Let's Be Sensible Please

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The word is resent not recent. Two totally different dictions. Then again, you are Swedish so it's understandable. The Swedes were put on earth so that the Pollocks would have someone to tell jokes about.

[Zeatrix 0]

The word is resent not recent. Two totally different dictions. Then again, you are Swedish so it's understandable. The Swedes were put on earth so that the Pollocks would have someone to tell jokes about.

You are right, my bad...About the Pollocks I don't know, but we swedes tend to tell jokes about norwegians, among many other things, how bad they are at poker. Then again they have billions of dollars in their oil fund and we have a big debt...

[Zeatrix 0]

I am a global warming nubee, though a college graduate (since it appears to have an opinion you must be educated) but I have come across several things researching that I have not seen justified by the so called "experts"....

You bring up some really good points. Nothing about this is easy. That's generally why we (citizens of different states) leave it up to the government and similar bodies to decide for us. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about global warming, I've only read up on the available knowledge and have tried to educate myself as well as I could. Worth noting though is that most of the things I've decided to change in my life has other positive effects that could warrant a change in themselves. For example, I try to use less energy. Now the energy I consume still is a lot more environmentally friendly than most energy around the world. Sweden does not produce any energy from burning oil or other fossil fuels, we rely mostly on nuclear power and hydroelectricity. Although it does produce CO2, it ain't much in comparison. There are downsides to both though, nuclear power produces nuclear waste and hydroelectricity dams up rivers and changes nature. None of these things can be considered good, so saving energy lessens the need for these.Recycling is another thing. Even if the CO2 saved when recycling doesn't affect the temperature of the earth it is still a very good thing to be doing. Mankind is using up more and more resources and we are aren't getting fewer with time. For the earth to be able to sustain over 9 billion people (I've heard this is the projected amount of people will live on earth when it stabilizes) we have to use the resources we have efficiently.Gasoline. We are running out of oil sooner or later, when we do we won't be able to use oil as our primary source of energy. I think it's time to find a viable replacement energy source now. Walking away from oil will take decades and in my opinion it's better to get it done before it's too late.Back to global warming again. Yes, the scientist could be working together, exaggerating the problem only for them to get attention and funding. I have just chosen to have more faith in the academic world than I have in the business world, and this for a few reasons. Firstly from my experiences with persons from both sides. The overwhelming majority of businesspeople are sensible and intelligent people, but there are bad seeds. Businesses are there to make money, therefore most people work in it to make money. Science is about making progress, finding out the "truth", and people who have a hunger for this is drawn to it, at least in my oversimplified world. Also, logic supports the notion of global warming, at least my logic. I guess it all comes down to my gut, my gut tells me global warming is a problem, and when was the last time your gut was wrong? Just ask Stephen Colbert.

[All_In 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/wl_can...anada_seals_colLack of ice set to kill start of Canadian seal huntBy David Ljunggren 1 hour, 6 minutes agoOTTAWA (Reuters) - The first stage of Canada's controversial annual harp seal hunt is likely to be scrapped because the ice floes where pups are born have broken up and many animals have drowned, officials and animal rights activists said on Tuesday.The first part of the hunt, which had been due to start on Wednesday, occurs in the Gulf of St Lawrence to the south of the Magdalen Islands on Canada's East Coast. Hunters move across the ice floes, shooting and clubbing to death young seals.Canada's federal fisheries ministry, which oversees the hunt, said the pups had been born as usual this year but the ice floes had then been blown far out to sea and started to break up before the seals learned how to swim properly."This is the first time I've ever seen this in 25 years ... for sure there is increased mortality," fisheries spokesman Roger Simon said from the Magdalen Islands."There is ice (south of the islands) but there are no seals on that ice," he added, saying the animals were now well out of the range of most of the hunters' vessels.Activists say the hunt is cruel and unnecessary and want it to be scrapped. Ottawa is likely to spell out this week how many seals may be killed.Canada says the seal population is a healthy 5.5 million animals and says the cull is needed to keep numbers under control. Last year's overall quota was 325,000 seals.The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said unusually warm weather meant the ice cover south of the Magdalen Islands was almost completely missing, adding it feared thousands of harp seal pups had drowned."The conditions this year are disastrous. I've surveyed this region for six years and I haven't seen anything like this," said IFAW researcher Sheryl Fink."There is wide open water and almost no seals. I only saw a handful of adult harp seals and even fewer pups, where normally we should be seeing thousands and thousands of seals."Simon said many of the seals had been blown due east into the Cabot Strait between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Some of them might eventually make their way back to the Magdalen Islands, he added."There may be some hunting on drifting ice floes but if there is, we don't expect it to be very significant," he said.Fink told Reuters she had spent two days flying over the Cabot Strait and had spotted very few seals.The main part of the hunt takes place in April off the northern and western coasts of Newfoundland, where ice conditions are average, Simon said.

