Global Warming - A Giant Lie.

[N.Bailey]

BTW, didn't 2500 members make up the IPCC? So, if 52 were scientists, ummm, what's that leave?

 

[melly]

Comprehension not one of your strong points, eh?
You started out by saying the CO2 release over the last hundred years was driving temperatures higher.

Reading not one of your sstrong points eh?

I have wrote all along that CO2 will move after temperature rises however it feedback to give more temperature. So adding to it helps the rise.

Science is alo not another one of your strong points eh?

Thats because a temperature rises and drops are measured over a huge amount of time. There will be individual plots where drops occur but the overall trend will be a rise. It really isnt rocket science.

 

[melly]

Not that I'm willing to concede any such thing, but let's imagine this is irrefutable fact for a second. .

It is irrefutible. It is a cast Iron fact that greenhouse gases traps radiation reflected from the earths surface. Its as much of a fact as gravity.

What do you purpose we do about it? Are you ready to pony over your family's $30,000 (for starters) that the government wants right now so they can start combating this catastrophe? .

Im English so not one has asked me to pony up anything. In terms of what we do about it there are a number of initiatives.

1) We can still burn stuff that releases CO2. The problem is turnover. Oil takes millions of years to replenish but if you produce bio-fuel that are taking in CO2 rapidly then burning them but then producing them again you are eentially re-cycling the CO2. When oil is burned the CO2 doent get removed so you are adding to the balance.

2) Nuclear fuel - Oil reserves are finite anyway so why not accept this and make the move now.

Since the oceans and volcanoes make up the vast majority of the CO2 that's released into the atmosphere, how do YOU propose that we address getting them under control?.

The oceans act in equilibrium based on their temp. If the planet is naturally getting hotter they will release more and then contribute to it. Tough *****, you cant stop it but what you can do is contribute to not adding to this rise.

Why does no one acknowledge that the temperatures peaked more than a DECADE AGO in, 1998? ?.

Its irrelevant. Go and look at temperature data and look how many times small drops are seen within overall rises. A decade is a miniscule amount of time.

Some of the models that was predicting gloom and doom have already proven to be erroneous, but we're suppose to believe these models have the climate down pat for the next 100 years? We don't even know all the variables that make up climate, so how are we EVER going to program a computer to do something we're not even sure of ourselves? It's just not possible.

And thats the fault of the media. I maintain my stance that no scientist will model something and state it will do this. They come up with upper and lower extreem cases. Morons then take this info, speculate about it then feed it to plebs who have no undertanding and then carnage ensues.

 

[dejr_8]

Just like facts is NOT a term used in religion?
So did you read the link.....or are you too scared that you might learn something?

Actually I am very well read on the subject of global warming because I believe as a Scientist (actually an Engineer with a PhD) it is miscarriage of the Scientific Process. What you apparently fail to understand about global warming is that there is data (much of it just empirical observations) and then there are model predictions based on that data.

An example of data is receding glacial ice. Every year the location of the ice can be measured. True. What is not a valid statement to say that it is the fastest the ice has ever receded. Because that is not true. It may be the fastest the ice has receded since man has been keeping records. Question for you - how fast do you think the glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age?

While Temperatures are data, they need to be statistically interpreted to arrive at a global temperature. There are many ways to "average" the temperature data and some of those approaches lead to the "Hockey Stick" graph that "shows" the dramatic increase in global temperatures over the last century. However, there are just as many approaches that "Break" they Hockey Stick. Which is true? I will tell you in that in Science you don't have a group of politicians decide.

Which brings me to my favorite subject - The Computer Models. First, remember that ALL computer models are a SIMPLIFICATION of the system they are trying to model. SIMPLIFICATION means they are not including some aspects of the actual system because a) the Scientist doesn't believe they are important, b) they are too difficult to model [i.e. too much computing time needed] or c) we don't know about them yet.

What a computer model does is take data (as Initial Conditions) and makes predications based on assumptions (and theories) and ADJUSTABLE PARAMETERS. Adjustable parameters are aspects of the system that the Scientist gets to set because they can't be directly measured. We may have an idea of the range of the Parameter but we don't know for sure. An example of JUST ONE of the adjustable parameters is the "Rise in Temperature for a Change in Concentration of CO2". If the Scientist sets this parameter high, you cook the earth as CO2 rises. But guess what, if you set the parameter low you get nothing. What drives the Scientist to choose a value for this parameter is his (or hers) belief on the matter.

