What say you? Thought you might be interested in this (and if it sounds familiar, it has come up before on this forum).
Got this from the article:
"Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that, mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated." [WRONG -- the fluxes are quantified well enough that historical estimates of energy use starting in the 1950s -- pretty easy to estimate, actually -- matches the Keeling curve of CO2 increase.] "Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." [WRONG -- it's not nearly enough CO2 from a slight warming of the surface ocean. And, the oceans are a net sink; a known fact substantiated by thousands of at-sea measurements.] According to this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it."
Two things. Everything about Essenhigh posted here seems to date from 2001. (Yeah, I've seen it before.) He's done nothing since except fade away? If true, that says something right there. I don't know if he's still alive or not; he looked very "emeritus" in 2001.
Two: the oceans have absorbed roughly half of the total anthropogenic CO2 released during the "Industrial Age". But as they absorb more, they become less effective absorbers. This factor could exacerbate attempts to slow down the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2.