No, I'm showing you how your premise is wrong. If we went by your standard half the things you speak about, hell the majority of what you speak about wouldn't hold water.
Based on what I read from Lindzen and how the conclusions had been made the argument is a rushed and simplfied argument to blame man.
Gore didn't invent global warming people have been talking about for decades. Just look at the last Olympics they had to shut down certain parts of the city in order to try and clean the air, long distance athletes had to prepare for the difference in air quality. You think that was caused by El Nino?
This has to do with dirty air. C02 is not poisonous. We have cleaner air than they do only because we have better technologies to burn fuel. Why do you think acid rain reduced enormously after the iron curtain fell? If you want to improve air quality countries need to be rich so they can afford better technologies and still have a decent standard of living at the same time. Even the haze that comes from warm weather is partly made up of Ozone naturally. Not all haze is pure pollutant.
BTW Gore popularized the man made Global Warming theory with the help of Hansen who has been involved in bad temperature measurements already. Those scientists that influenced him told him that there was only a 10 year window for action. That means 2015 should be the point of no return. People remember this and will point it out when the time comes.
Do you honestly believe we have absolutely no impact on the planet?
This question is the problem here and is in fact what many scientists have concluded. "It must be us." The question is not if we have an impact or whether C02 has an impact. The question is
how much impact do we really have? The stupid computer models don't include a whole bunch of variables like El Nino so they inaccurately predict the future. That should already be an alarm bell. We are decarbonizing with better more efficient technologies slowly over time and we will continue to do so but rashly increasing taxes and costs to transfer wealth to poorer countries that are corrupt is bad economics based on inadequate climate studies. Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are studying the cooling effect in the atmosphere that they have recorded and they should do further studies before we assume that the greenhouse model is even correct as is simplified in explanation. If the public knew that we had an impact that was much smaller than projected on computer models by the alarmists there would be much less push to change our economy than there is now. That I think is the reason for alarmist computer models. Looking at Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist he already had huge evidence and actual quotes from people in WWF and other groups admitting that they exagerrate environmental problems to bring in more funding and get more prompt attention. This "cry wolf" problem is another reason why people are skeptical. What is ethical about scientists lying to the public no matter what their intentions?
Wanna bet, Iron Horse posts a thread about once every three months about how smoking isn't bad for you, and the science of second hand smoke is trumped up. So, like I said there will always be dissenting "scientists".
Yeah Iron Horse is so influential. We have scans of lungs going through second hand smoke only and the lung differences are obvious. If you look at smoke in general (burnt organic material) you'll find that countries that have to burn wood as a main source of fuel have more damaged lungs. We also have some scientists that have discovered genes that if present in certain human beings lead to cancer by being "turned on" when that individual smokes. That's why some people with more tolerant genes can live a long time smoking.
Blaming man's contribution of C02 when water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas is another problem. Richard Somerville already admitted that they don't understand the workings of water vapour fully but feels there is enough evidence to blame man. I don't think the majority of the atmosphere should be ignored before we commit funds. It also doesn't help that the year 1998 was supposed to be the hottest on record really wasn't because many of the thermometers were near air conditioning units and the results had to be changed. We have more man made C02 than in the 30's but the 30's were hotter. I think the science is desperate and the people who supposedly believe in this are not living the lifestyles they are telling everyone else to do which is another alarm bell.
What's the point of blaming oil companies when they supply us with the cheapest source of energy WE DEMAND. It's just to scapegoat "evil corporations" because it's politically incorrect to judge individual voters who demand cheap energy. In fact I'm going to start a positive thread on the environment because I'm tired of people talking about the environment and what other people should do but are burning more fuel than I am. The hypocrisy makes my blood boil. Who the heck is going to weather strip and upgrade their houses when they haven't even paid off their mortgages yet?
That sort of matches what I intended to say in my post you quoted. Maybe I wrote a little sloppily.
