WMO: Record atmospheric CO2 levels in 2011

Likely....he is playing on the percentage of climate scientists who agree with the AGW theory. I would like to point a few things out, in hopes it may add to the debate.

There is obvious political back and forth in this issue, as there will inevitably be when varied interests are involved. I do not know however, how the science community could have done a better job than the IPCC has, unless you refer to playing the media game.

Unfortunately, we have no Carl Sagan anymore to speak to the masses in the way that requires...though there are a few who try.

Bill said:

I hope you realize that you just kinda proved my point. I see political motivation in this AGW topic and don't think the believers have done a very good job of stating their case. You didn't state your case, you came back with a bet, that's all.

Click to expand...

Well, if I've proved a point you made, I'm not sure what that point is~ Sure, there are scientists that love their jobs, and the grants bestowed on them, but what motivation do "98%" of them have to deny their own processes in favor of some "political" advantage? Maybe a few, but not 98%.

Bill said:

You've aroused my curiosity. Why is it that you feel qualified to lay odds on this topic? How do we determine a "victor"?

Click to expand...

That "is" the rub, yes? lol.....All kidding aside, I'm not a climatologist either, so I have no qualification to affirm or discredit agw, but I AM a logical thinker, and 98% vs. 2% seem like pretty good odds (unless the bet is that 1 + 1 = 3).

I do understand your skepticism, and I have no doubt that there are "some" scientists that might be along for the ride, but I am not that much of a cynic to think that 98% of them are either wrong, or devaluing their occupational relevance by sticking to bad science.

I'm no climate scientist, but I'm a geologist by degree. The rocks tell a story of very significant changes in climate overtime and game changing rises and falls in sea level. This variation means the stability of climate we appreciate is simply a matter of brevity of experience. Human history just doesn't go back far enough to witness the difference between a few hot years and a whopping 5 degrees C increase in global temperatures from for instance, the release of oceanic methane, currently trapped in mud.

I am intrigued to know which part of the theory is weak enough to doubt? That the climate can change? that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? that humans are releasing a lot of it?

Andrew Taggart said:

I'm no climate scientist, but I'm a geologist by degree. The rocks tell a story of very significant changes in climate overtime and game changing rises and falls in sea level. This variation means the stability of climate we appreciate is simply a matter of brevity of experience. Human history just doesn't go back far enough to witness the difference between a few hot years and a whopping 5 degrees C increase in global temperatures from for instance, the release of oceanic methane, currently trapped in mud.

I am intrigued to know which part of the theory is weak enough to doubt? That the climate can change? that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? that humans are releasing a lot of it?

Click to expand...

Ans= that the climate can change ALL ON IT'S OWN

Cerise said:

Ans= that the climate can change ALL ON IT'S OWN

Click to expand...

Obviously....but that was not the question.

tecoyah said:

Obviously....but that was not the question.

Click to expand...

weak enough to doubt?

I am intrigued to know which part of the theory is weak enough to doubt? That the climate can change? that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? that humans are releasing a lot of it?

Click to expand...

If the theory is in doubt
Which Part?