Global Warming Debate: More, Please

The reaction of the panel following Al Gore’s film was exactly typical, however I suppose in the circumstances it was what I should have expected, strictly political. What especially disappointed me was Dr Dixon’s response to my own question about rain forests which effectively was a total evasion, other than to say that he could take issue with some of the statistics which I had quoted.

Not Proven
To try and push this a little further and to open up the discussion, in the full knowledge that someone with more understanding of the subject than myself may shoot me down in flames, my point was to say that, although Al Gore may prove to be right in his reason for the apparent rise in global warming there was a long way to go before it was proved. However, even if we do accept that the cause of the problem is a rise in atmospheric CO2, surely it must also be shown that the rise in CO2 (which I accept is real) is due to man in the form of transport, manufacture, energy production etc and not to something else.
My contention was that big business, politicians, scientists, and lobbyists etc are all happy to accept the former because it benefits their own hidden agendas. A whole new and very lucrative business sector has recently opened up in carbon trading and carbon consultancy with the recently published figures showing that European power producers by themselves have made a profit of more that €6.0billion in selling off their surplus allocations.
The light bulb manufacturers must be on a bonanza with their apparently “low energy” light bulbs and the politicians see the manmade scenario as a golden opportunity to raise taxes in the name of a good cause while fighting each other to demonstrate that they are “The Greenest Party”. We are being brainwashed on a daily basis to accept that we are the problem when that is a long way from being proved.

Rain Forests
The point that I really wanted answered, and which was broadly ignored, was that the rise in CO2, whether or not it is the cause of global warming, is the result of cutting down of vast areas of the rain forests. Fifty years ago 14% of the earth’s surface was covered in forest and these forests produced 20% of the earth’s oxygen. In doing so, they cleansed the atmosphere of much of its CO2 leaving only 270 parts per million or 0.027%.
It seems to me logical that if you take away 50% of that oxygen producing power you must in the process leave a higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not competent to do the sums but common sense tells me that the CO2 must increase and that is what has happened. Over the past 50 years the rain forests have been reduced from 14% of the earth’s surface to 7% of the earths surface and the CO2 has increased from 0.027% to 0.038% of the earths atmosphere. In my simplistic way of thinking about these things, this effect would seem to dwarf anything that other human activity could be responsible for.

Technical Improvements
Another aspect of the argument which should be considered before the politicians decide to tax us out of existence is the enormous efficiency improvements in almost every aspect of energy consumption. I worked for a large number of years on aircraft gas turbines and it is a fact that in the 1950s these engines had an operating efficiency of 8%. The current generation of aircraft engines are at least 40% efficient , a five fold improvement.
Car engines have similarly improved, as has building insulation, heating boilers, lighting etc. These improvements will continue and together with a switch over to bio-fuels perhaps the CO2 problem, if it exists, will self-correct and maybe even reverse.
That is as far as I can move the debate, but I would be pleased if anyone can take it further, in any direction.