[ditto5]

This can go on indefinitely, but it sounds like your objection is to proposed political solutions rather than scientific research.

I agree that we need to innovate and contribute to economic growth. Cooperation to facilitate this doesn't mean embracing a world government. With the current state of affairs, we (our government, other governments) heavily subsidize fossil fuels when it makes no sense to do this. If we incorporate the true costs of fossil fuel consumption into prices and let the marketplace work as it should, then we would facilitate innovation.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I thought I would come back to this thread to find out if you attempted to add your name to the list of Scientists on the web site I posted on post number 59?

This science doesn’t add up. Let me show you:

You can find this information here:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/

If you calculate the watts being acted on the atmosphere for if we doubled the CO2 in our atmosphere we would gain total of +4 W/m^2. This amounts to a 0.59C change in temperature.

+4 watts can't produce a 5C warming, it cant even produce a 0.6C warming. To warm up +5.3C (high end of UN projection) would require total power of [ (296.3/291) ^ 4 ] * 492W = 528.8 watts, or 36.8 Watts additional, not 4-8. They still need a huge amplifier, and they still haven't got one.

If you are willing to give substance to your arguments then I will be willing to discuss this with you.