"The Debate on the Link Between Human Actions and Climate Change Should Really Be Over"

On www.1ocean-1climate.com I have found the followings: "There are a number of man-made contributory factors that may have had specific impacts on the atmospheric heating, e.g. local warming in the cities (due to housing, roads, and other resultant factors), smoke and dust over long distances or deforestation of huge forest areas. Each of the above examples may have had temporary or long lasting implications, but none of them is a major source for the strong warming or cooling trends during the last 150 years. However, two major contributors (shipping and naval war) have been given little or no attention at all until now. Although the surface of the oceans is gigantic, their structure can be still influenced by certain factors. "

This, somewhat, interferes with the ipcc report. I mean, humans have a contribution on climate change, obviousely. But not so much the driver of a car, but the leader of a country that fought wars at sea. The climate is the continuation of the oceans, so I think what happend to the oceans should have been considered until now.

Correlation between increased CO2 levels and climate change does not become a basis for scientific finding that the CO2 increase causes warming. As I understand the peer reviewed research to date, it is uncertain whether warming causes an increase in CO2 or vice versa.

Of course the global climate is changing. Temperatures have been warming since the end of the little ice age. No right minded person disputes that anthropogenic activities are a cause of warming. But, to lay it all off on CO2 emissions is absurd given the state of the science on the subject.

The debate is just beginning.

First, in the speech he says the Working Group 1 report was released. The real report will be released im May(?), what was released was a summary. At about 161 on the speech counter, he claims a 20% increase in "forcing"...what does that mean and where is the data? At about 219 on the speech counter, he says something about "global government". Listen to that and tell me what he is talking about. At about 258 on the counter, he talks about the Maldives Islands. I think those islands are atolls and are sinking because the land is sinking, and they are sinking at a rate that is faster than the rise in sea level. By the way, the summary has an incorrect table about sea level changes. The Maldives are in trouble due to the underlying geology, not climate change.

It is only religious faith in the quasi-linear connection between CO2 concentration and climate forcings that causes politicians and journalists to want to stop this scientific debate prematurely. That religious belief is not supported by the data--in fact the reverse is true. The amount of forcing per unit of CO2 decreases sharply after the first 100-200 ppm in the atmosphere. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas with diminishing impact per unit with increase in concentration. It is time the debate is expanded--not prematurely ended.