Big Dave is wrong, as long as you ignore the overwhelming body of evidence, as the flat earthers (CO2 is a hoax) Those who happen to be the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, as well as the overwhelming evidence contradict the flat earthers here They dont' give convincing evidence, they try to pick at the existing evidence that the earth is warming rapidly, due to recent human industrial activity Being loud does not make you right.
This is from someone that appears to be on your side of the argument. http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/ By mass and volume, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. According to both the International Panel on Climate Change and many global climate models, water vapor accounts for somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic..... If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%). To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv
This whole debate would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. The most famous global warming alarmist, James Hansen, is a fraud and a bit of a nutjob. He testified in the uK that the heads of major energy companies should be prosecuted as enemies of mankind or some such nonsense. That is the guy who basically invented this whole fraud, whch was them picked up by Al Gore who saw a convenient hobby horse to ride. Since the science is woefully inadequate to support Hansen's outlandish predictions, they hit on this notion of claiming a "consensus" of scientists support it and anyone who objects is the equivalent of a nazi. Of course, as outlined in this thread and elsewhere, many prominent scientists either dismiss Hansen's predictions out of hand or point out that his work does not support his conclusions. This is a two point exercise. Point one is for govenrment to get control of a vast area of the economy, eg manufacturing, energy and utilities. That goal will soon be complete, and you will begin to notice the effect in your utility bills, as they double and triple. Watch for liberasl to angrily denounce greedy utility companies and insist on price controls. Point two is to bind us in international agreements regulating emission of greenhouse gases. This will transfer control of the US economy to the "international community" and is the endgame for the faile dNorth-South dialogue of some 30 years ago. The object then, as now, is to transfer money from taxpyers of the US to rich elites in third world countries, all of course unde th4e guise of fairness, equality, socialjustice, saving the planet and whatever other bromides they can find. This is a longtime gola of obama, who also backs legislation requiring a vast expansion of US foreign aid. It's interesting that there has been a near total media blackout on the fact that the House is voting on this far-reaching bill Friday. Democrats know that voters will be apoplectic with anger when they realize what has happened, and they do not want to risk an uprising before the votes are safely in hand. As for the science, consider that these are the same people who have objected for decades to missile defense on the grounds that it couldn't possibly work. Well, it does work and we're mighty lucky that Reagan blew them off.
Ah yes,science is a conspiracy against 'freemarket' charlatans like yourself. The patriot missile system had 100% failure rate in the gulf war you jackass. I still dont think that there is a real missile defence technology that is reliable. YOU are an idiot like most conservatives.
Even though I posted the chart I also share a bit of sceptism about past climate predictions. The data was obtained at the Vostok Station. They use ice core data to obtain a timeline for various aspects of the atmosphere.
How was the 386 measurement taken? Air measurements? And how was the past CO2 levels determined? Ice core? How do you know that they correlate? If the present CO2 levels are higher than ever before, then why aren't temps ALSO the highest they've ever been, if CO2 is the "major factor" in global warming?
So which is it? Science should be trusted to provide actionable theories, or it shouldn't? Every time there's scientific evidence provided for GW, you guys are hysterically screaming that it's 'pseudoscience'. Conveniently, when scientific results tend to support your denials, you're all over them. CO2 emissions need to be reduced. We need to find alternatives to fossil fuels. That's the bottom line fact.