re: #424 Charles

It’s a funny thing Charles that a completely reasonable post evokes such a strong reaction from you.

Science requires an open mind, strict orthodoxy and an ability to reason. This means you take every single piece of evidence available including the fact that CO2 has never been in lock-step with temperatures and you look at it objectively.

At the moment, I see evidence in front of me that clearly shows a global warming of less than one standard deviation from the time the IPCC says it climate was impacted by humans. This invalidates any calls to the Precautionary Principle, even thought he Precautionary principle should not apply to politicised science.

I also see evidence in front of me of extensive CO2 increases causing acidification of the oceans.

There are some things in the theory that are factual and most that aren’t - that’s because some things like oceanic acidification are cause-and-effect whereas CO2->temperature does not, and has never had that sort of relationship.

We can even see it in the last 60 years of global warming (IPCC contends that AGW started around 1950) - there was a dip in 1940-1970 commonly attributed to CFCs. However, and this is something that is not commonly known, CFC production peaked in 1990 meaning that we either outstripped our CFC production with our production of CO2 - negating the cooling effects (all signs point to this being untrue) or our theory of Global Dimming is as equally flawed as the AGW theories.

If we assume the former, then we’ve got to work out where the extra CO2 is coming from because it’s not on any data sets that are available, nor are substantiated by Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. If it’s the second, we have a case of a 30-year cooling gap (enough to base climate metrics on) at a time of increasing CO2.

There are more questions than answers in climate science and I am bitterly disappointed that someone I like as an equally anti-conspiracy, liberal conservative/conservative liberal, pro-evolutionist sort of guy (like yourself), would bend to the opinion of a politically-established body, rather than accept that there is a mountain of scientific, eyeball and logical evidence each side of this particular debate.