It isn't politics. Period.

Its science, and it's very real.

Trying to argue against it using politics as a basis is pathetic. . So why?

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Kir, even the supporters admit that it is pure politics. Want more?

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

So you can see that even those who advocate CAGW know that it is pure politics. And if you truly are interested I have a lot more quotes from advocates.

Now does CAGW have anything to do with science? Let us see what top scientists have to say.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Just why did Al Gore fire a top scientist? Was it due to science or politics? It has been proven that Al Gore knows nothing about science. Why would he want Happer silenced?

Notice that last sentence of Happer's quote. No one on this site or in any periodical or any IPCC report or in any peer reviewed paper can successfully attack that.

Let us take another scientist.

Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

And there are many more scientists who disagree with the CAGW theory. In fact there are over 31,000 who have signed an affidavit as to that effect.

This is the real world, Kirs. This is the world that feeds you. This is the world that protects you. Yet you want to throw it overboard over a lie. You play right into the hands of people who are not out for yours or mankind's best interests.

This is what the proponents of CAGW want.

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

Is that what you want for mankind? Are you willing to be reorientated over a lie? Think about it.

I agree it isn't politics. at least the reality of it isn't. Those who claim it is have to delve into a large conspiracy theory.

Kano: I suggest you get your facts straight. Water vapour only overlaps a very small portion of the CO2 spectrum and that which it does overlap is fairly weak. The reason why you say water vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas is because of it's broad range. However, if we take individual absorption lines they are stronger at some points and weaker at others. The portion that overlaps the CO2 spectrum is fairly weak. To see this go to the following site. http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser... and do the following:

1. Select 'Group by Molecule' if it is not already selected.

2. Select the following in 'Spectral Range': Units - wavenumber, Lower limit - 610cm^-1, Upper limit - 730cm^-1

3. Select the following in 'Options': 'scale by atmospheric abundance', Atmosphere - standard, Scale - linear, Symbols - sticks

4. From the select menu under 'Species' select the following gasses: H2O, CO2

And your claim that water vapour in the troposphere is not increasing is completely false. The post you selected as best answer for your previous question relating to this deals with the stratosphere, not the troposphere. The link posted was the following.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/...

Do you notice how it says 'stratosphere' in the first sentence? This is because, as the stratosphere has been cooling, it has decreased ability to hold as much water vapour as it does. This is opposite of what is occurring in the troposphere. This is because more energy is being retained in the troposphere cooling the stratosphere as modern science says it will. And yes, any warming will have the same effect. that being, as it warms more water vapour will be in the atmosphere. No one has ever stated differently. It's common sense. And your claim that there are more negative feedbacks than positive ones pertaining to water vapour is unsubstantiated. Especially considering it has actually warmed over the past century rather than cooled. What you are doing is claiming that warming does cause cooling. That is something your side has been arguing against for awhile now.

Kano: That graph shows relative humidity not total concentration. It even says this in the graphic itself. Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air compared to how much it can hold.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...

The graph you gave also shows 3 levels of the troposphere. It does not show the stratosphere. What the graph tells me is that as the world warms and air parcels gain the ability to hold more vapour that an equal amount of vapour is being held in the air parcel. Therefor, it is increasing as stated previously. Furthermore, what the differences n altitude tell me is either that the upper troposphere is warming at a faster rate than the lower troposphere thereby making a declining relative humidity trend or much of that growing water vapour content is being held in the lower troposphere.

Why? Because it's easier to argue the politics.

You don't need to know squat about albedo or emissions spectra or whatnot to argue the politics. All you really need to argue about politics is to have an opinion, though having *some* clue how at least *some* portion of the world works helps a bit.

It's a lot harder to argue the science unless you actually are a scientist of some flavor.

Hey, psu beast here. In the 20th century, global temperatures fluctuated with no correlation to the steady rise in carbon dioxide levels. Temperature decreased from the 40s to the 70s and then increased from the late 70s to the 90s. In the past 10 years temperature decreased by a degree celsius despite an 8% increase in CO2 levels. The IPCC estimate was over a degree C off throughout this short timespan. 500 million years ago co2 levels are estimated to be 20 times greater than todays value. Levels dropped again and then 200 million years ago levels were 4-5 times greater than today. We are due for an ice age these days according to previous climactic cycles of the earth. Why is it a political debate? Because global warming due to fossil fuel emissions is ill proven and nobody wants to spend billions of dollars for a cause that is not justifiable in any rational sense. There is a lot more information on this. Please don't mindlessly follow the liberal ideologues.

It's politics, the effect of CO2 was known from the late 1800's and very little notice was taken of it, because most of warming is done by water vapor which overlaps what CO2 can do.

Science knows that a doubling of CO2 will produce an extra 3.7 Watts per sq meter which equates to approx 1C warming (not very catastrophic and possibly beneficial) however when a need to scare people and impose regulations came about, they then came up with the idea that a small rise in warming from CO2 could increase water vapor content in our atmosphere (clausius clapeyron law) and as water vapor is a much stronger GHG this would cause exponential warming, this is a ridiculous idea because any warming would have the same effect (not just from CO2) and so this would've happened before.

It turns out that water vapor (which is not increasing) has as many negative feedbacks as positive ones.

Edit

Jeff M Look for yourself this shows atmospheric water vapor at three levels, stratospheric as your say is decreasing, but the others are steady no increase no decrease http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%2...

1. Ignorance is bliss (and climate science is counterintuitive).

2. Fossil fuel companies have trillions at stake if the science is denied.

3. Many politicians in the U.S are dependent on fossil fuel company funding.

4. Much of the news media depends on sensationalism and artificial "debates."

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartla...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/s...

What you believe is science, but what I believe is politics? That is a closed mind. Nothing anybody can say will even register in your ears. Sad.

Edit: You wouldn't need to mention it unless it were so.

It is (also) politics if people make it politics. Anything can be politics.

Their logic is: If you push it under the rug, maybe it will just go away. Newsflash: United States, Canada, China, and India! It won't. In fact, we may all just die of skin cancer if you don't start doing something about it.

Actually intelligent people accept the reality of AGW Unfortunately there are a lot of morons who don't understand

Kano...