If you have a PhD in physics you should be ashamed of yourself. You are the one peddling the spin.
You said "The predicted increase in temperature of 2 degrees if CO2 levels go to 450ppm amuses me. You admit it's the maximum increase anyone has predicted." Absolutely not. The IPCC has predicted a range and I understand they are being extremely conservative so as not be tainted as alarmists.
You also said "Furthermore, as far as I know no one has explained why the global temperatures have declined over the past 5-9 years despite the increase in CO2." Any scientist who knows anything about statistics would know that 5-9 years over the life of the planet, or at least the time scales we are talking about, is not statistically meaningful. The long term trend is still clearly up. Did you not study statistics either in high school or at university? I am seriously scratching my head here.
And back to this: "Fact 3: The proportion of total CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule. It has increased from about .03% to .038% over the last 100 years or so."
Your own quote is an increase of 27%. How can this be considered a small increase?
I will also say again - I do not disagree with the figures you quote. I disagree with the spin (which you say you are so dead set against) that you put on the figures.
You are misrepresenting the facts to suit your own agenda that such a small concentration of CO2 will have no effect on climate. However, this is illogical, because:
a) Small concentrations of chemical substances can have massive effects - examples that spring to mind are plutonium and the thallium that killed Russian defector Aleksander Litvinenko. Miniscule concentrations - massive effects. I AM NOT comparing these substances to CO2 by the by the way, I am just trying to illustrate my point that your argument that because the concentration of CO2 is low it can have no effect is totally fallacious.
B) The atmosphere is in a delicate equilibrium. It does not follow that a 50% increase in one of the components (or 27% as you have quoted) will have zero or negligible effect, as you seem to suggest.
If you truly are a Physics PhD (and I am struggling to believe it) then you should try to represent the facts in an unbiased fashion.
Perhaps you missed high school where we were taught that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas? It does not make any sense that we can increase it by 27% (your figures) or 50% (if we reach 450 PPM) and not create a warming effect. Maybe you can't see the wood for the trees? I'd be very interested to know who you work for (which oil company or coal mining company perhaps?) and where you got yor qualification?
I have an Honours Degree in Physics which I know isn't much and I freely admit that I do not work in the climate field, but I know enough to know BS when I smell it.
And you quote Albert Einstein. He would be rolling in his grave.
