Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[xyzer]

And as a follow on to those interested in the subject..this site

Global Warming Facts
contains some interesting observations..
Check under the ...Whats new: News and commentary heading.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'm not piling on pooey. But I do want you(and others who drop by on this thread) to read this recent lecture by a noted climate SCIENTIST who has no axe to grind. He is not being paid by the oil companies either.techno? Hillsdale College - Imprimis I urge you to read all of it and then tell us, can you really believe that there is a need to get so excited about the current warming cycle? Do you really believe that humans can influence or overcome natural forces? Was there in fact a consensus of some 2500 scientists as pooey has repeatedly told us? Ans so on...

Yes, I have, without a doubt that even if you discount Global warming due to increased carbon dioxide, we have still had major influences over the Earth's climate.
For example, Mr.Vicchio had posted in a previous thread how it was the covering of carbon soot that caused increased melting of Greenland's ice (If I recall correctly). I have also cited previously about how the pollution in China has cut rainfall in some of its regions by as much as 50%.
Once again, you question the consensus so I will, once again, cite this collection of scientific institutions that have expressed their concern for human induced climate change. Can you honestly still say that there is no consensus?

[xyzer]

Here is another recent revelation that impinges on your repeated posts Pooey.
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

You have repeatedly claimed that 2500 or some other large percentage of scientists concur wuth the issue of mans contribution to warming and what is in the UN Panels conclusions...This shows you exaggerated!

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Recent appraisal of scholarly research also shows that studies and papers on climate do not support the contention that a majority of recent scientists support the man made climate theory.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus

Its also interesting that most scientists seem to reject the catastrophic effects alarmism of the climate demagogues. These are the ones that make the headlines..... which are the favorites when it comes to press coverage

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is another recent revelation that impinges on your repeated posts Pooey. .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. You have repeatedly claimed that 2500 or some other large percentage of scientists concur wuth the issue of mans contribution to warming and what is in the UN Panels conclusions...This shows you exaggerated! Recent appraisal of scholarly research also shows that studies and papers on climate do not support the contention that a majority of recent scientists support the man made climate theory.

Seeing as you refuse to read my source, I will post extracts and info from it.
The following organisations are in agree with the IPCC's assessment and/or has concluded that climate change must be tackled;

• 1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
  3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
  4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
  5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
  6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
  7. Academié des Sciences, France
  8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
  9. Indian National Science Academy, India
  10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
  11. Science Council of Japan, Japan
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Woods Hole Research Center
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Meteorological Society
• National Research Council
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Federal Climate Change Science Program
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• American Geophysical Union
• Geological Society of America
• American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
• Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
• Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London
• Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
• American Association of State Climatologists
• US Geological Survey (USGS)
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• World Meteorological Organization

Source
There's a few more but finger is getting tired. Can you stop living in denial now? Or does God himself need to come down and have a few words with you?

Quote by: xyzer Its also interesting that most scientists seem to reject the catastrophic effects alarmism of the climate demagogues. These are the ones that make the headlines..... which are the favorites when it comes to press coverage

Now, given if the survey was true, even it states this

However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

Now, if I recall correctly, when someone is sitting on the fence, it is not considered as rejecting an idea/issue/plan, but undecided. Furthermore, I do not recall the IPCC issuing a certain statement for catastrophic change but just includes projections. In addition, I can't comment further as the apparent cited paper has not been published yet.

[xyzer]

Pooey? There you go

Seeing as you refuse to read my source

again...

How can you make such an unproven assertion? I have read many of your sources and I still remain a skeptic? That means I either don't place complete faith in your sources, and/or have placed my belief in those scientists who don't believe that human actions can change the current warming cycle?(which has slowed measurably in the last 5 or 6 years) I'm not convinced that human actions which depend on C02 reduction are effective enough to have any significat change?

I'm convinced even if we could it would take many centuries and much sacrifice.How do we know whether the much more influential natural forces will change the cycle to one of global cooling?.Experience and history tell us it was happening way before humans were even around?Yet there isn't any certainty that that type attempt has any real chance of success. Natuiral influences are much more likely to have the major impact on climate. Logic also convinces me of that!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey? There you go again... How can you make such an unproven assertion? I have read many of your sources and I still remain a skeptic? That means I either don't place complete faith in your sources, and/or have placed my belief in those scientists who don't believe that human actions can change the current warming cycle?(which has slowed measurably in the last 5 or 6 years) I'm not convinced that human actions which depend on C02 reduction are effective enough to have any significat change?

