Au contraire ..... Science is made up of human beings, consequently one cannot separate human behavior from science. And like other areas of science I mentioned previously, "Climate Science" demonstrates the same less admirable elements of human behavior ... dishonesty, lack of integrity, shamelessness, greed, and worse.
Got it! And in a classic demonstration of tactical deception, roll out the big scary numbers. But once the entire story is revealed, those big scary numbers aren't so scary.
So lets de-mystify the numbers .... first thing is, the so called green house gases make up about 1% of the total atmosphere ... 99 % is Oxygen and Nitrogen, roughly 21% and 78% respectively. Of that remaining 1% which are considered green house gases, water vapor is 95% of that. CO2 is a minuscule fraction of the total atmosphere, and a tiny fraction of the gree house gases, and man made CO2 a tiny fraction (3%) of that!
Yes, 25 Billion Tons sounds horrific!! Oh the humanity!!! God help us, I doubt we'll survive until lunchtime tomorrow!! The reality is, it's not really THAT BAD .... 25 Billion Tons of man made CO2, or 25 Gigatons or 25 GT for short, may sound pretty bad, but guess what? That represents about 3% of the total CO2 being released into the carbon cycle (yes there's a cycle, actually three ... short, medium and long cycles) of which 439 GT is released from the land and vegetation, and an additional 332 GT from the Oceans, making the total ratio of man made to natural release 25/796 GT, or .031 or 3%. That's 3% of the 1% of the total atmosphere.
So we're supposed to believe that this 3% contributed by man is some type of straw that is breaking the planet's back ... the other 97%, not so much ... but that 3% is a real problem? Perhaps, if you possess not one iota of basic common sense, you might buy this story ... but you really have to test the boundaries of gullibility to do so ... especially when you consider the fact that C02 has no causative affect in the warming cycle to begin with (a fact you keep conveniently avoiding in this discussion) ... but even if it did (and it doesn't), the effect of that 3% would be measurably insignificant, as would any potential benefit of reducing it.
Of course, as they say, the "Devil is in the details". If you were to reduce human CO2 production by half (1.5%), with no reasonable expectation of any significant benefit in doing so ... but doing it just to be on the safe side ... it is estimated that at least 2+ Billion people would necessarily have to die to accomplish the task. Isn't that charming? You planning on volunteering to be one of those 2 Billion? Or is that unfortunate fate reserved for the brown people of the third world countries?
This, my friend, is the agenda behind this AGW fraud .... population reduction, and total control of all human activity on Earth ... after all ... the moment you agree that man-made CO2 poses a planetary climate threat, you open the door wide to draconian restrictions on CO2 output. Since all human activity produces CO2, (including breathing) all human activity will be subject to regulation and restrictions from domestic household energy usage, to manufacturing, agriculture and food production, transportation and travel ... the list is endless and the consequences incalculable. There literally is no greater threat to liberty and freedom than that posed by accepting this unmitigated fraud, and allowing this to rule over our lives. Supporting this scam is an act of idiocy by those who are unwittingly advocating their own imprisonment, slavery, and destruction.
More double talk and straw man arguments ... you cherry pick volcanoes, but don't discuss the real numbers as outlined above, showing man's CO2 contribution as MINUSCULE relative to the total carbon cycle.
It's absurd for you to speak for anyone other than yourself, let alone everyone on this forum ... because you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. In fact, you're way off. And I'm directly challenging the mainstream pseudoscience that claims CO2 as the driver of TODAY'S Global Warmin/Climate Change. And that has been the mantra, repeated over and over for over a decade. It's toatal BS, and most people have now figured that out. Try to catch up.
I never suggested that humans can't be destructive. I'm sure most would agree that some humans are very good at destroying things. But destroying things has nothing to do with Global Warming ... unless of course you mean destroying the planet? I suggest that self destruction would come long before we could possibly destroy the planet.
And, to be honest, that is the AGW argument in a nutshell, with the proposed solution being to intentionally destroy ourselves first, in order to prevent us from destroying the planet.
Why do you believe humans are warming the Earth? Because you been fed this BS and have bought into it hook-line and sinker? Because you are drowning in Kool-Aide? OR is it because you have a secret loathing of the human species?
There's another point being overlooked here. I'm of the opinion that warmer is better than colder, for a very long list of reasons which shouldn't require a great deal of explanation for those who consider themselves in the brilliant category. CO2 is a beneficial gas, and the more of it the better, because it provides the environment for more abundant vegetation on the planet, offering more sustinence for all of the other life that relies on that as a source of food.
Secondly, I understand very well, the science as it has been presented, and it's a totally transparrent con job for which a 9 year old SHOULD be able to see right through, like a clean pane of clear glass. OK?
And I don't confuse weather with climate ... so what happened in Phoenix this year compared to last is totally irrelevant to the conversation of climate.
I don't read Newsmax ....but my suggestion to you is to stop ignoring the very simplistic relationship between global warming cycles and rising CO2 levels, which precludes CO2 from being a causative factor, since the rising levels of CO2 occur 800 years after a warming period. This doesn't require a degree in Rocket Science .... even the most unsophisticated among us should find that concept easy to grasp.
Good ... we're making progress. Now, the only missing piece of the puzzle is for you to grasp the fact that CO2 played no role in those natural forces which caused the multiple warming cycles of the past. Then, you'll see how preposterous it is to believe it magically does now.
Yes ... YES!!!!! Why would you consider it plausible or reasonable to conclude that the same mechanisms at work in the past are not also the same mechanisms at work today? Why would you find it more plausible that a totally unique cause exists today, while dismissing the natural cycles of climate that have been taking place for hundreds of thousands of years? Your thinking is completely backwards, and you have the nerve to question my logic? You're demonstrating a level of cognitive dissonance that's actually quite disturbing.
I see the Twilight Zone, that's what I see. But, speaking of holding your breath ... that's really the bottom line solution you're advocating ... that we all need to stop exhaling all of this CO2. So feel free to start without us.
When ever a crime is committed, the standard operating procedure is ... "follow the money", so for you to claim that money isn't relevant to the debate, well, that's just childish naivete'.
Fraud supporting a fraud ... first, there is no consensus .. there are only those who have joined the AGW bandwagon, and those who oppose it. Those who oppose it are attacked, ridiculed, marginalized and blocked out from the mainstream, by being refused publication in scientific journals which tout themselves as "peer reviewed", which is just another way of saying "conforming to accepted dogma". It's a form of group think and control ... anyone stepping outside the box is either reeled back in, or excommunicated.
You keep injecting this "Right Wing" nonsense into the debate ... but my opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with politics ... that is apparently the little box you live in ... this right-left illusion.
I don't know what you're blathering about with the "New York Times" and this "one guy" crap. The whole freaking lot of these frauds at the UN, it's IPCC, the Climate Centers like East Anglia CRU have been exposed repeatedly for engaging in overt fraud and manipulation of data to support this "good science" you embrace ... and the consensus opinion that doesn't exist.
But you aren't going to be fooled .... nosirree!!
You need to read and research more ... and do less talking. Start here:
IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud - broken link)
Data Disproves Global Warming Computer Models (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8399-data-disproves-global-warming-computer-models - broken link)
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: NASA keeps mum on data that could disprove anthropogenic global warming theory
There's tons of resources, and no excuse for such ignorance you've demonstrated here.