[scgolfer 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/wl_can...anada_seals_colLack of ice set to kill start of Canadian seal huntBy David Ljunggren 1 hour, 6 minutes agoOTTAWA (Reuters) - The first stage of Canada's controversial annual harp seal hunt is likely to be scrapped because the ice floes where pups are born have broken up and many animals have drowned, officials and animal rights activists said on Tuesday.The first part of the hunt, which had been due to start on Wednesday, occurs in the Gulf of St Lawrence to the south of the Magdalen Islands on Canada's East Coast. Hunters move across the ice floes, shooting and clubbing to death young seals.Canada's federal fisheries ministry, which oversees the hunt, said the pups had been born as usual this year but the ice floes had then been blown far out to sea and started to break up before the seals learned how to swim properly."This is the first time I've ever seen this in 25 years ... for sure there is increased mortality," fisheries spokesman Roger Simon said from the Magdalen Islands."There is ice (south of the islands) but there are no seals on that ice," he added, saying the animals were now well out of the range of most of the hunters' vessels.Activists say the hunt is cruel and unnecessary and want it to be scrapped. Ottawa is likely to spell out this week how many seals may be killed.Canada says the seal population is a healthy 5.5 million animals and says the cull is needed to keep numbers under control. Last year's overall quota was 325,000 seals.The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said unusually warm weather meant the ice cover south of the Magdalen Islands was almost completely missing, adding it feared thousands of harp seal pups had drowned."The conditions this year are disastrous. I've surveyed this region for six years and I haven't seen anything like this," said IFAW researcher Sheryl Fink."There is wide open water and almost no seals. I only saw a handful of adult harp seals and even fewer pups, where normally we should be seeing thousands and thousands of seals."Simon said many of the seals had been blown due east into the Cabot Strait between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Some of them might eventually make their way back to the Magdalen Islands, he added."There may be some hunting on drifting ice floes but if there is, we don't expect it to be very significant," he said.Fink told Reuters she had spent two days flying over the Cabot Strait and had spotted very few seals.The main part of the hunt takes place in April off the northern and western coasts of Newfoundland, where ice conditions are average, Simon said.

Wouldn't this happen in a "normal" global warming too?I also find it funny that you post this when the hunt is held to keep from overcrowding of seals in the first place.SO in the big scheme of things, SO?

[Kwest4chipz 0]

"This is the first time I've ever seen this in 25 years ... for sure there is increased mortality," fisheries spokesman Roger Simon said from the Magdalen Islands.

"The conditions this year are disastrous. I've surveyed this region for six years and I haven't seen anything like this," said IFAW researcher Sheryl Fink."

The first time in years either of these 2 have seen this happen. I think this leans towards a normal anomaly than definitive proof the earth is on fire.

[All_In 0]

The first time in years either of these 2 have seen this happen. I think this leans towards a normal anomaly than definitive proof the earth is on fire.

never said the earth is on fire.and i know that 25yrs is not a long time geologically speaking, ice cores have already proven the warming with records going back hundreds of thousands of yrs.it's just that the evidence for a warming trend keeps popping up.

[All_In 0]

I also find it funny that you post this when the hunt is held to keep from overcrowding of seals in the first place.

lol, u really believe this?? haha.

[scgolfer 0]

Believe what? That the hunt is too control population or what?

[scgolfer 0]

No one is denying that fact that there is warming, we can argue if it has ever been warmer and if man is the cause of any warming.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

never said the earth is on fire.and i know that 25yrs is not a long time geologically speaking, ice cores have already proven the warming with records going back hundreds of thousands of yrs.it's just that the evidence for a warming trend keeps popping up.

Way to be consistent, dude. Do you actually read your own posts?