That is irrelevant, you refuse to believe about the consensus and my source clearly lists out that you're wrong. The statements made by the scientific institutions are very clear, they are in agreement with the conclusions of the IPCC reports. Whether you agree with these reports is irrelevant, but the fact of the matter is, these institutions do and they represent thousands of scientists. Therefore, you are in denial when you say there is no consensus, because there clearly is.

Quote by: xyzer I'm convinced even if we could it would take many centuries and much sacrifice.How do we know whether the much more influential natural forces will change the cycle to one of global cooling?.Experience and history tell us it was happening way before humans were even around?Yet there isn't any certainty that that type attempt has any real chance of success. Natuiral influences are much more likely to have the major impact on climate. Logic also convinces me of that!

What kind of sacrifices? I have already stated that I think that we should move towards better energy efficiency, this would not hinder us in the long term and is our eventual goal.

[Century 25]

Besides the overwhelming concurrence of earth's scientists.. you may also note that Russia recently sent a party to the north pole, claiming "rights" to that area of earth. (It's always about the oil.. stupidsky..!!) - and Mr Bush proclaimed that the Canadian NW passage is.. "open" for.. (you fill in..) - duh..

By the by.. it was 111F today here in the Valley of the SUN.., following the 113F of yesterday.. today made 31 days 110F or higher, and so far (Summer is not over for us) - we have had our.. warmest recorded.. since records were kept.. (not that long, really) - but still.. :eek:

Yes, I believe it's hot air all right. And it is goosed along via humans eager to cash-in, regardless of the consequences for our future & following generations. Piss on a buncha greedy ninny's..

[xyzer]

You ask what kind of sacrifices, pooey.
Here is one estimate..http://downloads.heartland.org/11133.pdf

This appraisal shows what it would cost to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels:
Gas prices would increase by $.65 per gallon
Electric bills would double
2.4 million jobs would be lost
The effort would cost state governments 116 billion $ in revenue.

That would require sacrifice and is in fact a staggering blow to the economy! Just add in the rest of the world(which would obviously have to participate)in the global effort and the figures are significant.

Facing such costs I want certainty!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer You ask what kind of sacrifices, pooey. Here is one estimate..http://downloads.heartland.org/11133.pdf This appraisal shows what it would cost to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels: Gas prices would increase by $.65 per gallon Electric bills would double 2.4 million jobs would be lost The effort would cost state governments 116 billion $ in revenue. That would require sacrifice and is in fact a staggering blow to the economy! Just add in the rest of the world(which would obviously have to participate)in the global effort and the figures are significant. Facing such costs I want certainty!

Yet in the Stern report, it states clearly that if we spend about 1% of our GDP, we should be able to start tackling climate change. Is that too much to sacrifice in order to safeguard our future? Source
Now I don't mean to imply that because his report was published 3 years after your source, it can automatically overwrite yours but given that climate science is still being highly researching and progressing, I'd rather take the most updated version from a respectable researcher.

Furthermore, you have ignored my question again, how is moving towards a more energy efficient way of living, where you waste less and inevitably save on money spend on energy be anything but beneficial?

[EnragedParrot]

xyzer, methinks you make invalid arguments. You have presented several arguments in this thread and claimed that each of them constitutes evidence against anthropogenic global warming theory. But looking at them, it seems that this is not the case. None of your conclusions follow from your premise (which is that humans can't influence or aren't influencing the climate). They're non-sequitur.

For example, you have repeatedly stated that the climate has changed many times before humans were around to change it. This is true, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We can't conclude that because humans were not around to influence the climate in the past, we can't be influencing it now. All we can take from the argument is that climate can change without our influence. Which we already knew.

You also assert that the famous "Hockey Stick" graph is flawed. Again, this may or may not be true (my current understanding is that while the graph has a few minor flaws, they are not statistically significant), but it tells us nothing about the validity of anthropogenic global warming theory.

Lastly, you say that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda piece and shouldn't be trusted. Naturally, this too tells us nothing about the theory itself.

I should like to see you present, in your own words (the link game is no fun for anybody), an argument against the theory itself. I know you've probably done so (or attempted to do so) in the other, gargantuan, global warming thread a few posts down. But as I don't think I have enough time left in my life to read through it all, I hope you wouldn't mind doing so again in here.

---EP---

[xyzer]

enraged parrot posts.

