Why we should listen to the 97%

[Snookie]

Just remember boys and girls. Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources. It only takes a few million years.

BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.

 

[Abraham3]

Their charter gives them no such ability. They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW. Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.

Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:

1) Humans are responsible for almost every bit of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
2) That CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've been experiencing.
3) Several positive feedback mechanisms and process alterations have been triggered by the warming.
4) The rate of warming and the pace of affectation is rising.
5) We're already hosed. Due to the human idiocy that produced folks like you, we've done nothing and now it's more than too late. I want you to live to a ripe old age so that you get to see as much as possible of the death and destruction that you kept us from warding off. I really want you to see what you've done.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Their charter gives them no such ability. They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW. Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.

Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:

1) Humans are responsible for almost every bit of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
2) That CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've been experiencing.
3) Several positive feedback mechanisms and process alterations have been triggered by the warming.
4) The rate of warming and the pace of affectation is rising.
5) We're already hosed. Due to the human idiocy that produced folks like you, we've done nothing and now it's more than too late. I want you to live to a ripe old age so that you get to see as much as possible of the death and destruction that you kept us from warding off. I really want you to see what you've done.

If you can prove No. 1 in your list, I would be really amazed given that we have scientific proof that CO2 levels have been much higher than present in the history of the Earth long before man discovered fire or any other fossil fuels.

And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD

So far nobody has been able to do it.

 

[mamooth]

If you can prove No. 1 in your list,

Done long ago through isotope ratio measurements.

And Roy Spencer has

... dodged the issue very ineptly.

He starts out talking about how the C13 fraction shows the CO2 is from human activities.

Then he flips to a "well, we can't be sure of anything, therefore the CO2 might not be from human activities" line of argument.

Handwaving. It's not enough to experiment with curve-fitting. A curve can be fit to anything, especially if one slides the time axis around as Spencer does. Mechanisms and predictions are required. _Why_ does Spencer think CO2 follows temp after 9 months? What physical process drives it? What predictions does he make from it? He's had 4.5 years since that article. Any successful predictions?

Maintream scientists, of course, do include mechanisms and predictions that have come true, which is why they have credibility.

 

[westwall]

Just remember boys and girls. Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources. It only takes a few million years.

BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.

Your name is so appropriate! A braindead slut spreading her legs for fame and fortune.

 

[westwall]

Their charter gives them no such ability. They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW. Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.

Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:

1) Humans are responsible for almost every bit of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
2) That CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've been experiencing.
3) Several positive feedback mechanisms and process alterations have been triggered by the warming.
4) The rate of warming and the pace of affectation is rising.
5) We're already hosed. Due to the human idiocy that produced folks like you, we've done nothing and now it's more than too late. I want you to live to a ripe old age so that you get to see as much as possible of the death and destruction that you kept us from warding off. I really want you to see what you've done.

Doesn't it ever bother you that the fraudsters have to rename and rebrand the con job every few years? Must make it tougher than hell, baffling the natives that is, when one lie of yours after another is shot down in flames.

I would be getting pretty tired of their consistent failures. What keeps you going? Is it just faith, or do you hope for a big cash payout in the end?

 

[westwall]

If you can prove No. 1 in your list,

Done long ago through isotope ratio measurements.

And Roy Spencer has

... dodged the issue very ineptly.

He starts out talking about how the C13 fraction shows the CO2 is from human activities.

Then he flips to a "well, we can't be sure of anything, therefore the CO2 might not be from human activities" line of argument.

Handwaving. It's not enough to experiment with curve-fitting. A curve can be fit to anything, especially if one slides the time axis around as Spencer does. Mechanisms and predictions are required. _Why_ does Spencer think CO2 follows temp after 9 months? What physical process drives it? What predictions does he make from it? He's had 4.5 years since that article. Any successful predictions?

Maintream scientists, of course, do include mechanisms and predictions that have come true, which is why they have credibility.

No, it hasn't. The residence time of CO2 is 5 to 15 years based on the IPCC's own report.
Yet again you lie through your teeth little kitty.

 

[bripat9643]

Just remember boys and girls. Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources. It only takes a few million years.

BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.

Spouting slogans isn't a substitute for thought, but it's the closest thing a liberal has.

 

[Abraham3]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

Problem is, your "RESPONDENTS" aren't climate scientists. Most of them aren't scientists of any flavor.

 

[Abraham3]

Their charter gives them no such ability. They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW. Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.

Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:

1) Humans are responsible for almost every bit of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
2) That CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've been experiencing.
3) Several positive feedback mechanisms and process alterations have been triggered by the warming.
4) The rate of warming and the pace of affectation is rising.
5) We're already hosed. Due to the human idiocy that produced folks like you, we've done nothing and now it's more than too late. I want you to live to a ripe old age so that you get to see as much as possible of the death and destruction that you kept us from warding off. I really want you to see what you've done.

If you can prove No. 1 in your list, I would be really amazed given that we have scientific proof that CO2 levels have been much higher than present in the history of the Earth long before man discovered fire or any other fossil fuels.

