Now over the last couple of eventful months, your supposedly neutral blogmeister has become increasingly skeptic with regard to the globwarm question. He doesn’t yet believe that the earth is makiing new oil – so he can’t vote Republican yet
He’s been reading the books and now has a much better idea of the issues – and much more respect for the labourers who have been toiling in the field for many years.
But there is one thing which is bugging him quite lot which is the oft quoted stat that only 3.4% of Co2 emissions are caused by humans – actually the quote you will see more is 1.7% – the rest being ‘absorbed’.
Now the one thing I believe to be true – because it would be so destroyed if there was any doubt, is that CO2 levels have nearly doubled in very recent times. And in the absence of volcanoes of dinosaur extincting ferocity, it does seem to me that we humans and our hugely enjoyable civilisation are likely to be the cause.
So unless anyone would like to set me right, I assume that the 1.7% is the extra that causes the increase – like you only have to eat a little bit extra to gain weight.
Thinking about this I do realise one reason why many scientists are so happy to simplify and to distort when communicating to the GP: they had it done to them. Do you remember how after junior/GCSE level chemistry they suddently said: ‘Oh thats was a load of old bollocks about molecular bonding and the periodic table. We only told you that because we knew you were really interested in 8s and 2s. Actually we havent really got a clue, isn’t that much more fun.”

They never said that to me because I did history but isn’t that roughly the speech?