On Jun 11, 6:48*am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...5570198/spiked

* * * Meet the green who doubts 'The Science'
* * * The author of Chill explains why he's sceptical about manmade global warming - and why greens
are so intolerant.
* * * Peter Taylor

* * * So behind the appearance of consensus and settled science, there is now this tremendous
battle going on. The dissenting scientists are described by certain journalists and
environmentalists as 'denialists' and 'sceptics' funded by the oil industry. This is simply not the
case. There are top-level atmospheric physicists, oceanographers and solar scientists who do not
agree that the case is proven for global warming. Nobody is seriously saying that carbon dioxide
has no effect whatsoever,

Not true. I am. I'm saying the emperor is naked: there is no peer-
reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal
effect (measurable or otherwise) on atmospheric temperatures. This
doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility that it might have some
kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere. But even if it can be shown
to have such an effect I suspect that it will be found to be
miniscule, insignificant.

but the defenders of the faith, as it were, set up a straw man. 'These
people', they say, 'think carbon dioxide has no effect'. Only a lunatic fringe thinks that.

The facts are that we have more evidence of the existence of bigfoot
and/or space aliens than we do of CO2's purported thermal effect on
the atmosphere.

* * * The critical scientists are simply saying that carbon dioxide's effect is small, at most 20
per cent.

20 percent is huge. And critical scientists are not saying any such
thing. My guess is that CO2's thermal effect on the atmophere is
closer to 1/100th of a percent or even 1/1,000th of a percent. Since
there is no evidence either way it's anybody's guess.