Report Economic Crisis, Nothing Compared To Climate Change Problems in House prices and the economy Posted June 10, 2009 So you don't think increased atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in global temperature.But the only "eminent scientist" you have quoted suggests that because CO2 is caused by warming it cannot cause warming. That's obviously a fallacy. Tell me if you can't see it and I'll explain. Can you find any other "eminent scientist" who agrees with you? Where, in the following sentence (or, for that matter, in any sentence that I quoted from Ian Pliner's book) is it claimed that CO2 cannot cause a rise in temperature? "Hence the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause." And what do you believe caused the temp rise seen at the end of the last century and maintained over the last 10 years, then?And why is the earth about 30 degrees hotter than it would be with no warming gases in the atmosphere? (The "black body" calculation). I am not going to engage with you any further in discussions about the science that is relied upon to support AGW. I consider it to be a pointless exercise. The evidence available to all scientists is the same; ice cores, for instance, remain the same whether examined by a pro or anti AGWist. It is only how individual scientists use or extrapolate or interpret the evidence which differs from one camp to the other. Thus, the debate as far as this thread is concerned, comes down to faith; which interpretation do we choose to believe and why? Moreover, if we are desirous of discovering truth rather than preserving sacred cows, then honesty must be central to any debate. Opposing arguments should be given full consideration and not just rejected piecemeal and on dubious grounds such as miscomprehension due to non-contextual or fractured reading. It is all too easy to Google and find an argument or a graph or a peer-reviewed paper to back an opinion on either side of the debate. But post-justification of a pre-formed opinion does not really tackle the heart of the matter: i.e. what caused one's opinion to be hardened in the first instance? One could address the same question to those engaged in frontline climate research. Are they engaged in a search for truth or a means to reinforce a personal bias? Honesty and humility in the face of contradictory or alternative interpretations of evidence is essential to scientific progress. Both seem to be in short supply in the climate change debate.