Back here, a poster named ARREL responded to my post on CO2 and AGW by asserting that "all but one statement in your post was a flat out lie."

So, Mr. ARRELL, I would just say that you're free to make your point...or contradict those I have made, some of which were opinions, BTW, but simply stating that something is a lie does not make it so.

My opinion is that so-called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is being hyped to justify a questionable set of agendas, including renewed nuclear power-plant construction in the US. Until we learn to dispose of or store nuclear waste safely, I think new nukes are a very bad idea. That too, is an opinion.

It is also my opinion that there is no credible evidence that man's activities are having a significant effect on Earth's climate. I derive this opinion from the opinions and analysis of scientists who disagree with not only AGW, but also with the entire so-called runaway greenhouse effect, a theory which I will not address in this post.

According to data I've seen, atmospheric water vapor accounts for approximately 0-4% of Earth's atmosphere. There is more water vapor over the tropics than over the poles, so this number is often rounded to 1%. Atmospheric CO2, by contrast, accounts for approximately 0.0360%. Granted, on days when atmospheric H20 reaches zero over a pole, then CO2 would temporarily surpass H20 as the most significant greenhouse gas at that locale for however long all the water (vapor) remained frozen. Obviously, for most of the planet most of the time, most water vapor is not frozen and remains in the atmosphere. If you want to quibble over that point, and call me a liar for making it, then feel free, but realize it does little for your own credibility.

In any event, if you refer to the table linked above, you'll see that our atmosphere is primarily comprised of nitrogen (N2) at just over 78%, and oxygen (O2) at not quite 21%, so CO2 accounts for just 3/100ths of 1% of our atmosphere, and that is why it is called a trace gas.

Beyond that, natural sources account for almost 97% of atmospheric CO2, while man-made CO2 emissions account for just 3.225% of the total.

Therefore, to put it into very simple terms, man-made carbon dioxide represents 3% of the total atmospheric CO2, which itself makes up just .03% of the atmosphere, by volume. Perhaps that is why one reads such statements as this:

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

--Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

or this:

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect... Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

or this:

only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

source for the three preceding quotations.

I suggest you, Mr. ARRELL, familiarize yourself with the two pages I have linked above. Others still on the AGW bandwagon might profit, as well, by having a look at these data, which I chose for their simplicity and clarity.

Finally, for those who don't believe that CO2 is beneficial for plants, due to a process known as photosynthesis, or that greenhouses often have artificially elevated levels of CO2 to promote plant growth, might have a look here

The introduction of supplementary carbon dioxide into the greenhouse has been found to significantly increase the yields of greenhouse tomatoes and other vegetables. Supplementary carbon dioxide is most effective on days when the greenhouse has been shut up for several days with no ventilation. Maximum results can be achieved by injecting 1000-1500 ppm CO2 into the greenhouse using propane burners or other CO2 generators.

There is no doubt that pollution from human activity is a very bad thing which affects the environment in sometimes quite severe ways that have sometimes devastating effects on plant and animal life, but I doubt - as do many others - that human activity is having any significant effect on our climate. The geological record reveals severe climatic changes on Earth
long before man's activities could have played any role whatsoever.

In addition, over the last several years, there is arguable evidence that Earth is entering a period of cooling. It is fair to say, I believe, that a cooler planet represents a much greater danger to our species than any hypothetical increased planetary warming ever would. Just do a little reading about the Maunder Minimum, the Little Ice Age, or Milankovitch Cycles to get some background on climate change on Earth.

AGW is a ruse being used to promote a hidden agenda. If Earth does enter a period of cooling, then Greens who have jumped on the AGW bandwagon will risk having the entire environmentalist agenda undermined and discredited. Environmentalists who promote a green lifestyle should do so to fight pollution, waste, excessive consumption, to save wildlife and human life, and to set a good example for our neighbors and the rest of the world, but not to fight climate change or promote measures to counter AGW, which is a myth.

S