Now one aspect of the Global System that I have read that many models under-estimate is the effect of cloud formation and the reduction on global temperatures. Some researches say that cloud formation will increase to modulate global temperatures. Very well could be.

So don't attempt to bully me by saying I am afraid to learn something about Global Warming. I think people tend to bully when they don't have the "evidence" on their side.

 

[DisneyTarheel]

The "non-vicious" Circle of Life:

Hakuna Matata! What a wonderful phrase

Hakuna Matata! Ain't no passing craze

It means no worries for the rest of your days

It's our problem-free philosophy -- Hakuna Matata!

 

[N.Bailey]

The way you partially quoted the statement from the report was meant to deceive people into believing that was the case. Why else would you have left off the remainder of that sentence?

You state that you have no idea how many scientists believe GW is a threat. Do you think that it might be prudent of you to find out this information, or do you always automatically assume evidence is correct based on minority opinions, rather than those pesky majority opinions?

I see you also do not believe in computer models. You are much too smart to believe in these strange, voodoo-like machines. That was my mistake. There I was relying on scientific data, some based on computers. No, we can't trust computers. You have awakened me.

I was never trying to deceive anyone. I would LOVE for you to give me a list of supporting scientists worldwide? If these are who you follow, you should have a handy list?

I was only speaking in reference to the scientists making up the IPCC.

As far as the computer models go, they've already shown how infallible they are. Predictions made in the past have already not panned out. If they can't get it right for 5, 10, 15 or so years, how are they ever going to tell us 100 years from now? They simply don't hold up on ANY level. How could they anyway? Man doesn't know everything that effects climate. How then can man program a computer to do the odds and come up with a conclusion when he can't begin to program it all in?

I don't know of a single meteorologist that believes in the theory of man made global warming. I'm not saying you won't come up with one, I'm only saying, I know of many and don't know a single one who buys into the notion. I use meteorologists because they work with computer models day in and day out. They know they aren't capable of determining climate for any period of time in the future.

I'm not done, but before I forget, I'd like to know who conducted that survey that you linked to from the CNN site. I know it says a US survey, but who conducted it?

You want peer review though? Should I copy and paste the entire article? NAH, but don't say I'm nit picking either. I'm pulling out what I want addressed, but the article is there for the reading if you think you can find some ulterior motives on my part. This is dealing with the models, btw. I started with the first paragraph and ended with the last. I hope Rice U is acceptable to you. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but you want everything the way you want it and anything less isn't good enough, but you don't return the same (CNN survey for 1, most members of IPCC politicians and activists, but real scientists testifying before Congress don't hold up - these type things).


No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794&SnID=2075327496

We also know Mars goes thru cycles similar to that on Earth. In '05 (or there about), NASA released a study that said the snow caps on Mars had been diminishing for 3 years in a row. It was going thru a natural cycle, much like Earth, yet, we know for a fact that wasn't man made global warming. Many scientists feel this is further proof that the sun and not CO2 has a greater effect on temperature. A little off the beaten path and with a slight bit of humor tossed in for fun, 1 GW activist said it was because Mars was closer to the sun than Earth.

 

[N.Bailey]

NOTE THESE SCIENTISTS ALL HELD PhD's (THE ONES THAT DIDN'T MEASURE UP FOR YOU. (I believe this increased to 700)

Even more persuasive, 650 Ph.D. scientists directly involved in climate research have signed on to the U.S. Senate Minority Report. The report was given to the UN Conference of the Parties for the Framework Convention on Climate Change held in December 2008, in Poland. This 231 page report harshly criticizes the fundamental assumption that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of global warming in the last quarter of the twentieth century. This is 12 times more scientists than the 52 who were directly involved in writing the 2007 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s so-called “consensus” Summary for Policy Makers. It turns out that an analysis of the “consensus” of 2500 scientists popularly reported is patently false. Actually, only 62 reviewed the science chapter, and of those, only 4 agreed with the entire report. The more a person digs into the alleged data supporting man-caused global warming, the more it turns out that it is based on little more than hot air, data manipulation, or computer models using disproven algorithms.

