The article deals with some “common arguments” made by CC sceptics. The article generated a few queries and letters to the editor. One of those letters is from VG himself. I’m not going to preempt the publication of the letter and response in the January issue.

Unfortunately you’ll need to head to a good library of be a member of NZIC to see a print copy and articles are published online with a 6 month lag. Apparently a request has been made to the editor to provide space for an article of similar length to present “the other side”. So join NZIC now and get the last issue and the January issue to read all about it and have the chance to see and reply to any “other side” article.

However, it is probably not giving anything away to note as Gareth does that VG dismisses ground temperature data at one point and then mere lines later uses such data to “prove” no warming has occurred.

The article also triggered a long exchange with another chemist with a PhD (who now runs a business selling self help books). He very quickly showed he did not understand the scientific evidence and had done very little reading but had made up his mind “on the basis of the evidence”!

For example: He correctly pointed out that fluxes between the air-ocean are much greater than fossil fuel burning and then asked me if it were possible that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere had been degassed from the oceans.

My response was that the Suess effect (isotope dilution) showed this was not possible but an even simpler consideration – that any chemist worth their NaCl should have spotted – also showed it wasn’t possible:

In the oceans most CO2 actually occurs mainly as bicarbonate HCO3(-1) with somewhat less as carbonate CO3(-2) and CO2. To generate one mole of CO2 from HCO3 takes one mole of acid (and two moles of acid if you start from CO3)

There is no such source of acid. If there were it would be of even greater concern than just CO2.

I have tried in vain to make this chemist see that whoever made the argument either knew nothing about chemistry and therefore could not be trusted with any of the other “scientific” evidence. Or they were deliberately lying. I know which way my vote usually goes but second thoughts on reading some of VG’s work inclines me to the former rather than the later.

I’ll check with the editor and see if I can put a copy of the article on my own website.