I am just trying to make you aware of the truth.

Also until recently there are many highly respected scientists who wanted to go public about the lie pushed by the AGW cohorts, but were unable to for fear of be crucified by the AGW crew, this has now changed due to the Climategate episode.

The truth is out there, always query what becomes political, which this has.

Keep an open mind, otherwise you will be duped.

>>>>warmer temperatures have been found to DRIVE CO2 levels , not the other way around!
>>>>
>>>>Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>I had to laugh at the latest scare tactic they are trying to pedal, that the oceans are becoming acidic, and are effecting shell fish growth.
>>>>
>>>>The oceans are alkaline, you can check it yourself with a simple litmus paper test.
>>>>
>>>>It should be noted that in areas of low tidal flushing and high shell fish growth a drop in the alkalinity can happen due to the simple fact that shellfish metabilize the calcium out of the water.
>>>>
>>>>The factor that brings everything into perspective is the fact that CO2 comprises 0.038% of the atmosphere, whereas water can be as high as 4% at sealevel.
>>>>Just check the specific heats of water (4.2Kj/Kg) and that of CO2 (0.9Kj/Kg) and you will start to see that CO2 would have the job ahead of it to cause a forcing, then when you take the latent heat of vaporization of water (2260Kj/Kg) and the latent heat of fusion of water (334Kj/Kg) into account, CO2 isn't in the race.
>>>
>>>I seem to remember from school science that acidity is measured on a scale. (PH from 1 to 14?) It is not a binary state, one or the other. So even if oceans are alkaline, if they are becoming less so then that may be significant.
>>
>>I thought you would come back with that, you fell for the trap.
>>
>>I think you had better look up the basic chemistry involved in what comprises the shells of shell fish and coral reefs.
>>
>>What no comment about the basic thermo, I'd like to see you discredit that.
>
>Maybe I did fall in a trap, then.
>
>I am in no way qualified to discredit the thermo, basic or otherwise. I am not a scientist. When most scientists seem to be on one side of an issue, that gets my attention.
>
>I have a strong suspicion you are a scientist in one way or another. For this reason I always read your posts, even when they seem to contradict what I thought was agreed upon.