Why Should We Reduce CO2?

Question

When absolutely NO scientist says that anything humans can or could do will possibly cool the earth, that warming is a 500 year nonstoppable trend?
Examine the literature...all it says is there's more CO2 and that there's warming and that's bad. There's not even consensus that CO2 isnt a result of warming, not the cause!

BUT NO scientist states that CO2 reduction will COOL the PLANET.

WHY then all the gyrations?

The scientists who supported CO2 attribution ALSO stated that it was a phenomenon not stoppable for 400-500 years no matter what humans do. I read this at the same time, and they said that they hoped that would not reduce the impetus of CO2 reduction...but it DOES.

As far as real science goes, until GW cheerleaders can answer fundamental questions about why antarctica is cooling, why Mars with consisten 95% CO2 atmosphere is experiencing the same warming as earth, why ice core samples show reverse CO2/warming correlations, what rewarned the earth after the last six human-documented ice ages, and why even though published in the Royal Acad. Sci. about cosmic rays and cloud seeding that CLOUD effects and SOLAR FLUCTUATIONS are utterly ignored. Why focus ONLY on CO2 when WATER is THREE FOLD the greenhouse gas of CO2, and methane much higher.
Show a single reference that points out how many kilotons of CO2 must be removed over what time period to achieve a global thermal cooling="0"

Answer 1

i'ts hysteria driven by politics. it's a popular bandwagon thing.

Answer 2

If you're going to make sweeping statements the least you can do is to validate them with citations.

I'm a scientist and I say that CO2 reduction will help to cool the planet, by that very admission your statement is now incorrect.

Incidentally, the scientists I work with and have worked with over the past 23 years also know that reducig CO2 will hekp to cool the planet - to say otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of the dynamics of global warming.

Put in simple terms, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like wearing extra layers of clothes. Would anyone dispute that wearing clothes keeps you warm - of course not. The principle of CO2 is the same (heat retention).

Warming is not a 500 year trend, wherever did you get this from? There's certainly discussion regarding warming and cooling cycles but no one suggests it's a 500 year trend.

CO2 and warming are part of a well documented and understood feedback effect - warming leads to CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions leads to warming. Nobody with any knowledge of global warming disputes this, regardless as to whether they beleive global warming is manmade, natural or both.

---------------

Everyone who has concerns about global warming it's causes and effects should raise those concerns and they should be openly and sensibly debated. Bringing unfounded nonsense to the discussion does no one any favours.

By all means refute global warming but don't use fabricated evidence to do so - you're just giving those who beleive in global warming more reasons to pay no attention to those who question it.

Answer 3

There is a greater danger that is often overlooked. Environmentalists have managed over the years to put a stop to new constructions of hydro electric power and nuclear power plants. Now they have succeeded in coal powered power plants.

What is more they are giving the impression that energy conservation and a few solar panels will save the world. Industry in order to survive needs a reliable source of power. A lot of nuclear plants are getting old and coming to the end of life. We have nothing reliable to replace them with. That is going to effect our industry, our economy and our standard of living. That in effect is the danger that the environmentalist movement has put us in.

Answer 4

It provides the liberal left a vehicle to vent their hatred of mankind and industry.