[offset 0]

There is a lot of misinformation about global warming. The most important thing to note is that when CO2 levels in the past have risen, global average temperature has risen. The more CO2 we put into the air, the hotter the earth will get. Does anyone still disagree with this?

[Zeatrix 0]

There is a lot of misinformation about global warming. The most important thing to note is that when CO2 levels in the past have risen, global average temperature has risen. The more CO2 we put into the air, the hotter the earth will get. Does anyone still disagree with this?

Unfortunately a lot of people do. For some reason they fail to understand the scientists when the scientists say: CO2 is a greenhouse gas which affects the temperature and we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.The most interesting part of the graph is the current levels of CO2 compared to times in the past...

[10FootPole 0]

Unfortunately a lot of people do. For some reason they fail to understand the scientists when the scientists say: CO2 is a greenhouse gas which affects the temperature and we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.The most interesting part of the graph is the current levels of CO2 compared to times in the past...

Whew, I've read all the posts under this subject and so far my totally unbiased verdict is that Zeatrix is winning Keep it up, good work and finally: "jag ar stolt att vara svensk nar jag laser dina inlagg". Cheers!

[mrwojo 0]

Why is that whenever a tree hugger has an opinion everyone should have the same one. It is funny that the environatzis are able to take just what facts that bolster there point and ay that the other facts are bogus. I havent read all the posts ( dont like to use the electricity by keeping my computer on that long ) but I have seen many references to katrina and africa and harp seals. Hear is what I know to be true because I have taken the facts that support my point and twisted them to my thinking.Every 30 or so years the Atlantic ocean raises in temperature causeing the hurricane season to be worse. Katrina as a hurricane was not the worst we have seen nor will there never be one worse. Katrina was bad because iit hit an area where ppl have moved right on to the ocean RETARDS. AS well it hit a city that is below the sea level again RETARDS. As far as africa I am 40 years old and all my life I have heard of famine in africa due to draught and food that wont grow. Now I live in farm country and understand that if you live in a desert food dont grow there.Now to the overbearring environatzis get off your soap box as nobody really cares about your oppinion as they dont care about mine. You morons try and act so superior as you have the interest of all at hand so it gives you the right to be jerks. Your opinion is no better or worse than veryone elses. I dont know who it was but on the first page of this thread you blasted some guy as he was trying to find middle ground and that makes you an azzhole that nobody should listen to. My anger is with you personally ZEATRIX you do not have the right to forse your opinion on others . Get over it you are wrong the future will prove you are wrong and I hope someone goes to your shelter and tells you you were wrong and you can come out. At least you will have supplies as I am sure you still have them left from Y2K as I know you were running around preaching that the world would end . Now you will pick this apart and find all kinds of gramadicat errors and typos but hey I am lucky I can use my hands at all most days so typos not a problem.mrwojo

[Zeatrix 0]

Whew, I've read all the posts under this subject and so far my totally unbiased verdict is that Zeatrix is winning Keep it up, good work and finally: "jag ar stolt att vara svensk nar jag laser dina inlagg". Cheers!

Well thanks, but you really aren't unbiased since you're also from Sweden Bias comes in different forms.

Why is that whenever a tree hugger has an opinion everyone should have the same one. It is funny that the environatzis are able to take just what facts that bolster there point and ay that the other facts are bogus. I havent read all the posts ( dont like to use the electricity by keeping my computer on that long ) but I have seen many references to katrina and africa and harp seals. Hear is what I know to be true because I have taken the facts that support my point and twisted them to my thinking.Every 30 or so years the Atlantic ocean raises in temperature causeing the hurricane season to be worse. Katrina as a hurricane was not the worst we have seen nor will there never be one worse. Katrina was bad because iit hit an area where ppl have moved right on to the ocean RETARDS. AS well it hit a city that is below the sea level again RETARDS. As far as africa I am 40 years old and all my life I have heard of famine in africa due to draught and food that wont grow. Now I live in farm country and understand that if you live in a desert food dont grow there.Now to the overbearring environatzis get off your soap box as nobody really cares about your oppinion as they dont care about mine. You morons try and act so superior as you have the interest of all at hand so it gives you the right to be jerks. Your opinion is no better or worse than veryone elses. I dont know who it was but on the first page of this thread you blasted some guy as he was trying to find middle ground and that makes you an azzhole that nobody should listen to. My anger is with you personally ZEATRIX you do not have the right to forse your opinion on others . Get over it you are wrong the future will prove you are wrong and I hope someone goes to your shelter and tells you you were wrong and you can come out. At least you will have supplies as I am sure you still have them left from Y2K as I know you were running around preaching that the world would end . Now you will pick this apart and find all kinds of gramadicat errors and typos but hey I am lucky I can use my hands at all most days so typos not a problem.mrwojo

