More thoughts on global warming....

I hear several arguments against global warming, some of which I want to address. First, the critisism that "consensus is not science"....

You are confusing consensus and the scientific method – proof of global warming by the scientific community is due to a consensus of the research – research performed under and supported by the scientific method. Consensus as a concept alone on this issue has NOT taken the place of the scientific method; it does however describes the overall body of evidence.

"Ice sheets in Greenald are growing!" Global warming may actually assist new ice sheet growth in Greenland because growth depends less on cold temperatures than on a strong supply of moisture and very heavy snowfall over northern land masses. Go to the original research as reported by Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) in Norway.

"James Hansen profits from Global Warming". The assertion that Soros paid Hansen $720,000 is, simply put, a lie. Two minutes of investigative journalism will uncover what this story is really about. Take a moment and read Hansen’s response to this ludicrous charge: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf

“CO2 can't pollute the atmosphere because it has a specific gravity of 1.54 which means that is 150% heavier than air.” What you forget is that CO2 is a gas, and gasses behave to fill the volume of whatever container they are placed in. Thus CO2 would disperse and be found in the atmosphere in fairly uniform concentrations. This is elementary science.

"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as minuscule". How about going into a room with a CO concentration of 100ppm? You will be dead at the end of the day. Dioxin is measured as a danger pollutant at parts per Billion. Don’t under estimate the ability of chemical reactions solely based, in your view as minuscule, on a ppm or ppb.