Paul Hyett wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 at 19:18:21, Graham P Davis
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

Steve J wrote:


However the jury *is* still out with respect to the mechanisms behind
this, and there can be no proof either way until long after we have
all long been forgotten.


Sorry, but the jury came in and confirmed CO2's guilt.

But certainly not on a unanimous verdict...

OK, a 11-1 majority verdict.


There has been no
other theory that predicted the warming that has been going on for most of
the past eighty years, nor any that has explained it after the event. Some
people will carry on burying their heads in the sand and they'll never
believe the science, preferring it to be some big conspiracy theory, and
it's a total waste of time trying to get them to see otherwise. Mind you,
it can be fun on occasions.

What about those of us who accept the warming trend, but believe it is
overwhelming a natural one?

It's up to you, but where are the believers in "natural trends" who forecast
this rise in temperature? It's all very well to thrash around after the
event, desperately and vainly looking for excuses other than CO2 but it's a
pointless exercise. The reason for the rise was put forward in 1896, several
decades before it started. Where is the equivalent natural explanation?

In 1975, a comprehensive research into natural cycles by GARP (Global
Atmospheric Research Project) was published. According to that, global
temperatures now should be 0.5C lower than in 1940. Is this the sort of
natural explanation for global cooling - sorry, warming - that you prefer?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."