Global Warming Exists (2)

Hello and good luck. My assertion is that there is no widely accepted theorem or set of theorems that are widely acknowledged to infer a direct connection between Global Warming and Anthropologic means. I cannot produce proof of something that does not exist so I will infer from its negative. If there was one widely acknowledged theorem establishing such a connection do you not think it strange we do not all know the name of the scientist or institute supporting the claimed 97% agreement? I mean what is it they all agree on? I would agree that the PPM of CO2 has gone up and even if to IPCC estimates of 280 PPM in the mid 1700s then from that to 400 PPM is a 40% increase applied to a total of 3% of atmospheric CO2 today or a change of 1.2% change in CO2 which impact would be partially offset by the reduction in another greenhouse gas, water which represents 97% of all greenhouse gasses referring to the dynamic affects that slows heat dispersion from the earth. The fear in 1827 when the theory was first proposed might have been a circular effect like in an actual closed greenhouse but any valid theory at what proportion this occurs does not exist. They are unproven hypothesis at best. Such an occurrence seems unlikely in part because Oxygen and CO@ acts very different than Methane which was the cause of the clouds on Venus spawning the Greenhouse theory for earth. CO2 is heavier than air and falls naturally to the ground. But no one knows the interaction of all these factors in the carbon cycle. Of all the estimated carbon produced in the World or about 34 gigatonnes at 2014 estimates only about 6 to 11 gigatonnes annually increases in our atmosphere as measured by the PPM. The annual increase has been surprisingly consistent despite a heavy buildup in annual anthropologic CO2. Here is that graph. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... You will notice that there has been a constant slope going back much further yet all the estimates say we are producing far more CO2 over that period that would lead one to believe the CO2 PPM graph should be rising at a climbing rate but it is not it remains contributing about the same change every year which converts to somewhere in the range of 8 to 10 gigatonnes of CO2 every year. Why is it not rising if we are producing more? Now my honorable opponent when you study this phenomenon AGW do you attempt to read between the lines to see what they DON'T say? Let me tell you something I am an auditor and I assure you people can not tell you more than what they tell you. So back to your learning of this do you remember reading about the degree of error in their calculations or the limitations of their measurement tools? Are you aware, for instance of the number and approximate locations of all the monitoring buoy on earth? And how are you to evaluate if these are sufficient to the degree scientists would accept as valid? In my research into this matter I found less than I would have thought. To give a sense of the limitations these scientists have in making these predications consider the recent loss of a passenger airliner? I mean its not like losing a set of keys is it and I think the whole world has been dismayed by that tragic event at the limitations of state of the art science. But it can in some cases be appropriate to simply believe the scientists but in this argument I intend to demolish this blind belief you have not in scientists but in greed. So I propose to you to resolve this complex issue let us opt for reason and logic and arrive at a conclusion we both agree with rather than one only one? Because the complexity is so massive perhaps we can start with widely accepted fact and move to less accepted. For example I agree with the estimated change in CO2 levels from 1750 to today of 280 to 400. I find much earlier estimates of CO2 levels to be less credible for two reasons, 1 the error rate inherent in such estimates and 2 the inferences we can draw from such levels is highly questionable unless a massive composite of all other factors such as sun spots was also known such I find it questionable. I say we not relay on what 97% of scientists say I say we figure this out ourselves. Thanks, Steve