I'm with this guy...
Quote
It is funny here as to the "mythbuster" statements are the same as the myth - without basis. The biggest problem in the global warming cult is their TOTAL and ABSOLUTE refutation of any evidence or explanation that is contrary to their belief. They have ZERO room for discussion on any point. They just throw numbers out there and expect everyone on the planet to believe them because they are so zealous about it.
FACT - Carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of 44.01 compared to air at 28.97. SO, unless gravity takes a vacation - the vast vast majority of CO2 will settle to the ground where plant life converts it to oxygen - which we breathe. Granted some volcanoes and jet engine exhaust could put CO2 so high in the atmosphere that it could stay in the upper atmosphere. But there is a pretty much ZERO chance that CO2 leaving a power plant stack with a kinetic energy of 35 mph at an altitude of 750 feet will ever make it 50,000 - 200,000 feet into the atmosphere. All global warming believers just assume that through their sheer belief that they can nudge it up there.
FACT - Most of the idiot journalists who want to write about this phenomenon and take photos of power plants and blame them as the leading cause - will go out with 1,000 mm lenses to take high res photos and they see NOTHING coming out of the stack but wow - next to the stack is a 500 foot tall cooling tower that ONLY puts water vapor into the atmosphere. These bozos see all that STEAM coming off the cooling towers and take all their photos of the steam because they think their readers are not smart enough to know the difference. These people seriously hurt the credibility of the claim.
FACT - only in the last 30 years or so have the scientists actually had data that was representative of the planet. Ask them how many measuring stations have been added in the last 40 years or so compared to how many existed from 1800 - 1970. Why does this matter? All of their trend data goes back to 1800 and they KNOW that the instrumentation today and the protocols for recording this data is so much better today but tying it in to historical data that is very sparse at best means that their model would actually only be good for the past 30-40 years. Every year prior to that would significantly reduce the accuracy of the model.
OBSERVATION - it is extremely unscientific to use core samples from various ice fields to extrapolate back thousands of years. They are assuming that across the earth there has always been a uniform distribution of atmospheric gases - when they know this is not true. They know that volcanoes put out massive amounts of these gases and volcanoes can blast these gases 100,000 - 200,000 feet into the atmosphere. However they can't know about all the volcanoes that may have erupted in non-inhabited areas. They don't know how long those gases stay suspended in the upper atmosphere after a volcanoe. NONE of this matters to the true believer because it does not fit their preconceived ideas. Since it does not fit - they discard it as spurious data.
FACT - to accurately use mathematical models you have to pick the equation to model with to see what best fits your data which means there is a high degree of preconceived ideas about the trends BEFORE you pick the equation. Therefore the model usually represents what you wanted it to represent. Since the model can only be fed accurate data for the past 30-40 years - trying to use it to extrapolate backwards or forwards more than 5 or 10 years just leads to total speculation.
FACT - the global warming crowd totally ignores the thousands of miles of pacific ocean subsea fissures that are putting milllions of tons of toxic emissions into the air and they are heating the ocean from the bottom. These higher temperatures generate more evaporation of water and updraft thermals which can contribute to storm generation.
FACT - The global warming crowd has been extremely effective at stimulating a huge part of the world's economy in spending on emissions reduction equipment and conversions to natural gas and stimulating the solar and wind energy business. They are controlling one of the largest, if not the largest, part of the world's economy. With that much money at stake don't you just wonder a tiny bit if all these people aren't part of the conspiracy to make a few extremely rich people vastly richer?
End quote
It's also a proven fact that scientists have "fudged" numbers to get results they wanted. Why would they have to do that if the empirical evidence lined up with their hypothesis? Anyway, yes if a politician was for taking more money out of my pocket to "fight" global warming, he or she would not get my vote.
I don't have a problem with reducing pollution and "greenhouse" gases if it makes people feel better, just don't take my money for it and then allow China and India to roll on like their CO2 don't stink. Oh and... weren't we headed for another ice age just a few decades ago according to scientists? It's nothing more than a scheme to relieve us of our wealth.