I'm sorry if I've offended someone, my goal is not, believe it or not, to offend people. I know that offending people while trying to change their opinion is the dumbest thing you can do. And no I won't make childish remarks about your grammar, it would be kind of silly since English isn't even my native language. On top of that I make a lot of typos too.Having said that, in my mind, this is not about opinion. Abortion is a very difficult issue where you can have an opinion, either you think it's awful or you don't, a little simplified but it still holds. The purpose of my posts is to try to get across that global warming is, as far as the scientific community can tell, a fact. So you see, I'm not trying to force an opinion down anyone's throat, I'm just trying to tell you it is, to the best of current science knowledge, a fact. What is an opinion, is what we should do about it.I do recognize that science isn't always right, and scientific theories have been proven to be false in the past and will continue to be in the future. BUT, as far as current scientific knowledge goes mankind is responsible for a slight increase in average earth temperature, and to the best of current knowledge the average surface temperature will continue to increase. Now you could say that, hey, this might be proven wrong in the future so we should ignore it, but in my opinion (now this is an opinion), that is a bad way of doing things. The health hazards linked to cigarette smoking was debated for a long time, still, in hindsight it easy to see that it would have been right to take action despite the uncertainty that existed.The thing about global warming is that even if everything linked to global warming were to turn out to be completely false (which, despite popular opinion, it haven't) most of the actions suggested to combat global warming has other beneficial side effects which are even harder to refute.* Burning gas doesn't only produce CO2, it also produces other substances that have been proven to be very harmful to the environment* Oil is a finite resource, we will run out of it sooner or later, finding good alternatives now isn't such a bad idea* You might have heard that there is energy shortages in some parts of the world, including America. I don't know if it's still a problem in California, but I know there at least used to be an "energy crisis" there. Conserving energy and being more energy efficient will most probably become more and more important in the future since we aren't really getting fewer on this planet.And just on a personal note, I hardly qualify as an "environatzis" as you so elegantly put it. I support using nuclear energy in a large scale since I feel there are no better viable solutions right now. No self respecting environmentalist would ever consider nuclear power a good source of energy. Also, I don't remember ever hugging any trees.

[scgolfer 0]

I asked these questions a couple weeks ago and havent seen any responses other than Zeatrix's I dont know answer. They seem to be relevant questions in the big scheme of things.1. Why most of the current warming, that has gone up a 1 degree farenheit in the last 100 years, happened in the first half of the century, when I would suppose that we could agree, less man made CO2 was being made (less fossil fuels being burned before 1950?) And why during the cooling of the 1940's thru 1970's, CO2 levels went up, but temperatures did not?When looking at this man made cause of warming we have to be looking at things very closely during the VERY few years that humans have actually significantly contributed to any CO2 increase right?30 years (1940's thru 1970's) of 60 or so where CO2 increases and temperatures not rising would seem to be very significant. WHY?2. When looking at the Vostik ice core graphs that show temperature and CO2."The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years."It would seem if this were the case the oceans ability to take CO2 in during cooler times and belching of CO2 during times of warming would explain this much better than something that states CO2 causes temperature rises when it would appear that actually the opposite occurs temperatures rise then CO2 rises.3. Lastly it would appear to me that CO2 produced by man is so insignificant that it would be hard to prove that it effects the overall climate, more than any natural cycles, which are also accepted as fact."Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.""Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).""In the final analysis of the AGW conjecture, proponents model their chosen phenomena on the margins and without justification. They admit the overwhelming greenhouse gas is water vapor, probably 30 to 50 times more important than CO2. They admit the CO2 attributed to man is minuscule, about 6 to 7 PgC/yr (calculated) into an atmospheric reservoir variously estimated between 720 and 760 PgC. That’s around 1% of 2.5%, or 0.025% of GHG.""They estimate the uptake of CO2 by the ocean from 92 to 107 PgC/yr, an error of about ±7 PgC/yr, approximately equal to the anthropogenic total. They estimate the outgassing of CO2 from 90 to 103 PgC/yr, an error of roughly another ±7 PgC/yr. Without putting too fine a point on the method, and in consideration of the range of values by other, undiscovered authorities and the sources and methods employed by any of them, the net difference between uptake and outgassing estimates is about 3PgC/yr, ±14 PgC/yr. Nonetheless, the climatologist use a figure of 2 PgC/yr as their estimate of the oceanic uptake of the manmade CO2 of 7 PgC/yr. Regardless, they then proclaim that CO2 persists in the atmosphere of 50 to 500 years."Lastly I would tend to believe the following quote that would essentially stop the Global Warming at some point, once the increased temperatures make the oceans temperatures rise (which I also realize takes a long time), water vapor would increase."Water vapor is not only dominant among the greenhouse gases, it, like CO2, increases with increasing temperatures. Increase in water vapor should bring increases in cloud cover, decreasing solar radiation, and shutting down the warming effect."