Isotopic Characterisation of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Using Isotopic and Radiocarbon Analysis

Isotopic Investigation Of Anthropogenic Sources Of Atmospheric Nitrogen And Carbon Along Spatial Gradients - D-Scholarship@Pitt

The effect of anthropogenic CO sub (2) on the carbon isotope composition of marine phytoplankton | Jay Cullen - Academia.edu

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1996/PhysChemEarthMeijer/1996PhysChemEarthMeijer.pdf

The carbon isotopic signature of CO2 in the current and penultimate interglacial period: ocean, peat or human influences? | Jochen Schmitt - Academia.edu

Atmospheric CO2: Looking at the data | Protons for Breakfast Blog

https://www.sindark.com/2009/11/18/climate-change-isotopic-ratios/

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming :: Monthly Review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Is that enough for you?

And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD

So far nobody has been able to do it.

Spencer posted a response the very next day of someone "doing it".: The Origin of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 – a Response from Ferdinand Engelbeen « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Abraham3]

Just remember boys and girls. Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources. It only takes a few million years.

BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.

Spouting slogans isn't a substitute for thought, but it's the closest thing a liberal has.

Slogans? Those were jokes. And you are the LAST person on this forum to get on someone's case for inadequate content.

Well... maybe not the last. GSlack is the last.

 

[Abraham3]

Yeah..

"..... to moving away from fossil fuels" --- to WHAT? The only plausible solution for Electrical generation is widespread implementation of Nuclear Power. Is this OK with Dressler?

Yes, I suspect it is. And it's fine with me. And it seems to be fine with most of the AGW-believers here.

There are no TRUE alternatives on the 'renewable' list.

I don't even know what that means, but it sounds like: not very much.

In terms of transportation energy -- the best ENGINEERED solution is to shift to Hydrogen manufactured with renewables OFF-LINE..

I'm glad to see you like hydrogen, but how is that solution "engineered"?

His statement is a phoney choice --- WITHOUT a choice.

Explain. Which statement?

And the concept that we have a decade or two to waste with $Trill in infrastructure we don't need, does not make me feel better about "it being reversible".. Evidentally -- Dressler feels no sense of urgency or CERTAINTY... He'd make a GREAT ADVISOR to the Great Waffler POTUS we currently have.

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

You lost me at the "If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing," --- which is why I haven't participated here.

It certainly looks amazingly like participation.

It's not in evidence by any means that there are concise QUESTIONS that 97% of some techy group would agree to.. Especially post - ClimateGate.. And more importantly -- since the lying and spinning has reached EPIC proportions..

Bullshit. The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW. That's a fact. You're the one trying to spin a different reality out of the vacuum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah..

"..... to moving away from fossil fuels" --- to WHAT? The only plausible solution for Electrical generation is widespread implementation of Nuclear Power. Is this OK with Dressler?

Yes, I suspect it is. And it's fine with me. And it seems to be fine with most of the AGW-believers here.

There are no TRUE alternatives on the 'renewable' list.

I don't even know what that means, but it sounds like: not very much.



I'm glad to see you like hydrogen, but how is that solution "engineered"?



Explain. Which statement?



Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

You lost me at the "If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing," --- which is why I haven't participated here.

It certainly looks amazingly like participation.

It's not in evidence by any means that there are concise QUESTIONS that 97% of some techy group would agree to.. Especially post - ClimateGate.. And more importantly -- since the lying and spinning has reached EPIC proportions..

Bullshit. The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW. That's a fact. You're the one trying to spin a different reality out of the vacuum.

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

 

[flacaltenn]

Their charter gives them no such ability. They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW. Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.

Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:

1) Humans are responsible for almost every bit of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
2) That CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've been experiencing.
3) Several positive feedback mechanisms and process alterations have been triggered by the warming.
4) The rate of warming and the pace of affectation is rising.
5) We're already hosed. Due to the human idiocy that produced folks like you, we've done nothing and now it's more than too late. I want you to live to a ripe old age so that you get to see as much as possible of the death and destruction that you kept us from warding off. I really want you to see what you've done.

To reject the literal reading of the Charter of the IPCC --- means you either have no command of the English language or refuse to ponder the implications of a politically directed commission with a bias in their very formation..

Lemme repeat here.. Maybe some 6th grader can help you with the sentence construction..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

" ... relevent to ... " is a clarifying RESTRICTIVE clause. That's NOT a nitpick.. It's fundamental to understanding WHO is to be pleased with their work product.

#1 --- Human produced CO2 is 4% of a 700MT/yr exchange between land and ocean and sky. It is no more potent than the NATURAL concentration of CO2 that FREELY moves every year in that cycle. At the end of the CO2 doubling period from 280ppm to 560ppm, we MIGHT see a 1.2degC increase for that period.

#2 --- CO2 COULD be a significant cause of the observed warming, but not the primary cause.. As witnessed by the ability of OTHER forcings to negate it's effect on temperature for over a decade now. The warmer clan has OVERSTATED the role of CO2 and purposely UNDERSTATED the magnitude and significance of any other forcing.

