On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,


Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
increase in temperature? Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
of reputable scientists.

Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science.

Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
doesn't help the deniers' position.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
crashed?

Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

Derek Copeland