No, science has progressed since 1998. Of course you'd be better off asking some climate scientists rather than a bunch of lawyers.<quoted text>
>>Guy Callendar was a superb scientist and an expert on the physics of steam. He wrote a seminal article in 1938 on the potential for increasing levels of CO2 to warm the atmosphere...
By Callendar’s calculation, a doubling in CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would cause about a 1.7 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature. What is interesting about this is that Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today. The reason is that the alarmists’ models build in hypothetical positive feedback effects in order to generate greater temperature impacts....
The modest temperature increase suggested by Callendar, and validated so far by observation, poses no threat, and won’t bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict. Callendar himself thought the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would be salutary:
It may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
It is somewhat ironic that the “science” of global warming has regressed since 1938.
A large part of Callendar (1938) discusses the change
in global temperatures that would have been expected
given the observed increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration. The calculations were somewhat hindered by
the existing understanding of atmospheric radiative physi
and by the limited available observations of the infrared
absorption spectrum and carbon dioxide concentrations.
In addition, he considered the energy balance at the
surface instead of the top of the atmosphere.