Is CO2 just a big COn?

Question

The truth about global warming has already been clearly elucidated elsewhere on this site and the fact remains that there is no evidence whatsoever that human CO2 emissions have any bearing on it. In fact a recent Channel 4 programme showed conclusively that nothing we can do can have the slightest effect. But, like religion, people cling to many erroneous beliefs which have no basis in scientific fact or contrary evidence, simply because it makes them 'feel good'.
The sooner we can eliminate all these spurious ideas and faulty logic the sooner we can come to terms with the prospect of a warmer climate - and the opportunities it offers.

The question is not whether global warming actually exists but if it does, is it caused by the activities of mankind? I think not, because as a physicist I have yet to see any scientifically verifiable evidence either that it does, that it's caused by mankind, or that we can do anything to combat it. Or even if we should try. A warmer climate would imply the need for less space heating in winter, improved agriculture and less need to seek the summer sun abroad. This is called 'negative fedback' and we would be better employed turning any perceived climatic change to our advantage rather than try to mitigate its imagined detrimental impacts.

Answer 1

Just like Al Gore, you are saying that your point has been conclusively proven. But it hasn't. One lie is as bad as another.

There is ample evidence that PAST climate change has caused CO2 increases and not the other way around. But that does not prove that THIS climate change cannot have a different cause. The CO2 graph in the source does show that the present CO2 increase looks NOTHING like any past one, so it is at least plausible that it has a different cause and will have a different effect. You need to keep an open mind!

By the way, nobody disagrees with the CO2 concentrations in the graph in the source. Al Gore and George Bush and the oil companies and everyone agrees with the data in the graph. It is the consequences of that CO2 increase that are being argued. The caption in the graph that says, "The Industrial Revolution Has Caused A Dramatic Rise in CO2" can safely be ignored without invalidating the actual concentration history. But the correlation with the beginning of the rise in CO2 and the start of the industrial revolution is quite striking, isn't it?

Answer 2

No.

The "swindle" movie is wrong. It is simply a political statement which distorts science. The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

History of the director.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.
Global warming is real and mostly caused by us. Three reasons, with solid support, most important first.

There's an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed scientific data that says that. Short and long summaries.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

There's a large number of people who agree that it is, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Good website for more info:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 3

In some techniques definite. evaluate that we in straightforward words contribute 6 out of two hundred billion a lot of Co2 a 365 days (ninety from volcanoes, ninety from image voltaic pastime, 4 from different). the most convincing element is the actual undeniable actuality that Co2 isn't even a greenhouse gasoline! i ought to assert a corresponding to you. First step in dropping all of you money in unnecessary new taxes- Denial of the particular undeniable actuality that they are unnecessary. truly, putting forward someone is in denial even as they don't help something that has no helping medical evidence is in basic terms asinine. Do you're saying those who do not trust in Santa Clause are denial too? Ben, we do not recognize how a lot Co2 has more beneficial contained in the previous one hundred and fifty years. We in straightforward words all started measuring 120ish in the past. because of that, we do not have any clue what "typical" ranges are. the most instantly ahead analogy is searching a dried up a lake for the first time, and then getting in touch about flooding because it restores itself to typical ranges. All it truly is irrelevant anyhow, seeing as Co2 isn't a greenhouse gasoline and is bodily incapable of holding warmth contained in the way human beings favor it to.

Answer 4

Now that carbon trading and offsetting has been firmly entrenched in the world markets the global warming crowd are just not going to go away. Too many people making money out of it. Having said that, does anybody remember that programme about global cooling, where it was stipulated that emissions actually keep the planet cool? It was demonstrated after 9-11 when all the US planes were grounded and the ambient temperature rose 3degC.

Answer 5

There is no question that CO2 is being increased by human activity. None. End of story.

the question is "how is climate changed?"

Please be careful saying that humans only add a small percent of the carbon. You must take account of time scales.

Humans introduce carbon that is not supposed to be in the current carbon budget. Petro-carbon is not to be released back to the atmosphere until it makes its way to a seep or volcano, in thousands and thousands of years.

the other carbon production is all carbon be cycled on the same time scale.

we are putting excess Carbon in to the atmosphere. That above the dynamic equilibrium that millions of years of life have helped to create.

Answer 6

Here's some perspective for the alarmists -
If you calculate the volume of the atmosphere and divide that by the total number of people on earth (as of 7/1/07) you'll find that there is nearly one CUBIC mile of atmosphere for every man, woman, and child on earth. Of course there are some considerations: the majority of the world's population is in non-industrialized countries and the atmosphere is in constant flux - in other words, those cubic miles are not "closed". What this speaks to me is that a very few countries would have to be responsible for polluting approximately 6.16 BILLION CUBIC MILES of atmosphere. Frankly, this has CON written all over it. I don't care what scientists are quoted, I don't care about Al Gore's Nobel nomination, there is a bigger agenda beneath the surface and it doesn't have anything to do with man-made climate change other than scaring the crap out of the herd mentality crowd.

Answer 7

Some folks on this side of the pond claim consensus is science. Clearly this is not the case. I say "Good Show" to you for seeing through the fraud. Carbon Credits are equal to the indulgences that brought forth the protestant reformation. I understand Global Climate Change because the climate is always in flux, and I support the premise that we should be better stewards for economic and enviromental reasons. however Kyoto is a Dodo and Al Gore is an example of a living lobotomy.

Answer 8

Any government loves to have a huge scare like global warming and how we are to blame, to use as an excuse to:

control the masses,

tax the masses,

and make out how good they are for caring. It makes them look like heros (they think)

They don't want us to doubt the scare so play down any questioning voices and over-hype anyone who supports them.

I would like to see a fair and un-biased study as to what is causing global warming. But anyone who currently dares to suggest any other cause is treated like a heretic.

If it does turn out that they have been wrong, just watch how quickly all politicians will claim they knew it all along and they were just being fed false intelligence!!!!

Answer 9

Benjamin Disraeli said originally and it was popularised in the U.S. by Mark Twain:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and STATISTICS.

Clever things statisticians they can make numbers jump through hoops or even disappear. Especially when the statistician has political power.

Answer 10

out of the 187 billion tones of CO2 in the air, only 7 billion were contributed to by humans. They're trying to cut it but by the slightest bit which causes misery on our lives.

Oh and this 'air tax' thing they're charging us now...why, bloody why