On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

OK

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.
How so?


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood. The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.

So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion with
dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all meteorological
events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin (CO2 production),
penance (drastic reduction of industrial capabilities), and indulgences
(carbon trading). And the high priests of this religion are able to
control the lives of the peasants over whom they hold sway.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+