Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.

While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited above
ARE facts.




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


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


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