1. Matter of scale - How much we are "pumping" v how dramatic said impact would be. The more they exaggerate the less I believe anything they say.
2. Matter of focus - CO2 was the wrong focus if they wanted to influence my opinion. at first I was taken in by it, but the more I read and learned, they less meaningful the CO2 concentrations became to me. CO2 is a trace gas. At levels seen prior to the latest escalation, we were closer to the point of shutting down photosynthesis than we were to anything else. From that POV this escalating concentration of CO2 has SAVED life on Earth, NOT endangered it.
3. Proposed solutions - the total POSSIBLE impact of the proposed changes is all but inconsequential even under ideal conditions. The costs for these changes are debilitating.
4. Hangers on. they blame everything on AGW, even things that are blatantly mutually exclusive. Thus until I see demonstrable PROOF, I will believe nothing.
5. Doom and Gloom - A complete white wash of ANY possible Positive outcomes from having a warmer world with higher CO2 concentrations. Any fool should realize that virtually nothing is EVER all Negative or Positive. Perhaps this is why they focus so much on the holy cow the world is gonna end scenarios?
6. Arrogance - the concept the we can even begin to control the environment with current technology is laughable. The naiveté of those who think we could do it right without screwing some things up in a big way on the first try in laughable.
7. Name calling demonization etc. If your arguments had any validity then terms like Denier, or stupid or ignorant etc would not be necessary.
8. Demonstrable willful ignorance. The concept that Antarctica could possibly melt all of its ice within even a century with even a worst case scenario or warming 2 degrees C is laughable. People that believe this need to learn how to read a thermometer understand the freezing point of water and then get some weather data from Antarctica.
The quantities are very impressive, I will agree. What are the proportions we're talkin'? Manmade contributuions of all the greenhouse gases since 1750 have increased radiative forcing (heat gain coefficient) 3.234 Watts per square meter (W/sm; see CDIAC link). Accepted average incoming solar radiation is about 1350 W/sm (see hypertextbook link). Human contribution is a fraction, a very small fraction. Yes, it has an effect on Earth's climate: 0.24 percent. However, it is a by-product of a wonderful and beautiful civilization. Wouldn't you agree that it is worth a quarter of a percentage point increase in heat coefficient to support the lives of 7 billion glorious people? From all indications, it has not been a bad thing (unless you listen exclusively to party-line weather-and-politics). The only thing that AGW can argue is that is the straw, a STRAW?, that tipped the balance. Pwhew. Better sooner than later, I always say. I wouldn't have wanted our grandchildren to have to be responsible for the straw that broke the camel's back (as if there were a broken back/runaway heating anyway).
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.ht...
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/Mani...
Yes, it is a puzzle. I can quite see the point that putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere should have some sort of effect.
This could be mitigated by the fact that nature puts far more CO2 into the atmosphere. Some claim that nature was in balance previously but somehow I doubt that. Was that just a coincidence or is there some kind of feedback effect?
If the former it is extremely unlikely, if the latter then there may be enough feedback to mitigate the anthropogenic effects.
The other questionis: Is anything unusual or unprecedented actually taking place? Are we doing anything other than just coming out of one of the coldest periods in the last several thousand years?
Why dont you say CO2, why do you say pollution, (because it sounds so much worse) CO2 is not a pollutant it is an essential gas needed to sustain life on Earth, if we were pumping out tons of oxygen would you call that pollution.
It's like vegans when they say eating dead flesh (would they prefer us to eat live flesh) it is for effect and B.S.
Why is it so hard for leftists to understand that their political leanings don't amount to science. If you add an atom, it has an effect but the real question is "is it catastrophic?" and if not, then why would anyone care.
Because people are afraid that stopping the use of fossil fuels will mean not being able to drive cars or to heat and light their homes. But all of these things could be done with such clean energy sources as solar, hydro and nuclear power.
GC
Because, it there were a 30 billion ton per year imbalance between photosynthesis and respiration, if there were an excess of photosynthesis, in a few centuries all of the carbon dioxide would be used up. If there were an excess of respiration, in a few decades all the biomass would be used up.
jeff engg
For lack of time I will only rebut one of your claims.
A laughable claim, as carbon dioxide was as low as 180ppm during glacial minimums.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs...
Kano
Hydrogen sulfide is also an essential gas needed to sustain life on Earth.
http://www.cell.com/abstract/S1934-5909%...
Basically it is because so many people are ignorant of science and mathematics. People make silly comparisons because they don't understand physics. It is not relevant to compare the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the total mass of the atmosphere, because the vast majority (nitrogen, oxygen, argon) are not greenhouse gases. The two biggest greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide, and by volume the amount of carbon dioxide is about 10% of that of water vapor. That makes it significant, and it means that the total amount of greenhouse gases is significantly changing.
People like Sagebrush either don't understand science and math, or they choose to lie about it. His argument about urinating in the ocean is completely specious. We have clearly increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by several percent or a few parts in a 100. Urinating in the ocean is a change of perhaps one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
If he doesn't know the difference between the two he is ignorant of science; if he does realize the difference but makes that comparison anyway, he is a liar.
Because they don't understand science or how it works
and some of them are very religious and think their god controls the weather.
Most of them are political conservatives and in America the conservative movement qualifies as a cult.
They actually believe The Koch Brothers and Rush Limbaugh or Fox News tells the true while Steven Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson and over 90% of the world's scientists are lying liberals.
Brian Greene (an American theoretical physicist and string theorist.)
has a good, brief explanation
It would block out sunlight and make the Earth cooler.
Is it hard to believe that words like "ignorance" and "denial" are in the dictionary for a reason?
AGW denial is a stupid-people problem, not a lack of scientific evidence. See Creationism for more evidence of intellectual deficits.
CO2 is not pollution
Why is it so hard for some people to believe that going down and urinating in the ocean will not make the ocean level rise?
It is apparent that some people do not understand the magnitude of the Earth's atmosphere. If you understood the expanse of the Earth's resources, you would not ask such a ridiculous question.
Because they don't want to.
Because they're told that their taxes will rise astronomically if we pursue any action.
Because the price of gasoline is more important to them than their kids.
Because they think that all of the scientists are lying to get government grants.
Even scientists not in America.
Because they think that the scientists don't understand, and they do -- because they're so much smarter.
Any number of reasons, but it all boils down to:
a) money
b) they listen to, and believe, people that are lying to them.
they don't want to believe it.
change scares them.
and they let what's called 'smart idiots' fill their minds with lies.
a smart idiot is a trick of lawyers, sound smart, smarter than your opponent the you'll look good to the jury. Creationists do that all the time.
any evidence is a conspiracy for them. very little science education and fox news help ignorance
Man can't effect the climate. We're too small and the planet is so huge.
Because there is no concrete evidence that it does affect the climate.
Because "GOD" will provide.
