Banjar, a 29% increase is a 29% increase and GG's attempt to dress it up as insignificant i.e. "HOW THE HELL WOULD A 0.01% INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CONTENT LEAD TO CATASTROPHIC TEMPERATURES???" is totally pathetic and laughable.
Also, people seem to think these temperature changes are much larger than they really are. Remember, temperature is measured from absolute zero (-273 Celcius) so a 2 degree C rise, assuming an average temperature of 20 degrees C, is only +0.68%. Yet such a an average temperature rise would have an extremely significant impact on the planetary biosphere.
In approximate terms, we are talking about a massive 29% increase in CO2 resulting a rather paltry 0.68% rise in temperature. That rise doesn't seem like much and sounds quite feasible when addressed in those terms don't you think?
We also need to remember that without the atmospheric greenhouse gases, like CO2, the earth would be a cold, lifeless shell. That's the sort of impact these gases have even in low concentrations of the order of hundreds of parts per million.
Re: above, I don't expect to write anything very coherent at 3:30 AM but I stand by my general view that this Climategate business is a storm in teacup. I'm sure if internal Exxon emails were hacked and released they would be rather controversial as well.
Anyway, I've been through this whole percentage debate with Starburst some time ago and again it disappoints me that people are prepared to make appalling claims and totally misrepresent the real figures. If you climate change denialists were worth arguing with then I might tone down my language but the outrageous rubbish written here has driven me to distraction. I live in hope that one day you all might see reason. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
