On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:04:45 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>
>>> In article > , Christian McArdle wrote:
>>>
>>>>People grumble about the price, but deep down know that petroleum use is bad
>>>>due to climate change, so the grumbling is not as loud as it might be.
>>>
>>> I am having problems believing the measured warming is due to CO2.
>
>> Over the past century about half of the Earth's warming has been due to
>> changes in the solar flux and the other half due to CO2 (and other)
>> greenhouse gasses. The main influence of the greenhouse gasses really
>> only becoming impossible to ignore from 1970 onwards.
>
>Correlation != causation. Every model, everything in global warming is
>based on the assumption that the correlation seen is a cause and effect
>relationship and that it works with CO2 causing the warming. All while
>ignoring the other more powerful greenhouse gas from combustion, water.
>As if the water we are pumping into the environment has no effect what so
>ever.
>
>From the CO2 theory, it used towards political ends. Things like the kyoto
>treaty. Treaties that would have us believe making widgets in China is
>better for the environment than making them in Ohio.
>

Just because Kyoto is a bad idea doesn't mean that CO2 isn't
contributing to warming.

>>> Because other planets and satelites (moons) in the solor system are
>>> warming. I think the scale of the issue of climate change is much bigger.
>
>> Although it is true that the sun's output has increased very slightly
>> the amount is *not* sufficient to explain all the observed global
>> warming. Satellite monitoring of solar flux since the 1970's is an
>> important constraint.
>
>It's not enough to explain the the observed warming of mars either.