Stephen - I'm not ignoring .4% per year. I actually nailed it from memory, but didn't bother spelling it all out because I was dismissing the tangential subject of CO2 volume in general which has already been considered. It's just another diversion you presented and is irrelevant to the point I've made. I'm growing tired of your and others' hairsplitting argumentative 'corrections' and non-sequiturs.
We can dismiss AGW because there is no scientific evidence based on the observation of the natural world that C02 in the amounts we have released In Total or Per Year or Measured on the Historic CO2 Instrument on Mauna Loa or *whatever* have anything to do with any global warming. The primary so-called evidence that it does consists of: Sagan's greenhouse theory for Venus, a coincidental and debunked hockey stick graph, and computer models containing at least one fundamental flaw so great as to render them completely useless for actually predicting the effect of the release of CO2 into the atmosphere on global temperatures. The A in GW hinges entirely on these theories, coincidences, and models, and therefore doesn't add up. That is a reasoned conclusion due to the crucial lack of any good evidence to support AGW, in addition to some pretty good evidence against it. The temperature driver is not yet understood. (Wanna bet it's the sun?) >> "Sounds like a confession of faith to me." Then you have a tin ear. It's the conclusion of scientists who study climatology and other fields where the question of AGW has some impact. They know what they're looking at, and I happen to agree with them. Perhaps you need to be reminded that faith is when you believe in something for which there is no evidence, and AGW is precisely that. >> "Yup, I understand exactly how you feel about folks who disregard the evidence. That snide remark isn't a fair consequence of anything I've posted (or failed to post) here. Perhaps you feel I was disregarding you instead of the evidence. I apologize if that's what you thought. I wasn't disregarding you or the content of your post, it's just that I had already answered it satisfactorily. The evidence has indeed been carefully regarded by scientists, and to the reasonable degree possible for myself as an interested and concerned lay person. It simply doesn't stack up to support the conclusion that mankind's CO2 release drives temperatures up, so I and quite a few others, many of whom are much better educated on those subjects than myself, see no need to take the faith-based position that it does. - Rick -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 2:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: <snip>
