"lgb" wrote in message
...
Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.


In article ,
says...
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A least half of them are junk,
but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However,
look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...s/carbon3.html
http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/24.../story.10.html
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectur...r96/page3.html

And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give
references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references
that prove I'm wrong.

In your own words, you "couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read
on this".

Actually, I was more interested in the assertion that atmospheric O2 was
falling. As it turns out, although you won't find this cited in any of the
links above, O2 is falling at a rate of about 2ppm/year.
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm). [see how easy it
is to provide cites?]. I don't think that it's a "widely known fact" that
O2 levels are decreasing. I'd say that many people probably know that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but that doesn't automatically mean to the
average person that O2 goes down. And by the way, according to the author
of the artlicle I referenced, decreasing O2 is never going to be a problem.

And just so we're clear, I don't dispute that CO2 is rising. I've just
never heard that there was the same level of concern with atmospheric O2.

Here's some more unsupported assertions:

1. The earth is round (OK, more pear shaped), not flat.

Technically, the earth is shaped like an oblate spheroid.

todd