So contrary to strong scientific consensus that increasing a greenhouse gas will in turn have a effect you know for some reason that it will have no effect?

I go back to that argument because its the prime culprit overall. We have technology that is powered by hydrocarbons, the use of such is producing again a large amount of CO2 that previously was not occurring, this amount is going to grow, CO2 in our atmosphere functions as a greenhouse gas, and increasing the amount of it over time is going to have an impact. Science will already attest to this, the impact is what it will not currently state it knows for sure.

Global climate change would surely cause much more havoc to any economy then it would if it were stopped. We can with understanding develop means to bypass this problem.

Yes. As I quoted above:







No, it isn't. It is only a small, essentially completely insignificant component.

Again, as I quoted initially:



So, CO2 is only a very small component of the greenhouse gases, and a relatively impotent one at that. Hence my question asking why we should be focusing on this.

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as 'sinks', and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as 'sources'. When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.

Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. For more information on CO2 trends in the atmosphere, visit the page on Atmosphere Changes."

Link

And from the same link:
The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.8ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 420,000 years (IPCC 2001). See Figure 1 for a record of CO2 concentrations from about 420,000 years ago to present.

And since we know that the earth warmed during 900-1100 AD far more than today or even the projections for worst case this century we know that CO2 cannot be the major cause (or even methane for that matter). This make my point that spending 400 billion by the US to “try” (and fail because of China, India etc) is a pure waste of money. If the world is re-warmarming as it did in 900-1100 then there is little we can do but prepare to deal with it.

How does any of this contradict that facts that I have stated, which clearly show that C02 is an insignificant component of the greenhouse gas effect, both in quantity and in effect? Or, perhaps more clearly, please provide justification for focusing our efforts--spending money, time, and resources-- on avenues that are NOT going to effect the rise in temperature, which is given as the reason for doing so.

No one in the field studying such claims a greenhouse gas like CO2 to be impotent, and its a major issue because its the one being produced in the largest quantity, far much more then any other greenhouse gas, though being it even is able to hold that label should tell you its not impotent.

You make claims that science does not know, then after that you claim things that would be factual, such as CO2 being impotent, or that you know humans are not the cause, when evidence is contrary to most everything you would post. Just like the latest link I posted derived via science that a 35% boost to global CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution, and now with the concentration of people globally doing such I imagine that rate to simply just start to soar, but yes its not important.

I am sorry if you hold the current economic system as more important that coming to live in stability with the environment, that is a personal choice that obviously is not generated via pure fact alone and probably owes much to political allegiance I imagine. I am all for keeping the same standard of living but I know we could slowly but surely change it to accommodate natural realities we face, such as simply existing. You would not allow I would guess for your home residence to become some polluted wasteland and I doubt you would like to live in one or work in one, this is what to me it boils down to in simple terms because if you do happen to be a living thing currently we need the same environment of our past to exist today in order to survive. At some point I am sure our technology will make us more independent of such in the face of survival but currently it does not.

You lost me. CO2 in not a pollutant and this debate is over its alleged and un-quantified effect on the atmosphere. Certainly most of us want to do the best for the environment. Wasting 400 billion in a vain attempt to stop a warming trend that may have other causes is not money well spent – right?

You lost me. CO2 in not a pollutant and this debate is over its alleged and un-quantified effect on the atmosphere. Certainly most of us want to do the best for the environment. Wasting 400 billion in a vain attempt to stop a warming trend that may have other causes is not money well spent – right?

It is not worthwhile to bet 400 billion (or more if neccessary) out of an economy of 12 trillion on the majority of climatologists being right about us needing to in order to save the world?

A chart of CO 2 for past several hundred thousand years, shows it to have a direct relationship with temperature. This either means it causes climate change, or climate change guides its fluctation. Explain how it could be the latter.

Explain whats wrong with the hockey stick model, and how it is less accurate then 1990 chart of the past 1000 years of temperature which proports the little ice age and medieval warm periods to be dramatic global phenomonons.

If the arguement for Global Warming being anthropogenic is false, explain why it has such wide acclaim among those who should know best.

Show what has really caused global warming (sun spots and heat sinks, etc) and explain how it can completely explain for it. Show these heating devices to have been completely regressed in the little ice age and in full swing during the medieval warm period (if you continue to believe those phenomona really were global).

I have posted numerous quotes and statistics refuting this, and yet it continues to be brought up that C02 is the primary cause of the 'greenhouse effect'. I am going to have to adopt standard debating practice, and state that points not directly refuted are therefore conceded. Given that, it is therefore conceded that it is a myth that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas, and that anthropogenic CO2 is an relevant component of the greenhouse effect. This concession will remain in effect until that evidence which I have offered is refuted.

Further, it is not worth spending $400 billion on anything with questionable results. Suppose anthropogenic CO2 were indeed the cause of global warming. Let's further assume the United States investing heavily in reducing such emissions. Where would that leave us? There would be little or no change in the CO2 levels, as China and other countries are heavily building up their industrial capacity, and the output of their plants will far outpace the reductions taken place here. Further, US goods will have become less successful in the global marketplace, having a significant negative impact on our economy. Finally, the economic capacity in the developing world will increase even faster to take up the slack, leading to a faster spread of the very emissions we were seeking to reduce in the first place. Consider this, and please explain why we should be in a rush to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to reduce our economy AND cause the very environmental pattern that led to such spending to INCREASE.



OK. Global temperature has a direct impact on foliation levels, which in turn has a direct impact on CO2 levels.



Because they haven't figured out how to affect those gases which do indeed comprise the vast majority of the greenhouse effect. Further, they're not willing to state that because there's not a lot of research money for addressing unsolvable problems. Researchers aren't in the general habit of shooting their own funding in the foot. Finally, most scientific journals I have seen indicate strongly that they aren't sure of either cause or effect. It is others who are hijacking the research that, in general, are generating the acclaim.



Show how previous similar temperature changes occurred in the complete and total absence of any of the supposed causes being listed today. If that can't be done, demonstrate that such industrial capacity existed then, to the complete abscence of any historical record of such. Further, if indeed the current temperature increase (if it exists), and if indeed it is caused by increases in C02, is not far more related to deforestation than it is increase in C02 output. If you can't do that, then please explain why we should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on potentially the wrong end of the problem, if indeed it exists. Finally, show how the problem, if indeed it exists, isn't self-correcting, as almost all of the earth's cycles are.

Causes of Global Climate Change
Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.
"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.
Playing with Numbers
Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.
Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html