You are focusing on the wrong thing. The crux of the matter lies in examining where energy from sunlight goes when it hits carbon dioxide and where it goes when it hits water vapor,
.

Eagleye13, I have no stake in the g****l w*****g discussion. I'll only be around a few more years and after that you and your children can starve or fry. For me, I think this is a mtter more of having an interest in observing how people can ignore or twist evidence. Fortunately, most of the governments in countries where I have friends are taking measures now to alleviate the effects of c*****e c****e. You seem not to be careful when you read things on the Internet to discern what is reliable information and what is not. That the 97% figure was settled long, long ago as accurate seems not to have made a dent in your thinking.

The end of the most important part of this debate has come and gone, as most of the world's people that consider science and c*****e c****e believe that it exists, that it is anthropogenic, and that it poses many serious dangers to mankind. What remains of the discussion is comprised of little skirmishes like the ones in this forum, skirmishes that affect nothing other than the revelation that c*****e-c****e deniers don't understand evidence or science or for their own emotional reasons won't accept evidence.

You didn't squeeze hard enough, or you slept through class.

EconomistDon,

With all due respect, I don't want to spend much time today refuting just about everything you state in your post right now because I have other things to do. However, in the next few days I will go through the list of your errors one by one.

The first is that you equate the volume of water vapor and of carbon dioxide to the amount of their respective effects on the climate. Volume has NOTHING to do with it. You should be looking at the flows of energy in relation to each substance. With carbon dioxide, energy from sunlight enters to atmosphere and is trapped in the carbon dioxide. As the quantity of energy increases, so will the temperature. For all practical purposes, the energy (heat) remains in the carbon dioxide.

While it is true that far more energy flows into the water vapor, because there is so much more of it, it is also true that the energy there does not build up the way it does in carbon dioxide. The water vapor reaches a saturation point, and turns to rain. The rain falls, then evaporates, a process that requires energy. So the energy that was trapped in the water vapor is used up in the process of evaporation rather than remaining and heating the surroundings.

If you want to see this process easily, go wash your hands in a place that has airblowing hand dryers instead of towels. At the beginning of the process, your hands will feel cold because energy is taken up by the process of evaporation. Once the water on your hands has evaporated, your hands will begin to feel warm from the heat of the blowing air, which is no longer causing the cooling (energy-absorbing) effects of evaporation.

This is simple, accurate, straight-forward science.

I will deal bit-by-bit with some of the other scientific mistakes in your post, but I just don't want to spend more time on them right now. It is Sunday and I have other things to do. I will get to them later.

Obviously we have differing sources for what we each call “science.”

quote=EconomistDon]What is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day c*****e c****e?

CO2 is only 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. That is only 0.04 percent!!! CO2 is a proven green-house gas, but at 0.04 percent, it's contribution to warming is negligible. Water vapor is a far greater percentage of the atmosphere and has a far greater contribution to warming. Have you ever noticed that nights stay warmer under cloudy skies?

And let's talk about the food supply that you are so worried about. It is not plausible that corn will ever stop growing in the US; but if it did, we would buy it from Canada. And we would grow oranges north of Florida.

What really amazes me is that alarmists call us science deniers. But it is alarmists who are not just deniers; they are science ignorant. We are not going to starve because of g****l w*****g, our coastal cities will not be inundated by the ocean that is rising by a paltry 6 inches per century, and disease will not run rampant. If warmer temperatures cause disease, why aren't people dying in Miami and Mexico City? Richard, you must stop believing the crazy talk and think about the actual science.[/quote]

+Try me and see. I want to see your reasoning. Or are you just reacting emotionally ? We cannot have a discussion if you refuse to discuss.

Of course I am aware of that, but you have failed to explain why it is “ludicrous.”

Yes, Carol, c*****e c****e over long periods of time has aoccurred in the past and will occur in the future.
But you are missing the point. Mankind was not then on this earth or at least not in significant numbers.
New York City and Maimi didn't exist then as populated centers. Nobody was around to care if these places and the human homes in them became inundated or not because there were no human homes in them. That's what is different now. For an idea of what a small, short c*****e c****e episode can do, read Nature's Mutiny. We are headed for something much greater, much more long-lastring, and much more adverse to mankind than the cooling described in the book. And the point of the book is that when c*****e c****es, it affects mankind in numerous ways. Just ask yourself what the economic repercussions throughout the world are going to be if the climate warms sufficiently to reduce corn yields by 50% in the middle of this country. What will happen to corn prices ? Who in the world will be unable to afford food and will die because of this. The world is a lot more complicated than I believe you want to consider it.

What is the point of your nonsensical post ? Yes, nature may very well self-corrent, but this will take millions of years. Mars once had rivers and a lot of geological features and actiuvity that disappeared. That hasn't self-corrected recently. Will the earth be any different ?

Explain to us, please, what is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day c*****e c****e.

There is no “war” on Christianity. There is, however, a war against Christians who try to impose their religion on others.

Grandmother was spot on

Smedlev, thanks for this interesting and thoughtful post. When I said "religion," I really meant organized religion.

From what I have witnessed over many years, religion is responsible, directly or indirectly, for an enormous share of the world’s problems.