What is, perhaps, the clearest evidence that nature, not man, caused the twentieth century warming was the discovery that the oceans are playing a far greater role than previously recognized. The tropical El Niño and La Niña phenomena have been well known since the early 1900s, but their significance was not realized until the late 1900s. As scientists began to appreciate the impact of each event on climate across the world, they also began to notice there was a larger oscillation within which El Niños and La Niñas occurred, extending well beyond the tropics. By 1997, scientists had named them the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Like El Niño and La Niña, the PDO and AMO have warm and cold cycles. While El Niños and La Niñas last only a few months or years, the PDO usually lasts between 15 and 30 years, and the AMO, 20 to 40 years. In the case of the PDO, the warm phase has more El Niños while the cold phase has more La Niñas. Together, the PDO and AMO have a profound affect on earth’s climate and temperature. When compared to earth’s temperature, the correlation between the two and temperature soars dramatically compared to that of CO2 and temperature.

Scientists still do not understand what causes the PDO & AMO, nor do they know if the relatively high correlation between the two and earth’s temperature is a direct cause and effect relationship, or whether there is yet another factor that directly affects both the PDO/AMO and temperature. It may be both.

A growing number of scientists suspect that the driving force is the sun. The sun was initially discounted, and still is by the alarmists, because the change in solar irradiance simply does not provide enough energy to warm the earth. Even so, solar irradiance is somewhat better correlated to temperature than CO2. However, there is a stronger correlation between the number of sunspots and earth’s temperature. Sunspots are created during intense solar magnetic activity. The number of sunspots waxes and wanes on approximately an 11 year cycle, with the maximum number peaking in the middle of the cycle. The sun’s magnetic poles reverse every two cycles, or 22 years, which also seems to have an effect on earth’s climate.

When the sun is active with a lot of sunspots, it also has many violent solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Though the total solar energy output increases only slightly when the sun is active, the amount of solar wind increases dramatically. When this solar wind strikes the earth it interacts with earth’s magnetic field, creating the Aurora Borealis and interacting with the ionosphere where jet streams are formed. Changes in the jet stream are correlated with El Niños and La Niñas as well as weather patterns.

Solar winds are also known to push back cosmic radiation originating from super novas in deep space. There is a statistically significant correlation between the amount of cosmic radiation entering the earth’s surface and the amount of low elevation cloud formation. The more cosmic radiation the more low elevation clouds that are formed. The more clouds, the greater the amount of solar energy that is reflected back into space, and thus the earth cools. When the sun is very active and there is a lot of solar wind, there is less cosmic radiation reaching earth, fewer low elevation clouds are formed reflecting less solar energy, and the earth warms. This relationship itself can account for most of the warming in the twentieth century.

What concerns a growing number of scientists is that solar cycle number 24, the next 11 year cycle, should have started in 2007 and yet has not through September 2009. The sun has had very few sunspots so far, which has, in their opinion, caused the cooling over the past two years. Worse, the sun is the quietist it has been for over 100 years. Many solar scientists are alarmed that it might be heading towards the same type of minimum that occurred in the 1700 and 1800s, which resulted in what is known as the Little Ice Age. That’s not good, because massive crop failures can be expected in the shorter growing seasons, along with famines. We are not there yet, but the fact that an increasing number of scientists are cautiously discussing the possibility is alarming.

And IMO, this is much more scary than warming. There are some videos I can try to find on this from an Australian scientist if you're interested.

The PDO has shifted into its cold phase, which also means cooler global temperatures. Are we heading into another cooling cycle? Many scientists believe so barring another El Niño which occurred in July 2009. It becomes more likely with every passing day. But studies are inconclusive because so little of the $4-$5 billion being spent annually on climate research goes to solar, PDO/AMO, cosmic radiation, or jet stream research. Almost all of it goes towards CO2 research. Why, you ask? It is simply because global warming research has become entirely political, not scientific. Well over $50 billion dollars has been spent advancing this political agenda.