[scgolfer 0]

I also have an opinion to those who say this is not a political issue. Any time there is decent at a political level its political, because when it is political money soon follows. I also hear constantly why would a scientist try to prove something that isn't quite true? Well until recently climate research was a small portion of funded science. Now it is a multi-billion $$ industry, which employs tens of thousands of people. If the science didn't produce exciting, dramatic theories and instead produced "current global warming is a natural cycle" how many of those tens of thousands would have jobs or grants to fund their research? That makes it sound a lot like the scientists are being paid to produce certain stats or results, just like the scientists that are paid by oil companies, right?

[All_In 0]

Why is that whenever a tree hugger has an opinion everyone should have the same one.

because we 'tree-huggers' have science on our side.

[mrwojo 0]

You have the science that you choose to use on your side. Having worked in the scientific community i can state that for every argument you will have many qualified scientists with various opinions.So as an individual that feels that the enviroment is in far less distress than ppl would have us beileve , I say read all the evidence not just the reports that support your opinion. Furthermore God Bless you for feeling as strong about this issue as you do. I just wish that environazis could have an opinion without trying to force it on everyone else.

[nutzbuster 7]

So.........has anyone convinced the other side that they are wrong yet?Didn't think so.Carry on......

[akoff 0]

"So.........has anyone convinced the other side that they are wrong yet?Didn't think so.Carry on......"LOL you do have to appreciate the dedication!

[chrozzo 19]

"So.........has anyone convinced the other side that they are wrong yet?Didn't think so.Carry on......"LOL you do have to appreciate the dedication!

not really though

[offset 0]

So.........has anyone convinced the other side that they are wrong yet?Didn't think so.Carry on......

I don't think anyone will openly admit to changing sides, but I have noticed a lot of the "global warming is a conspiracy" posters stopped replying. Take that for whatever you think it means.

[Zeatrix 0]

I asked these questions a couple weeks ago and havent seen any responses other than Zeatrix's I dont know answer. They seem to be relevant questions in the big scheme of things.1. Why most of the current warming, that has gone up a 1 degree farenheit in the last 100 years, happened in the first half of the century, when I would suppose that we could agree, less man made CO2 was being made (less fossil fuels being burned before 1950?) And why during the cooling of the 1940's thru 1970's, CO2 levels went up, but temperatures did not?When looking at this man made cause of warming we have to be looking at things very closely during the VERY few years that humans have actually significantly contributed to any CO2 increase right?30 years (1940's thru 1970's) of 60 or so where CO2 increases and temperatures not rising would seem to be very significant. WHY?2. When looking at the Vostik ice core graphs that show temperature and CO2."The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years."It would seem if this were the case the oceans ability to take CO2 in during cooler times and belching of CO2 during times of warming would explain this much better than something that states CO2 causes temperature rises when it would appear that actually the opposite occurs temperatures rise then CO2 rises.3. Lastly it would appear to me that CO2 produced by man is so insignificant that it would be hard to prove that it effects the overall climate, more than any natural cycles, which are also accepted as fact."Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.""Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).""In the final analysis of the AGW conjecture, proponents model their chosen phenomena on the margins and without justification. They admit the overwhelming greenhouse gas is water vapor, probably 30 to 50 times more important than CO2. They admit the CO2 attributed to man is minuscule, about 6 to 7 PgC/yr (calculated) into an atmospheric reservoir variously estimated between 720 and 760 PgC. That’s around 1% of 2.5%, or 0.025% of GHG.""They estimate the uptake of CO2 by the ocean from 92 to 107 PgC/yr, an error of about ±7 PgC/yr, approximately equal to the anthropogenic total. They estimate the outgassing of CO2 from 90 to 103 PgC/yr, an error of roughly another ±7 PgC/yr. Without putting too fine a point on the method, and in consideration of the range of values by other, undiscovered authorities and the sources and methods employed by any of them, the net difference between uptake and outgassing estimates is about 3PgC/yr, ±14 PgC/yr. Nonetheless, the climatologist use a figure of 2 PgC/yr as their estimate of the oceanic uptake of the manmade CO2 of 7 PgC/yr. Regardless, they then proclaim that CO2 persists in the atmosphere of 50 to 500 years."Lastly I would tend to believe the following quote that would essentially stop the Global Warming at some point, once the increased temperatures make the oceans temperatures rise (which I also realize takes a long time), water vapor would increase."Water vapor is not only dominant among the greenhouse gases, it, like CO2, increases with increasing temperatures. Increase in water vapor should bring increases in cloud cover, decreasing solar radiation, and shutting down the warming effect."