None of your conclusions follow from your premise (which is that humans can't influence or aren't influencing the climate). They're non-sequitur

My premise has been(read the record here and on the global warming thread) that (other) natural factors have a much more powerful and overwhelming influence on climate change! I have repeatedly cited the fact that C02 constitutes about 1% of the atmospheric gases and humans create some small fraction of that 1%? Does it really make sense to you that changing a small fraction of a small fraction of 1% of the atmospheric C02 is going to affect weather? Is that a logical conclusion You speak of this use of logic as a non-seqitur? Strange comparison with logical deductive reasoning? The flawed premise is the one that humans can change a climate trend? There is no certitude that humans are influencing climate..is there? Despite all Pooeys protestations his only answers is that scientists made a correlation between two factors? And this in a limited period?

Concentrating on that tenuous thread many are ignoring these natural influences which have historically had a much greater influence on climate!. The sun and its magnetic shifts, cosmic particles, continental drift, the earths rotating around the sun in a changing orbit, volcanic activity, ocean currents and other natural factors are major contributors.... humans are an infintesimally small contributor?
I ask you does it logically follow that such a small contributor can overwhelm what has been naturally occuring over the billions of years on this planet?

I have repeatedly mentioned that the alarmist IPCC report and subsequent press furor over climate warming are based on correlations between climate warming and anthropogenic increases in C02? Correlation are there but there is doubt that they are certainty? e.g. Even though there was much economic activity(rising anthropogenic C02 creation) after WW2 there was a cooling period of several decades? That doesn't correlate? We were cooling at the same time C02 was increasing? The same is true just recently, it has been slightly cooler in the late 90s and early 2000s even though C02 is increasing? Correlation?

The hockey stick graph was statisically flawed because the warming period of 8/900 AD was not involved skewing the graph into its alarming form? You can also add that we have not had the ability to measure global temps accurately until the last 25 years of so? How then can we logically intertwine global temps and C02 increases with any accuracy? Another factor is the press definition of the warming cycle is mixed up with the issue of humans possible influence of it??Admitting that the climate is warmer is far cry from admitting that humans have caused it and thus can change it?

Fact, its been growing gradually warmer(with fluctuations) since the ice age. Yes there have been warming periods fairly recently 900AD(Greenland) followed by a "little Ice Age in the 1700s. Was the period before the ice age warmer than this one? If so did humans cause those higher temps?

I remain a skeptic! Logic drives me to it!

[EnragedParrot]

Again, your logic is non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because CO2 makes up a small portion of the atmosphere its effects must also be small. The ability of a gas to affect the climate depends upon its concentration in the atmosphere and its ability to absorb outgoing IR radiation. For example, nitrogen gas comprises about 80% of our atmosphere, but it is transparent to both visible and IR radiation, so has very little to do with the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, CO2 is a very potent absorber of IR radiation, so even a small amount of it in the atmosphere can have a very large affect on the climate. In fact, CO2 is responsible for about 9-26% of the overall greenhouse effect (the range is due to spectral overlaps with the other absorbers).

The idea that global warming theory is based solely on the correlation between temperatures and carbon dioxide levels is a common mistake. What we have is a theory based on physical laws with mounds of observational and experimental data supporting it. The physical properties of CO2 can and have been directly measured in laboratory experiments. The fact that temperature correlates so nicely with CO2 levels is simply more evidence supporting the theory, it isn't the basis of it.

Another mistake is assuming that GW theory states that CO2 is the only driver of climate. There are a great many factors influencing the climate. The drop during the post war economic boom was due to a myriad of factors that temporarily overwhelmed the CO2 signal.


The absence of the medieval warm period is not the main issue in the controversy surrounding the graph, which is highly technical and far beyond my meagre understanding, in the scientific community. In fact, the graph correctly depicted the climate at the time, since the medieval warm period was not a globally synchronous event, it was a series of regional changes over a four-hundred year period. While there were times during the WMP when temperatures were higher than those of today, the global mean never approached today's temperatures. If you object to the Mann et al Hockey stick graph, there are dozens of other independent reconstructions showing the exact same thing. Here are a few of them.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer enraged parrot posts. My premise has been(read the record here and on the global warming thread) that (other) natural factors have a much more powerful and overwhelming influence on climate change! I have repeatedly cited the fact that C02 constitutes about 1% of the atmospheric gases and humans create some small fraction of that 1%? Does it really make sense to you that changing a small fraction of a small fraction of 1% of the atmospheric C02 is going to affect weather? Is that a logical conclusion You speak of this use of logic as a non-seqitur? Strange comparison with logical deductive reasoning? The flawed premise is the one that humans can change a climate trend? There is no certitude that humans are influencing climate..is there? Despite all Pooeys protestations his only answers is that scientists made a correlation between two factors? And this in a limited period?