One thing scientists have learned is that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change. For many alarmists, however, man-caused global warming has become a religion, and all the facts in the world will never convince them otherwise. They will continue to chant that the Arctic Ice Cap is destined to disappear and that the polar bears will become extinct, all because of CO2 emissions. They will continue their cry that unless onerous carbon cap and trade schemes are passed soon it will be too late and earth will be doomed. Yet, they will continue to be wrong about their predictions. Nonetheless, no one will hold them responsible for the inaccurate data they broadcast and publish.

For other alarmists, man-caused global warming is a means to making a fast buck selling newspapers, or air time, or carbon credits; billions of dollars are at stake. For still other alarmists, the ruse is a means of creating one more tentacle of global governance – controlling the activities of all humanity at the global level.

Regardless of the motives of the alarmists, the Obama administration has promised that his first priority, along with solving the financial crisis and health care, will be to reduce carbon emissions by 15 percent by 2020 and another 80 percent by 2050. The House has already passed economy-destroying cap and trade legislation in June, 2009, and the Senate’s bill has just come out. Both depend on technology that is extremely expensive or doesn’t exist at all. If that fails, the Environmental Protection Agency has already written a plan that will suck trillions of dollars out of our economy with absolutely no scientific justification whatsoever.

Why are we hell-bent to implement these economy destroying laws and policies if the science overwhelming shows that man is not causing global warming? Simple. It is not about science and reality, it is about power and control.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike115.htm

 

[Wall-E1]

Okay, you found another article from Dr. Michael Coffman, the expert in wood, who has also written God's Prophets and Prophesy - A Layman's Study of God's Plan in the World.

Just because Michael Coffman writes something, it doesn't make it true.

p.s. - I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you for a rock bottom price. It's true. I own it. How else could I have typed this, if it were not true?

 

[N.Bailey]

BTW, the 2 different colored paragraphs above are my words, not pasted from the article.

And I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but the recent hacking of the 61+ gigs of email correspondences have not been denied as of yet. As a matter of fact, it's been acknowledged that they were hacked, but it's not been verified if all the information is accurate or not. I think it's possible that even if some of the emails are real, some of them may have been forged. I guess we'll have to wait till the investigation is completed before we know anything for a fact.

Have you looked at any of those emails? Some of them are pretty damning if true. If not, here is a link (they are posted on many links now) to them if you're interested.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/

Here is my opinion that I'm sure no one will give any credence to and that's certainly your right.

The next climate conference is scheduled to take place in December in Copenhagen. There is a LOT of pressure on Obama (and other world leaders) to really commit to fighting global warming and reducing the CO2 emissions drastically in the very near future. IF Obama (and other leaders) dump billions (literally) into the cause with the state of our economy today, it would be political suicide. Too many skeptics already exists that Obama would NEVER have enough voters on his side to win in 2012. I'm sure other leaders are in the same boat.

So, it's truly my opinion that these emails were not hacked, but were leaked instead. This will get them ALL off the hook for the time being at least. If proven to be true, it will totally destroy the careers of many of those scientists. I won't say they are true because frankly, I'm not qualified to make such a determination, but if you've not looked at some of the them, go check em out and see what you think will happen if they turn out to be real. I certainly am not asking you to determine if they're fraudulent or not. I realize you cannot make that determination anymore than I can.

I've not read your responses (saw you were posting) and I know I have not responded to everything that you and others wrote earlier on the thread. I am going to bed right now, but I will get back to it later.

 

[melly]

. You and melly have tried bullying and ridiculing every single time you respond to anything. .

Not true.

I have ridiculed those who ignore certain scientific facts.

I have ridiculed those who have created false "pro GW" arguments then argued against it. Both of the above deserve ridicule.

However where others have not fell into the above catagory and have engaged in senible fact orientated debate I have done the same back even when the person is expessing a different viewpoint. If people dont want ridicule then dont post rediculous none factual arguments.

 

[dejr_8]

Not true.

I have ridiculed those who ignore certain scientific facts.

I have ridiculed those who have created false "pro GW" arguments then argued against it. Both of the above deserve ridicule.

