>Hi,
>It would help if you queried their conclusions and not accept them as gospel.

Well THAT has to be the height of arrogance!

Scientists who have spent their lives in the field and have billions of dollars of equipment and analyses at their disposal and have carefully considered measurements from all over the planet going back thousands of years are coming to a widespread consensus and Hilmar or me or you are to "query their conclusions"????

We're not talking about some way-out theories here that trouble common sense!
We're not talking about some small matter that has only local implications at best.
We're not talking about some theory that only has political impact.

But we are talking about an issue that has lots of people worried about their pocketbooks (particularly corporations) and so have vested interests to keep the issue at bay and have the money to do it.

It's fine to question their conclusions but it makes no sense at all to dismiss them on the basis of some 'calculation' that doesn't "fit". To conclude that their issue is hyped on such a basis is simply wrong. Do you honestly believe they have not considered any 'calculation' you might come up with? Have you challenged even one of the proponents with your hypothesis?

What/who one chooses to believe has far more to do with the sales jobs being done by the opposing forces than anything else. Perhaps you should examine why you believe what you believe on the issue. You may find out that you've been influenced by some web site(s) and/or publications and/or speakers/writers surreptitiously funded by forces with a vested interest in the status quo.



>
>>>Hi,
>>>It has everything to do with the principles that I mention, fact not fiction.
>>
>>It would really help if you do some reading on "greenhouse effect", so that you know what the discussion is all about.