Bate, R. (Ed.): Global Warming: The Continuing Debate", European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), Cambridge, England (ISBN 0-9527734-2-2), pages 184-219, 1998.
http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm
Yes it is an old paper but if you go to his web site you will see his views remain the same. I dont believe for a moment they can be refuted so easily. Did you read the whole paper, or just the abstract I posted? He has been on this for decades by the look of it.
Dont get me wrong. If you can tell me where he is wrong, for instance in his "missing sink" calculation I would be happier. I, and I think many you regard as sceptics have an open mind on this, but not a koolaide drinker. I would hope you are the same.
He quotes all his sources at the end of the paper, about 60 in all.
[8. Trouble for the dogma - the CO2 "missing sink"
The next problem is that the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 level increase only accounts for approximately 50% of the expected increase from looking at the amount of CO2 formed from production data for the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., Kerr, 1992). This annual discrepancy of some 3 giga-tonnes of carbon is in the literature called "the missing sink" (analogous to "the missing link"; Holm?n, 1992). When trying to find this "missing sink" in the biosphere, carbon cycle modelling has shown that deforestation must have contributed a large amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. So instead of finding "the missing sink" in the terrestrial biosphere, they find another CO2 source! This makes "the missing sink" problem yet more severe.
Trabalka (1985) summarizes the status of carbon cycle modelling and its missing sinks (Trabalka et al., 1985) by: "As a first approximation in the validation of models, it should be possible to compute a balanced global carbon budget for the contemporary period; to date this has not been achievable and the reasons are still uncertain." . . . "These models produce estimates of past atmospheric CO2 levels that are inconsistent with the historical atmospheric CO2 increase. This inconsistency implies that significant errors in projections are possible using current carbon cycle models."
Bolin's (1986) conclusion regarding carbon cycle models is on the contrary: "We understand the basic features of the global carbon cycle quite well. It has been possible to construct quantitative models which can be used as a general guide for the projection of future CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of given emission scenarios". This is in high contrast to Holm?n (1992), who concludes his book chapter on "The Global Carbon Cycle" with: "obviously our knowledge of the global cycle of carbon is inadequate to get ends to meet".
A 50% error, i.e. the enormous amount of about 3 giga-tonnes of carbon annually not explained by a model, would normally lead to complete rejection of the model and its hypothesis using the scientific method of natural sciences. Still the 50% inexplicable error in the IPCC argumentation has strangely enough not yet caused all governments to reject the IPCC model. This fact beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" principle (Section 2 above).]