This is a completely flawed argument based on ignorance and bad knowledge. I have told you many times, the fact that CO2 is only around 380 ppm does not make it insignificant; it's an important greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to the retention of heat. Without it, life on Earth would be completely different. Again, I urge you read up on CO2's importance and hopefully, that'll you stop you from embarrassing yourself in future. But hey, I've already told you multiple times and not once have you acknowledged this, I'm sure scientific facts are of no concern to you.

Quote by: xyzer Concentrating on that tenuous thread many are ignoring these natural influences which have historically had a much greater influence on climate!. The sun and its magnetic shifts, cosmic particles, continental drift, the earths rotating around the sun in a changing orbit, volcanic activity, ocean currents and other natural factors are major contributors.... humans are an infintesimally small contributor? I ask you does it logically follow that such a small contributor can overwhelm what has been naturally occuring over the billions of years on this planet?

You bring up a red herring. Furthermore, you have no evidence to support your assertion that Earth's warming is due to the above yet you readily discount scientific reports that place the blame on human activity. Your arrogance knows no bounds, do you honestly believe that the thousands of climate scientists out there in the world haven't thought to look at the factors you've listed above?

Quote by: xyzer I have repeatedly mentioned that the alarmist IPCC report and subsequent press furor over climate warming are based on correlations between climate warming and anthropogenic increases in C02? Correlation are there but there is doubt that they are certainty? e.g. Even though there was much economic activity(rising anthropogenic C02 creation) after WW2 there was a cooling period of several decades? That doesn't correlate? We were cooling at the same time C02 was increasing? The same is true just recently, it has been slightly cooler in the late 90s and early 2000s even though C02 is increasing? Correlation?

As I had pointed out before, the slight cooling from the 1940s can be explained by human activities and a volcanic event. You may choose not to acknowledge the facts but it certainly won't aid you in your argument of logic.

Quote by: xyzer The hockey stick graph was statisically flawed because the warming period of 8/900 AD was not involved skewing the graph into its alarming form? You can also add that we have not had the ability to measure global temps accurately until the last 25 years of so? How then can we logically intertwine global temps and C02 increases with any accuracy? Another factor is the press definition of the warming cycle is mixed up with the issue of humans possible influence of it??Admitting that the climate is warmer is far cry from admitting that humans have caused it and thus can change it?

Again, I've pointed out before, the Hockey stick graph by Mann et al. is just fine. Its had a few tweaks over the years as modelling has gotten better but has not been ruled as statistically flawed as you've claimed it to be. If you truly believe that you are a greater authority than the US National Academy of Science on this matter then you're more deluded than I thought.

Quote by: xyzer Fact, its been growing gradually warmer(with fluctuations) since the ice age. Yes there have been warming periods fairly recently 900AD(Greenland) followed by a "little Ice Age in the 1700s. Was the period before the ice age warmer than this one? If so did humans cause those higher temps? I remain a skeptic! Logic drives me to it!

You remain a skeptic because you choose to stuck your head in the sand. Then add a tonne of cement on top of that. There is little logic to your badly drawn out conclusions, just layers upon layers on misunderstanding and ignorance.
That ends today's game of Xyzer's ignorance. I hope everyone tunes in for tomorrow where he repeats the same myths and lies &/or posts the latest things that the Economist think tanks can conjure up.

[xyzer]

You bring up a red herring. Furthermore, you have no evidence to support your assertion that Earth's warming is due to the above yet you readily discount scientific reports that place the blame on human activity. Your arrogance knows no bounds, do you honestly believe that the thousands of climate scientists out there in the world haven't thought to look at the factors you've listed above?

Durn it PooeyI just posted that I didn't think C02 increases were as important a factor as natural causes in climate change? How does that translate to you that I discount any influence? Talk about ignoring reality, you evidently are so arrogant that you ignore any contra evidence and just keep on spewing the latest inflamatory dogma! You ask for evidence that natural cycles and influence are causing warming? Good golly gosh the record is filled with evidence of past climate change? And most of it occurred well befor humankind was around? I'm asking for centainty and you respond by saying all scientifice conclusions are couched in uncertainty..qualified by words like, could, might etc?

Another anomaly in the anthropogenic reasoning ...A 1% increase in global temps in the last 100 years (partly the result of proxies and more recently with fairly accurate and encompassing mesurement) is significant? So significant that attempting to reduce human emissions which constitute a small fraction of the 1% C02 in the atmosphere will have a significant affect on reducing global warmth in the near future?

