Bilko Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 Hi, this is my first post concerning a subject that I would like more information on and feedback on my opinions. In the arguments between the deniers and those promoting AGW there is much claimed and counter-claimed regarding variations in local temperatures, melting ice caps etc. These arguments or debates are between professional scientists and no conclusion is ever reached between them. Only new sets of data for either claim or counter claim. It just goes on and on. The lynch pin of the anthropogenic global warming controversy concerns the structure of the CO2 molecule (or indeed other 'greenhouse gases') and its atomic interaction with radiant heat. Now if anthropogenic global warming is to be refuted and considering the amounts of anthropogenic CO2 generated over the last 200 years plus that likely to be generated in the future then the lynch pin of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming must surely be questioned? i.e does CO2 actually absorb radiant heat? and if it does then does absorb significant amounts of radiant heat? i.e. significant enough to raise temperatures high enough to cause catastrophe. How many units of radiant heat are absorbed by a quantity of CO2? Has this been confirmed by laboratory experiment and if so why are its results not been brought to general attention of the general public. Surely this would kill off any claims by the deniers?. On the other hand why don't any of the deniers actually attempt to refute the claim that the carbondioxide molecule absorbs radiant heat? The CO2 molecule must either absorb radiant heat or doesn't and if it does, does it absorb suffient amounts of radiant heat to be of concern? If there are any controversies regarding AGW then it is a conspiracy to keep the debate or controversy ongoing. Thus enabling scientists and publishers to make money of literature etc One final point, surely there must be something wrong with the GW controversy when dubious characters such as Al Gore and David Icke represent opposing sides of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now