carbon dioxide

About ice. What you say is true. You dont take into account how much ice is on the top of mountains. or that large parts of Antarctica or the Arctic is actually land covered in ice. In fact most Ice is on land.Did you note I specified "floating ice" in my post?
Someone has only told you half the story. Ask them why they did it. And you are intelligent to work that out for yourself.
Scientists also argued that destroying not respecting the eco system will lead to trouble. In some countries people didnt listen. Americans are so stupid that they destroyed the plants that held together the topsoil. This took several thousands of years to create. The Oklahoma dustbowl was created in 10 years.
I disagree with you, you can't argue with facts. Global Warming is a FACT. Global warming has happened many times in our past. It's nothing new.
However if you wish to remain skeptical but at the same time not messing things up then that is fine.
Skepticism and asking questions is perfectly valid, I would however, check all the data you are given. Learn what you can about global warming. There is a reason that 99.9% of the worlds scientists accept it exists.
So how many of the world's scientist are experts on climate ?
The trouble with the ecology is it is much easier to mess up than fix.
I accept scientists are gloomy. I was predicting global warming from 1981.
15 years ago these same scientists were predicting an ICE AGE
People knew about it then. They didn't realise the scale of it.
The same with the ozone holes. No one thought they'd be as bad.
There are scientist that say that volcanoes emissions are the single biggest cause of ozone depletion.
Your argument could just as easily go like this:
1: tell people there is nothing to worry about.
2: we are making a lot of money and we can't be bothered with this environment stuff.
3; Even if people do sensible stuff like recycling our profits will be cut

I ask you one question: how many rich scientists have you seen: and how many rich oil company owners?
I don't know about rich scientists, but there are sure a lot of people's jobs depending on climate change and carbon trading these days.
The media is responsible for a lot of misinformation . For example, when they show pictures of these naughty coal burning power stations, they zoom in on the clouds of polluting gases coming from low squat chimneys. Well, these structures are cooling towers and the "polluting gases" are nothing more than water vapour. The carbon dioxide and other gases they are all concerned about are coming from the tall stacks and are colourless ( As long as the precipitators are working properly)
We all have to be as GREEN as possible, but I still believe we are being suckered by people with a financial interest in there being a crisis about global warming,

A lot of the stuff you are spouting is nonsense. Some scientists were predicting an ice age. The thing is, in the light of evidence scientists are persuaded. So they were predicting an ICE AGE without evidence ? Changing your mind is not a bad thing if you are a scientist.
So perhaps these scientists may change their minds again.
Plus the scientists involved are different.
your statement on ice is irrelevant then as most ice isnt floating on water.
The argument on volcanoes are a red herring. They have always occured.
Yes as has global warming and ice ages.
The temperature is rising, and it shouldnt be, volcanic eruption, sunspots, and other activities can cause changes in climate.
However scientists are measuring changes over several hundred years.
They aren't making a snap judgement. The stupids of the US made them check, and re check their figures. It has taken around 10 years of research.
Climatologists,Botanists,Geologists,physicists,chemists,mathematicians are all in agreement.
No, they are not all in agreement.Global warming is a fact.
Yes it is fact that the earth is warming at the moment, but not proven to be from man made emissions.
You have to look at what is different at the moment. Deforrestation and industrialisation is seen as the biggest new changes.
You claim a lot of people are employed by Carbon trading. I can't name one.
What about all these scientists you claim are studying it ?I can name several oil companies. There most famous employee is george bush.
I am not in favour of Carbon trading, but we have to have the system because it is the only one the stupids will accept. By that I mean Kyoto. Everyone signed it. Except America. Australia left later on the grounds that if the worst polluter in the world didn't act there was no point.
If you want to have a conspiracy theory ask why America is so low in league tables for teaching Maths and Science. Ask why your government wants you to be stupid.

Fountofwisdom, I just don't believe everything scientists say. I question their sometimes wild claims.
In times past, scientists said that inventing machines to travel faster than 10 mph was a waste of time as the human body could not stand the pressure You might laugh, but they were the "experts" of the day.
How about in recent times when mathematicians calculated that dragsters would never exceed 150 mph in a quarter mile as it was impossible to get enough traction to do so. Well that was blown away huh ?
What about periods in history when the CO2 level was 10 times higher than today ? Shouldn't all life on earth be extinct ?
I agree that we should reduce emissions, but I also don't believe carbon trading is the answer. Isn't it simpler for governments to legislate to force their industries to reduce emissions. How does buying carbon credits stop pollution ? Pay money and you can pollute ? And we all know who pays in the end.
Global warming and carbon trading is the new industry of the future.

As i see it: the petrol is going to run out eventually. I'd like to see renewable energy given a much higher profile. A lot of the claims about how costly and ineffecient it is are far too negative.

A lot of the stuff you are spouting is nonsense. Some scientists were predicting an ice age. The thing is, in the light of evidence