However where others have not fell into the above catagory and have engaged in senible fact orientated debate I have done the same back even when the person is expessing a different viewpoint. If people dont want ridicule then dont post rediculous none factual arguments.

So exactly what Scientific "Facts" do you see that support Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions?

I believe that you are confusing a Scientific Fact with data. The two are not the same!

We have data - some of it from observations - some of it from measurements and much of it requires statistical analysis and/or interpretation to become useful. Depending on how the data is interpretated you can get different outcomes (i.e. science isn't as exact as many believe it to be).

What we have are many Hypotheses - notice I didn't say Theories - that attempt to explain the data. One hypothesis is that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. This is not a fact!

So now - Please explain why you believe Global Warming to be caused by Man.

 

[melly]

So exactly what Scientific "Facts" do you see that support Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions?

I believe that you are confusing a Scientific Fact with data. The two are not the same!

We have data - some of it from observations - some of it from measurements and much of it requires statistical analysis and/or interpretation to become useful. Depending on how the data is interpretated you can get different outcomes (i.e. science isn't as exact as many believe it to be).

What we have are many Hypotheses - notice I didn't say Theories - that attempt to explain the data. One hypothesis is that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. This is not a fact!

So now - Please explain why you believe Global Warming to be caused by Man.

I will write this in big coloured letters so that you can understand.

AT NO POINT HAVE I EVER WROTE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN CO2 EMMISION

What I did write is as follows and is backed up by scientific fact and evidence.

1) Climate will change up and down NO MATTER WHAT HUMANS DO.

2) As the temperature increases CO2 will follow it from the oceans (scientific fact)

3) The CO2 that is released is a green house gas (scientific fact)

4) Greenhouse gasses do trap the suns radiation (scientific measurable fact)

Therefore......

5) If humans add MORE CO2 then they are contributing to it. NOT CAUSING IT.


I have wrote this at least 4 times in this thread yet people still come back and then attack a straw man argument that says humans caused it. Then you wonder why you get ridiculed. You get ridiculed for not being able to read, understand then contruct an argument against that. What you have done it read, not understood then constructed an argument against something I havent even wrote.

 

[Wall-E1]

N.Bailey - I do appreciate the time you took in typing out your many views as to why the climate is changing. You were very descriptive, even going so far as to explain how the Aurora Borealis effect occurs. That's so cute. You really are trying. On a general level, you are correct. Climate is changed by the sun's activity, ocean temperatures, etc. I too, have made this same statement - that CO2 is not the only culprit and not the trigger. You do however have several facts in there that are either completely wrong, or not understood correctly by yourself. Here are a few - We are not in a cooling cycle. The reason a large number of dollars goes into CO2 research is not a political thing. It is because CO2 is something we can control. We know that climate change will have a devastating affect on the world. We can't control the sun or El Nino. We can control CO2. So, that is why a lot of research money is going towards the CO2 issue. We are trying to slow down climate change the only way we can. Your reasoning for "most of the warming in the twentieth century" is wrong. There is a direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising average temperatures.

If our current president feels like it is necessary to start a new industry based on green jobs and green construction, that is not going to devastate the economy. That will help the economy. How do you think we began to emerge from the Great Depression. Surprise! It was deficit spending. Money was used to improve our infrastructure. Roads, bridges, etc. were ordered. This created jobs and manufacturing needs. The same will happen here. Manufacturing will be needed for wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, etc. This will open up jobs at manufacturing plants for the average worker. This will benefit America on all levels, from the engineering level on down to hourly workers.

p.s.- I didn't bother looking at the "hacked emails". I don't have time for "National Enquirer" type side trips. I'm sure it's pretty much false, and unless it is shown to be real, there is no point in wasting time on that subject. You say that it is your opinion that the emails were leaked purposely to get everyone off the hook. Okay?!??!? My one response on that view is - Start wearing your tin foil hat. They're coming for you.

 

[Wall-E1]

Here's an interesting article from today that explains some of the issues of climate change. It is from the Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto

N.Bailey - Take note - Even though this article was not written by some religious fanatic with a Ph.D in Forest Science, it still can be believed. This is because the article is filled with facts. That means it's true. This article also dispels some of the factual errors in your long, though out post.

