Another Questions The Assumptions Of AGW

I find it interesting that too many of the AGW “We're-All-Gonna-DIE!” cultists choose to ignore the possibility that they're wrong, particularly in light of mounting evidence that the prognostications made by those like Mann, Hansen, Jones, and a host of others have failed to materialize.

They all see carbon dioxide as the enemy, either ignoring or ignorant of the fact that it is a very necessary trace gas, and one that appears to have little actual effect on Earth's surface temperatures. They assume that some CO2 level in the recent past (meaning the past 200 to 300 years) is the 'correct' concentration and that anything above that is dooming us all. Too bad that they're wrong.

Dr. Vincent Gray addresses the 'proper' level of CO2 by trying to show us that there is no proper level. It is a dynamic that, as must be stressed again and again, is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leading one. He also proposes that the so-called energy balance put forth by the AGW faithful is flawed.

The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.

Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean.

Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to “the environment” There is no evidence that it causes harm.

The last line of Gray's piece is correct. There is no evidence the increased levels have caused harm. It is conjecture, poorly thought out hypotheses, a climate boogeyman without a single shred of evidence that it is harmful. And as Gray has shown, CO2 concentrations have been many times higher than they are now but the Earth's temperatures were not correspondingly higher.

Some may reference 'experiments' shown on YouTube that supposedly prove that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, but those experiments were flawed because they in no way replicated the actual conditions that exist (in one particular video they used a 100% CO2 atmosphere to show how it retains heat, a condition that does not exist here on Earth). A closed system such as they used gives us a false impression of what really happens, but they use it as the basis for their projections that unless we somehow cut back on all carbon emissions (an impossibility), that we're all doomed. They also haven't exactly told us how it is that they've come to the conclusion that a warmer Earth will be disastrous even though there's plenty of evidence that it won't be.

But then they never have to explain any of that. We're just supposed to take it on faith...just like they do.