#3 --- Positive feedbacks are not well understood, nor can you responsibly state that they have already been triggered by the 1degF that it has warmed in your lifetime. Nor has the OBSERVED temp increases exceeded the THEORETICAL warming of 1.2DegC at doubling. If positive feedbacks were anything NEAR the 3 or 4 or 5 Climate Sensitivity numbers commonly advertised -- the warming would have exceeded the "CO2 only" line by now. To buy into this "warming amplification" you have to accept that the Earth is such a Junker of a planet that a 1.5degC forcing change from ANY source -- will light a fuse for it's destruction.. The climate is NOT that fragile..

#4 --- Just a pile of horseshit actually.... Affectations rising? HOW MUCH Kool-Aid are you consuming here?

#5 ---- Psychotic horseshit here... Death and Destruction.. From a 1.2DegC GLOBAL average change??? Bad mushrooms here dude...

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah..

"..... to moving away from fossil fuels" --- to WHAT? The only plausible solution for Electrical generation is widespread implementation of Nuclear Power. Is this OK with Dressler?

Yes, I suspect it is. And it's fine with me. And it seems to be fine with most of the AGW-believers here.

Not fine with the leftist ecofrauds. Who will block every attempt to revive and renew our use of nuclear power generation

There are no TRUE alternatives on the 'renewable' list.

I don't even know what that means, but it sounds like: not very much.

Really? Is English your 1st language? Obama closes 3 coal plants in Pennsylvania yesterday.. QUICK --- Quote me a solution from the official eco-fraud list of "alternatives" than won't interrupt the surgical team at the hospitals. There isn't AN ALTERNATIVE is there?

I'm glad to see you like hydrogen, but how is that solution "engineered"?

The current "non-plan" of proliferating batterywagons charged by an already taxed grid generation and distribution system is NOT engineered. It will cost $Trills of dollars to beef up the grid and ATTEMPT to make it flexible enough to incorporate wind and solar as marginal additions. Taking wind and solar OFF-GRID and using them to make Hydrogen solves 4 or 5 problems at once. No grid infrastructure required. STORAGE for sporadic wind and solar is INHERENT in the fuel itself. ((for instance)). This latter solution is simply "better engineering".

Explain. Which statement?



Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

You lost me at the "If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing," --- which is why I haven't participated here.

It certainly looks amazingly like participation.

It's not in evidence by any means that there are concise QUESTIONS that 97% of some techy group would agree to.. Especially post - ClimateGate.. And more importantly -- since the lying and spinning has reached EPIC proportions..

Bullshit. The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW. That's a fact. You're the one trying to spin a different reality out of the vacuum.

Not a fact.. Over 1/2 of the surveys you cite are WAAAAY old. Before ClimateGate. And they don't ask the proper questions. Even if I BELIEVED in voting on science, I would put little faith in Scientists who can't get the units right for an "energy diagram" or who are just now discovering that the Climate System has storage components as part of it..

You ignored one of your OWN CITES in another thread that COMPLETELY refutes your assertion.. I bumped the post THREE TIMES and you refused to comment on it. Seems like you couldn't or wouldn't discuss your own link because I discovered it refuted this 97% consensus bullshit that you're spouting..

You seem to hide a lot.. Are you just a busy man? Or you don't want to defend this crap?

 

[bripat9643]

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

Delaying our response saves us money. The eco-nutburgers haven't proved that AGW will cost us a single red cent.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

What is 36 + 17 + 10+5?

By my count it is 68%.

As according to your material, 68% of those polled believe man plays some role in climate change.

 

[Saigon]

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Everyone knows the US will have to move into better, cheaper, cleaner forms of energy at some point - but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.

Add to that the failure of the US to prepare for the droughts, rising sea levels and warmer temperatures that everyone knows are coming.....it's costing billions.

Does anyone remember 2012?!

The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_North_American_drought

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD

So far nobody has been able to do it.

Spencer posted a response the very next day of someone "doing it".: The Origin of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 – a Response from Ferdinand Engelbeen « Roy Spencer, PhD

No proof is posted there. Only a thoughtful engineer's opinion based on mathematical equations he poses as an argument. The engineer was taken seriously by Dr. Spencer because of his thoughtful contribution to the debate. Dr. Spencer's questions to the engineer are interspersed within the text of the argument. An argument is not proof nor can a winner of a very cordial and good debate be declared until Spencer's questions are addressed.

But the engineer didn't offer his post as proof but rather said he was 'pretty sure' because. . . .

THAT is the way debate should be conducted and not via a list of statements presented as fact that in fact have not yet been shown to be fact.

Of interest, the engineer qualified his opinion early in his argument with this:

I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts’ weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all. But we disagree about the origin of the increase. I am pretty sure that the increase is man-made and have made a comprehensive page to show all the arguments to that at:

I did appreciate the engineer's argument however, and will file away his hypothesis among the many other opinions I've read over the years. The truth will be found only by having an open mind re ALL scholarly information presented. It won't be found by seeking out and considering only the sociopolitical opinions that we want to be true.