 

[Sanchez]

If our current president feels like it is necessary to start a new industry based on green jobs and green construction, that is not going to devastate the economy. That will help the economy. How do you think we began to emerge from the Great Depression. Surprise! It was deficit spending. Money was used to improve our infrastructure. Roads, bridges, etc. were ordered. This created jobs and manufacturing needs. The same will happen here. Manufacturing will be needed for wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, etc. This will open up jobs at manufacturing plants for the average worker. This will benefit America on all levels, from the engineering level on down to hourly workers.
.

Surprise! Not true and no need to perpetuate this fallacy. I think that your political agenda has been revealed.

 

[Wall-E1]

Surprise! Not true and no need to perpetuate this fallacy. I think that your political agenda has been revealed.

What a surprise! You are absolutely wrong. You'll notice that in my post, I stated that deficit spending helped us begin to emerge from the Great Depression. WWII is what finally got us completely out of it. So, would you rather use deficit spending or start WWIII to help us emerge from our current financial problems?

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gdp-graph.jpg
I have included a link to a graph that shows how GDP was rising during Roosevelt's presidency, and before we entered WWII. Roosevelt was elected in 1932. You then see a rise in GDP after he took office. This is from deficit spending and the many infrastructure projects he ordered. You will see a dip in 1937 - 1938. Roosevelt cut spending at that time on projects, at the urging of Republicans. There was an immediate drop in GDP. He quickly resumed spending on projects the next year and GDP began rising again up until WWII.

So, no political agenda on my end. It's just you revising history to back up your political agenda, whatever that may be.

 

[Sanchez]

What a surprise! You are absolutely wrong. You'll notice that in my post, I stated that deficit spending helped us begin to emerge from the Great Depression. WWII is what finally got us completely out of it. So, would you rather use deficit spending or start WWIII to help us emerge from our current financial problems?

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gdp-graph.jpg
I have included a link to a graph that shows how GDP was rising during Roosevelt's presidency, and before we entered WWII. Roosevelt was elected in 1932. You then see a rise in GDP after he took office. This is from deficit spending and the many infrastructure projects he ordered. You will see a dip in 1937 - 1938. Roosevelt cut spending at that time on projects, at the urging of Republicans. There was an immediate drop in GDP. He quickly resumed spending on projects the next year and GDP began rising again up until WWII.

So, no political agenda on my end. It's just you revising history to back up your political agenda, whatever this at may be.

Once again, not quite the whole story. Evidence suggests that those programs served to prolong the depression. We can do the battle of the economists on that one.

Nevertheless, that is not the point of this thread. I apologize for taking it off course. I will keep to myself my opinions on how to best solve the problems of our current financial situation.

I stand by what I said about your political agenda. It is abundantly clear and you are determined to take this thread on that course.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think the blogger is desperately seeking attention. The debate over global warming has ended. The scientific evidence is abundant. Of course there will always be a segment of the population that believes it is a myth. These same people also tend to believe that the moon landing was faked and that the earth is about 6,000 years old.

Al, is that you?

 

[dejr_8]

I will write this in big coloured letters so that you can understand.

AT NO POINT HAVE I EVER WROTE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN CO2 EMMISION

What I did write is as follows and is backed up by scientific fact and evidence.

1) Climate will change up and down NO MATTER WHAT HUMANS DO.

2) As the temperature increases CO2 will follow it from the oceans (scientific fact)

3) The CO2 that is released is a green house gas (scientific fact)

4) Greenhouse gasses do trap the suns radiation (scientific measurable fact)

Therefore......

5) If humans add MORE CO2 then they are contributing to it. NOT CAUSING IT.


I have wrote this at least 4 times in this thread yet people still come back and then attack a straw man argument that says humans caused it. Then you wonder why you get ridiculed. You get ridiculed for not being able to read, understand then contruct an argument against that. What you have done it read, not understood then constructed an argument against something I havent even wrote.

OK. Do you believe that the Kyoto Treaty will do anything to alter the direction of Climate change?

And while your argument shows that humans are only contributing to CO2 emissions what you failed to provide is an order of magnitude for the human contribution. Is it 1%? Is it 10%? Is it 0.1%??

 

[Blue.Fairy2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18723606/