This effort would have to include all industrial production in every country in the world to possible have any effect? Who is going to correlate and enforce such an effort? Who is going to monitor it? lf natural changes impede or alter the results of such an effort what do we do then?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Durn it PooeyI just posted that I didn't think C02 increases were as important a factor as natural causes in climate change? How does that translate to you that I discount any influence?

It doesn't and I didn't claim so.

Quote by: xyzer Talk about ignoring reality, you evidently are so arrogant that you ignore any contra evidence and just keep on spewing the latest inflamatory dogma! You ask for evidence that natural cycles and influence are causing warming? Good golly gosh the record is filled with evidence of past climate change? And most of it occurred well befor humankind was around?

That is not what I asked for. I asked that you show evidence for these factor's involvement in the current warming. It has never been in contention that climate changes have occurred naturally before. No one here has denied that, ever. You are using a misleading argument and I'm not going to fall for your cheap tactics.

Quote by: xyzer I'm asking for centainty and you respond by saying all scientifice conclusions are couched in uncertainty..qualified by words like, could, might etc?

I have already told you, pick up any scientific paper published today and you will find that all the results and discussions will contain such cautious language no matter how certain the results are. That is the way of science speak, because nothing short of the speed of light has absolute certainty.

Quote by: xyzer Another anomaly in the anthropogenic reasoning ...A 1% increase in global temps in the last 100 years (partly the result of proxies and more recently with fairly accurate and encompassing mesurement) is significant? So significant that attempting to reduce human emissions which constitute a small fraction of the 1% C02 in the atmosphere will have a significant affect on reducing global warmth in the near future?

We've currently seen an increase of 0.7 degrees celsius, how you can translate that to 1% increase, I'm not sure, you'll need to show me the calculations.
Furthermore, an increase of 280ppm to 380ppm is hardly a small fraction increase and I have already cited the fact that just because CO2 is a small component, it does not mean that it is not an important greenhouse gas. Because it is and you can't seem to grasp that fact. It seems all you can do is parrot the same myths and lies over and over, in the hope that people will believe you some day. Unfortunately for you, many of us have attended and graduated from High school, so we actually know better.

Quote by: xyzer This effort would have to include all industrial production in every country in the world to possible have any effect? Who is going to correlate and enforce such an effort? Who is going to monitor it? lf natural changes impede or alter the results of such an effort what do we do then?

Those are the questions for the UN and each individual country to answer. I won't be drawn in to this political minefield.

[Enlightenee]

RealClimate
this provides you some pretty damn good proof it exists, and there is also a list of other sites there as well.
I'm quite sure that the fact we are clearing land, burning forests and also manufacturing goods at break neck speeds would have something to do with increased temperatures and different amounts of different carbon isotopes in the air that are normally present without man's influence.

[xyzer]

OK Pooey so I had a typo? I meant 1 degree which you confirm with your figure of less than 1 degree? Staggering amount of warming, right? Now give us an estimate of the amount that warming will increase in the next century? Remember correlation is not causation?

What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.

Just a little reminder for you and the illogical parrot. There are others who question the logical aspects of the C02 theory?

You keep asking about studies involving natural influences..I posted this sometime backGlobal warming and cosmic radiation — Spacecenter Henrik Svensmark and his cosmic particles affecting cloud formation which affect climate.
There are many more such studies if you would just pull away from the IPCC and Gore you might begin to see the light?

Here is anothe expert closer to you Pooey who is a skeptic?

Don't tell that to Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come. The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period. Dr. Weiss believes that man-made greenhouse gases have recently had a role in warming the earth, although the extent of that role, he says, cannot yet be known. What is known, however, is that throughout earth's history climate change has been driven by factors other than man: "Variable behaviour of the sun is an obvious explanation," says Dr. Weiss, "and there is increasing evidence that Earth's climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity."

You can enlighten yourself here...
Will the sun cool us?

[xyzer]

Brilliant conclusion parrot.

It doesn't follow that because CO2 makes up a small portion of the atmosphere its effects must also be small. The ability of a gas to affect the climate depends upon its concentration in the atmosphere and its ability to absorb outgoing IR radiation.

If I put one drop of arsenic in a trillion gallons of water I'm going to fatally poison one human drinker? If we raise C02 from 200 parts per million to over 300 parts in a century that will have a noticeable affect? You don't even rescue yourself when you admit that much depends on the concentration? Do I dare conclude that the proportion and not the portion is the issue? Or is that an illogical deduction?
Is it fair to ask just how much C02 is absorbed by all the plant life on this globe and how would it compare with that which humans create? You almost come around to reality when you admit its what the gas does to the heat transfer that matters? Can we include the moisture in the atmosphere