Graham P Davis wrote:
Gianna wrote:

Happily, it did not suggest for a moment that pollution was anything but a
bad
idea. Essentially, it provided data on any causal link between higher
temperature and higher CO2, and demonstrated that the latter is caused by
the former, not vice versa.


Blimey! Are you sure they said that?

Yes, I am sure (-:

How did they get round the problem that
the excess CO2 can be identified as being generated artificially?

They didn't identify it as a problem, so did not need to get round it. They
stated that humans have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere but only as a tiny
proportion of the total. They further suggested that as CO2 is essential to
life, and as the total amount is (still) very small (regardless of where it came
from) it was inappropriate to describe it as a pollutant.
As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term 'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..


Also, why
does the growth in CO2 not reflect the cycles in temperature?


In the graphs they demonstrated, it did but with a delay. After the temperature
had risen the CO2 had risen, and after the temperature had fallen, the CO2 had
fallen. They attributed this to the amount of CO2 absorbed by, or released by,
the oceans in response to temperature. As the temperature changes preceded the
CO2 changes, any causality would be in that direction, rather than as stated by
the NCC deniers.

Please note that I am merely reporting here what I understand them to have said
in the programme. I believe I have done so accurately if incompletely.

I do not claim that this is (or is not) what I think as I have no clean data on
which to make such a judgement. I am generally supportive of NCC as is known
but take the view that one should not despoil one's home regardless.

I simply listen/watch/read both sides of the debate and do not assume that
someone who disagrees with me is automatically a loony.

Were I to accept the data provided by the NCC camp, I would no doubt conclude
that version was correct. Equally, if I were to accept the data provided by the
AGW camp, I would similarly conclude that version to be correct. The idea that
there is an independent source of data, untainted by either camp, is a product
of sheer ignorance.
So, the only realistic option for those not qualified to be climate scientists
(like myself) is to look at both sides carefully and without prejudice.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *