTUALLY STOPS BEING REFERENCED AS THE SCIENCE EVOLVES. WE HAVE SHOWN THAT WE CAN RELIABLY CLAIM THAT THE EARTH IS HEATING UP AND THAT MANKIND'S EMISSIONS ARE THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN THIS. WE MUST LEAVE OTHER THEORIES ASIDE AS THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE INVALID. ]

That you joined the witch hunt shows that you are just another biased partisan.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM NOT TAKING PART IN A WITCH HUNT. I AM NOT PARTISAN, IN POINT OF FACT. I DO NOT BELONG TO A POLITICAL PARTY AND I DO NOT REGULARLY VOTE FOR ONE PARTY. I VOTE ON THE BASIS OF COMPETENCY AND HOW I JUDGE THE CANDIDATES TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE ELECTED TO SERVE AND REPRESENT. CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, IF ANYTHING. CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY MAY WELL BE DERIVED FROM PARTICULAR IDEOLOGIES, SUCH AS NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS. I DO NOT ACCEPT A CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY UNLESS I CONSIDER IT HAS MERITS. ]

“THE EARTH IS WARMING UP. NOT ONLY THE LAND AND SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES. THE OCEANS ARE ALSO WARMING UP.”

For the last 200 or so years, agreed. However, there is no empirical data proving that burning fossil fuel has been the MAJOR source of that increase.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHILE IT IS NOT REALLY PRACTICAL TO DEMAND EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM, EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTS CAN BE PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY TO SHOW, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, THAT THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ABSORPTION SPECTRUM FOR CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES. A RANGE OF BASIC EXPERIMENTS SHOWS US WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM INCREASING CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. EVIDENTIAL DATA SHOWS US THAT THESE EXPECTATIONS ARE VALID. WE CAN KNOW FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARBON ISOTOPES IN THE LAND SEDIMENTS, FOSSIL FUELS, LIVING THINGS, AIR AND OCEAN THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF FOSSIL FUEL BURNING. WE ARE CONFIDENT FROM HINDCASTING TECHNIQUES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS THAT RECENT GLOBAL WARMING IS THE RESULT OF MANKIND'S NET EMISSIONS TO AIR. ]

Indeed, in his recent interview with the BBC, Phil Jones FINALLY acknowledged that our recent warming was not statistically different from the warming of 1910 – 1940. If there is no statistical difference between warming with static CO2 and warming with dynamic CO2, there is no way to discern a human contribution from a natural one.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE CONFUSED IN YOUR THINKING, I BELIEVE. THE PERIODS OF WARMING CONSIDERED BY PHIL JONES DID SHOW SIMILAR RATES OF WARMING, BUT THE REASONS FOR THE WARMING WERE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT PERIODS. THE RATE OF WARMING OF THE PERIODS CONSIDERED COULD BE SAID TO BE THE "CLIMATE RESPONSE RATE" THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED FOR ANY SIMILAR RADIATIVE FORCINGS. HOWEVER, WE COULD NOW BE IN NEW TERRITORY, AND FUTURE WARMING MAY NOT BE AS LEISURELY AS PREVIOUSLY. ALREADY THE IPCC ARE CALCULATING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS SPEEDING UP. THE OVERALL WARMING TREND WILL REMAIN UPWARDS UNLESS CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ARE CONSTRAINED AND REDUCED :-

]

“BY THE WAY, PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME I AM A FAN OF CAP-AND-TRADE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MARKET IN CARBON CAN BE EFFECTIVE.”

Agreed.

“YOU JUST MARK MY WORDS – IN A FEW YEARS TIME YOU WILL BE HEARING ABOUT STRICT CARBON RATIONING AND A TIMETABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT.”

Quite possible. And a triumph of politics over science (which history shows is common).