quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

1) Keeling made measurements of CO2 levels in the atmosphere over several decades that showed the levels increasing, year on year. His son now continues his work with the same results.

2a) CO2 acts as an insulator - it is a "greenhouse gas", preventing heat from the sun escaping the atmosphere; this can be easily demonstrated with a glass tube filled with CO2, a candle and a camera. 
2b) Venus provides us with an example of greenhouse gas effects with an atmosphere made up of such gases that results in it being so hot that probes sent to land there last less than five minutes before being critically damaged by the high temperatures.

3) The global population has increased from around 1 billion in 1800, (a level it took 10,000 years to reach) to around 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1964, 4 billion in 1978, 5 billion in 1990, 6 billion in 2000 - a fantastic rate of growth and rate of increase in growth in the last two centuries or so that are projected to increase/ accelerate further in the next decades.

4) People need food and water and shelter; the massive increase in people has led to massive incursion into wilderness areas with consequent loss of species and so damage to the eco-system which we rely on for our food and water which we may not yet have fully realised. Further, this incursion has replaced wilderness that either locked up or absorbed vast amounts of CO2 with agricultural activity far less effective in this regard.

5a) Accompanying, driving as well as supporting the massive increase in population has been enormous industrial growth almost exclusively reliant on methods that result in CO2 emissions.
5b) And accompanying that industrial growth has been in many parts of the world an enormous rise in living standards that is also almost exclusively reliant on methods that result in CO2 emissions. At work and at home and travelling between the two, CO2 emissions are produced to support us.

Do the climate change sceptics dispute any of these facts of the case as presented, in whole or in part?

We are not interested at this stage in interpretations of the facts or projected scenarios based on them - merely in establishing the bases of the matter.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The glaring omission is any credible historical evidence that links CO2 to temperature increases. In fact in history CO2 emission increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. That is a fact, not an interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

That's a short-sighted interpretation of how records are built up over time in the first place.

Does the increased CO2 content get absorbed into the ice sample straight away: you say yes I say no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

If we cannot answer as to whether we agree what the bases are then we cannot expect any progress on coming to conclusions arising from them.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The glaring omission is any credible historical evidence that links CO2 to temperature increases. In fact in history CO2 emission increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. That is a fact, not an interpretation.

That's a short-sighted interpretation of how records are built up over time in the first place.

Does the increased CO2 content get absorbed into the ice sample straight away: you say yes I say no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Yeah well I've tried building sea defences by paying people in daisies but it turns out they prefer money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

No, you are adding something not found in the original premises given. The initial idea here is to establish basics that can be agreed upon before proceeding to other information which may be contested.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/16/nyt_reporter_david_rivkin_on_the  Lady E.  this is prety much where it stands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

If we cannot answer as to whether we agree what the bases are then we cannot expect any progress on coming to conclusions arising from them.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

2a isn't wrong, but it is not a valid model of our atmosphere. There are many other factors operating in a dymanic system. Any attempt to draw conculsions about the behavior of the earth from a test tube is pretty worthless.