Funny, what you discover sometimes when mining your visitor stats. Today, while exploring Okie’s visitors, I came across one from a newish Blogspot blog, 30 is the new 20, featuring this header statement: I’m 30, have been through the life…

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is 30%. You are simply copying Glenn’s number without understanding what it is. His number is percentage of the atmophere as a whole. I have already explained why that is an irrelevant number.

It would be ridiculous to argue that someone was not suffering from lead posioning because they have a BLL of 200 ppb, which is only 1/5,000,000. Do you see the logical flaw now?

The ocean is supposed to contain CO2, it’s part of the great buffer system that we call the ecosystem. A 1/10,000 increase in CO2 is a measureable, scientific fact, no matter how much one tries to make it seem larger than it is. I have often seen numerical units manipulated by those trying to make a case from nonsense. Why not just say the increase is 100,000 P.P.B.? Makes it seem much more significant than 0.01%, doesn’t it?

The scientific journals will not accept anti-global warming papers no matter how good they are. One must realize that the editorial boards of these publications are involved with A.G.W. research, thus they are funded by it also. The insulting of independent senior scientists with condesending remarks seems to be just another strategy of the pro global warming lobby. Glenn has attempted to keep it simple for the non-scientist here.

Perhaps you should state your credentials that makes you such an expert over those of us directly involved with environmental testing on a day to day basis.

———————————————

Isn’t it interesting, that the preponderance of these deniers come from the religious Right, the Republican Party and the pro-business & pro-industry crowds?

Your “over 30%” increase is 1/10,000 of the atmosphere as a whole.

This a meaningless non sequitor. Changes in the atmosphere that are quite small can have large environmental impacts, just as changes in your bloodstream that are quite small can have large phisiological imnpacts.

the exact cause cannot be determined at this time

Complete nonsense, Glenn. Carbon is increasing in the ocean, the biosphere and the atmosphere at the same time that we are releasing tremendous amounts of CO2. (If Temp changes were repsonisble, the ocean would be losing CO2.) Further, the increase in atmospheric CO2 trends exactly with fossil fuel burning and matches very, very well with the amount of fossil fuel known to be burned. Furhter still, isotope ratios (C12/C13) show clearly that fossil fuels are responsible.

From 1930-1950 CO2 anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased drastically, but atmopheric CO2 did not increase.

This is simply incorrect:

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/Observing/Images/co2_graph_rt.gif

There is a slowdown in the increase in the 1930s that is associated with the great depression.

Nor is a doubling of CO2 since it’s effects are not linear, as many of the junk science sites like Real Climate(ties to Al Gore) would have you believe.

Funny, Real Climate says very clearly that CO2′s warming effect is logarithmic. I’m sorry you feel that RC is “junk science.” Of course you probably feel the same way about the IPCC. Perhaps you would care to submit a paper to a journal showing why they have got it all wrong. I suggest a more careful reading of the literature than you appear to have undertaken thus far.

I have seen no compelling evidence to convince me that human activities have had more than a minor role in the warming that MAY be occurring

Glenn, Your “MAY” is a dead giveaway, as you should have found in your research that by every metric the Earth is warming. The surface record, the satelite record, boreholes, sea surface temps, glacier mass balance, artic sea ice extent, sea level rise (which includes thermal expansion of the ocean), and the shifting patterns of migratory species. I’m sorry, I don’t buy that you have looked at the evidence when you say the Earth “MAY” be warming.

I believe that humans are at the MOST responsible for 7% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

The CO2 level has increased in the atmosphere by over 30%, and you think humans have only caused 7% of the increase? I’d like to know where you think the carbon came from if not fossil fuels.

So what if the Oregon petition was 10 years ago? I am a signer of it and several of my colleagues and learned acquaintances are also signers. We’re talking college professors,chemists, engineers, geophysicists, meteorologists, etc. We are scientists involved in the environment, not M.D.s or dentists. In the lack of a recent poll of scientists on the subject I have conducted my own research and have decided it’s about a 60/40 split of believers vs. deniers in the U.S. overall. Here in Oklahoma, it’s more like 10/90. There are lefties out there(like Al Gore)spouting that “there is a 99% consensus of scientists”. Wrong, absolutely wrong. A misrepresented charade of the highest order. As I said in a previous post here, I have actually asked the Gallup folks to conduct a A.G.W. poll of environmental scientists only. The reality of it is that a consensus means little and neither do debates. What matters is who is right. I have seen no compelling evidence to convince me that human activities have had more than a minor role in the warming that MAY be occurring. If I had to place a number on that, I believe that humans are at the MOST responsible for 7% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. A 1 degree F increase in average world temperature and a CO2 level increase of .01% in the atmosphere over the past 150 years does not impress me. It should’t impress any thinking person as any kind of crisis in the making. CO2 is not a toxic gas. Earth would be lifeless without it. As an independent scientist, not paid a dime by anyone for expessing my opinion on anthropogenic global warming, you now have my general thinking on it. Perhaps you’d like to debate it on a more technical level?

Isn’t it interesting, that the preponderance of these believers come from the secular Left, the Democratic Party and the anti-business & anti-industry crowds.

Um, you forgot sicentists. See the NAS, AMS, NOAA, EPA, Royal ociety, AGU, the national academies of the G8 nations.

Begley makes no mention of the 17,000 plus scientists that have signed the petition denying man-caused global warming based on these arguments.

Yeah, perhaps she researched the Oregon petition. Did you? If you did, you would find that the petition is a decade old, that very few of its signees work in the field of climate (lots of dentists, though) and that the petition was open online for anyone to sign. “these arguments” are based in large part on fualty satelite data, so the petition is far out of date.

The right wing is embarassing itself by buying into the garbage arguments.

s

Okie on the Lam deconstructs a Newsweek piece on ‘global warming deniers.’…