@RDRDRD1,
That's fine, but did you watch either of the documentaries? Do you refute the evidence? I'm guessing you did not, because you're expecting some kind of crazy conspiracy theory BS...understandable, but not accurate. Assuming you're not going to watch them, or do research otherwise, let me present a few very simple to understand, easily verifiable, and clearly compelling facts which pretty wel disprove the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
1. While there is a clear correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, the argument that rising CO2 causes increased temperature is not supported by the data. In all cases of temperature spikes over the last several millenia, the increase in temperature
preceeded the increase in CO2: i.e the CO2 cannot possibly cause the temperature increase.
2. There are two significant greenhouse gases, CO2 and water vapor, which together account for almost 99% of the greenhouse effect. However, water vapor alone accounts for about 97%, so CO2 only accounts for about 2% of all greenhouse warming. That said, human generated CO2 represents a fraction of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere, less than 10%; I don't remember the exact number, but its a single digit. In any case, let's be generous and say that its 20%, a hugely excessive estimate. That would mean that human generated CO2 should theoretically be responsible for .004% of greenhouse warming.
3. The hypothesis for anthr. global warming suggests that atmospheric temperature, especially in the troposphere, should increase at a higher rate than surface temperature. While there has been a fairly significant increase in surface temperatures in the last century, NASA and other research satellites show almost zero change in tropospheric tempratyure in the last 25 years, the period during which global warming is supposed to have really accelerated.
4. The increase in surface temperature is itself very suspect. The samples are taken sporadically, without a consistent and sufficently diverse sample space, and most of the locations where readings are taken are either urban or becoming urbanized. Its well known, and easy to understand, that urban and urbanizing areas are warmer than rural areas due to asphalt, traffic, heating, airconditioning, electricity use, etc. Ergo, this data is skewed.
5. Putting all that aside, let's assume that data is correct and look at the 'hockey stick chart' that Al Gore showed in his documentary. He shows a period of exceptional warmth, beginning about a hundred and fifty years ago, when modern meteorological records began being kept. The world has indeed warmed since then, but is it exceptional warming that can only be explained by ndustrialization? Not at all. The middle of the 19th century was in fact the end of the little ice age, and one of the coldest periods in the last 10,000 years. What is called the medieval warm period, of about 1100 A.D. was in fact slightly warmer than the present period. In other words, present trends as expressed by the (flawed) surface temperature data are not unusual and fall well within the natural variation. The idea that global climate should be static is asanine.
6. We hear that there is an almost unanimous consensus in the scientific community. That is not true. According to recent polls of scientists in the field, about 45% disagree with the anthr. global warming hypothesis. We also often hear that the 'deniars,' who have sickeningly been compared to holocaust deniars, are mostly scientists on the payroll of big oil and other polluters. In fact, the advocates of global warming legislation recieve significant funding from corporate America, while their opponents are largely independent. Also, according to people who were involved in what can rightly be called 'the business,' it is very clearly understood in academia that grants for global warming research will not be renewed if pro-globlal warming findings are not reported. In other words, the government would like to create a body of 'evidence' for something that they want to push, not find the truth.
I could go on and on. To name a few that I'm not getting into now; there are serious flaws or outright lies in the ideas about sea level rise, ice cap melting, polar bear extinction, drought and food shortage, and pretty much everything associated with this movement, which is and has been built by and for governments and international corporations, at our expense. I haven't even gotten into the consequences of the 'green revolution' in terms of economics, individual freedom, and national sovereignty. Not good..not good at all. Anyway, I look foreward to your response.