I must say it's refreshing to see someone present questions around this in a sensible way, and not fall back on name calling. Posts like this makes this thread worthwhile.My previous response kind of still holds. I don't have the answer to everything. I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be. What I do try to do is to look at the available facts and educate myself in the issue. Posts like this pushes me harder, and I like it. First question:You bring up a good point. But this graph, compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office shows another picture:As you can see the temperature took a dive between around 1940 and 1950 but has since showed a steady and undeniable increase. Now why did it drop? That I don't know. What no one is denying is that the natural cycle of the earth is strong. Does this automatically mean man made CO2 emissions are insignificant? No, it just means the natural cycle is strong. But this is just speculation from my part. The fact still stands that CO2 levels are much higher than ever before (looking back 650,000 years), and the recent temperature increase is significant.Second question:First of all I don't know where you got the quote from, but for the sake of argument I'm gonna assume it's correct. My first reaction is, if this is correct, then surely science has included this information in its current conclusion. This is unless, of course, there is a giant worldwide conspiracy. Then again, the quote might not be true.But what you are pointing at is the natural process of the carbon cycle that has existed the last couple of hundred thousand years. What we are doing right now is adding CO2 that hasn't been apart of the current cycle for millions of years. What this means is that we've changed the natural cycle, this change have already produced measurable changes and may cause other more significant changes in the future.Third question:Once again, you feel that the increase in CO2 doesn't make a change ("it would appear to me"). Modern science disagrees. I don't know where you're getting your quotes from but surely the issue of water vapour has been considered before drawing conclusions such as the IPCC have done. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but that still doesn't make CO2 and other gases insignificant. Most things in nature depends on a fine balance. If the balance is disrupted catastrophic effects can occur. Changing the balance of the atmosphere is exactly what we are doing. We just don't know exactly what this change will result in, but we can already today see some of it.Now upon further inspection of your quotes you can clearly tell they don't originate from a scientific source. I've highlighted one of them, pay special attention to the term "should". The person or persons writing this clearly knows that what they say isn't a fact, it's speculation. The quote speculates about the future and while doing it uses the speculation as a fact that global warming is a non issue. What you need to realize is that the IPCC hasn't made any predictions about the future that is close to certain. All they've said is, the average temperature has increased and we are very sure this is because of fossil fuel burning.Now something other:Another side effect of the increase of CO2 is ocean acidification. "Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 1751 and 2004 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14." (Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry. J. Geophys. Res. Atm. 110)Some of your quotes mention the uptake of CO2 by the ocean. This uptake is slowly altering the fine balance of the world largest ecosystem, the ocean. Do I have to mention that about 50% of the oxygen produced on earth comes from the oceans?"At least 1/2 of the oxygen we breathe comes from the photosynthesis of marine plants. Currently, 48% of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning is sequestered into the ocean. But the future fate of this important carbon sink is quite uncertain because of potential climate change impacts on ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, and ecosystem dynamics."What's the source of that quote? NASA... NASA Oceanography - The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle I guess NASA is in on the global conspiracy too...