[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Lordblood

Here's my take on the CO2 debate, which comes partly from my understanding after taking a chemistry course where this topic was discussed in length.

It is fact that CO2 (along with water vapor, CFC's, and other gasses) absorb high quantities of IR light (this is invisible to the naked eye, but every living organism emits IR light). When the IR light is absorbed by CO2, the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms vibrate and cause atoms of CO2 to move faster (the definition of temperature).

It's not up to debate whether to or not an increase in CO2 will increase the temperature of the planet. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees that temperatures will rise. The question (at least in the scientific community) is how much will temperatures rise and will it make a difference in things such as ocean levels and the biology of the planet.

The bigger question after this becomes should governments try to reduce/stop the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I personally think yes, because private citizens and companies do not work in unison, and therefore it would be very hard/impossible to get these entities to stop releasing CO2 in appreciable amounts. But this should only be done if carbon dioxide does prove to be a threat to biology.

Topless and Lordblood, thanks again for sane contributions to this debate. So far response has been civil and informative.

Lordblood, good explanation on the role of CO2 and temperature. I have limited chemistry background and comments from those who do add to the knowledge.

As for "not up to debate" is where I have trouble. There is debate on this question as we have covered in Mr. Suns role in the process. Science has still not accounted for the centuries of climate change both up and down. I would wager it was not due to the volume of CO2 alone or what caused this volume to wax or wane. Until that time I remain skeptical.

Also govt. being the answer is also questionable. This assumes that all other parties other than govt. are totally greedy and suicidal and govt. only operates on the most honest of levels. My take on this is govt. sees a way to achieve more control over our lives and get more tax money in the process. We have a long history of govt. "good intentions" and their results. I give you the 'great society' programs for a shining example. I like your caveat that nothing should be done unless CO2 proves to be the culprit. The can we take a 20% chance to not do something just in case it is true is bogus at best and disingenuous at least. You could use that argument to set up a police state etc.

Again, thanks to all who have civilly contributed to this thread.

Happy 4th, AKL