Global warming: new controvesy?

[Moleman]

My point MadAce is that merely posting a weblink to support your position does not = argument won!! Of course there is a lot of fantastic material online but it needs to be viewed in context and with some degree of relativity.

The following statements are my basic position on the subject and are not as some may try to say mutually exclusive!

I believe that we need to use our planets resources in a more responsible manner.

I believe we need to pursue renewable sources of energy.

I believe that humanity has had some effect on our climate.

I believe that there are MUCH greater drivers of global climate quite apart from us.

I believe the net effect of our influence is minimal.

Let me ask you another question, was the climate of this planet stable and consistent before we started to burn fossil fuels, etc??

moleman

[Havok]

And I'm also not that convinced that this petition (not research in any shape or form, so no credibility in any shape or form) is credible. Note that it was sent out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine... Among which are guys who deny important parts of evolution...

Evolution is another theory that has yet to be proven

That's a different topic. Care to open one? I know a lot in this field Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Also I would like to say that I don't like the comparison of the speed of sound with the speed of light. For the first one there was no scientific ground to say nobody could cross the soundbarrier (see also Havok's post on the speed of sound debunked), for the second one there IS.

No im not trying to open another topic on evoultion, evolution vs. creationism is a social issue and i dont debate social issues. My point was that evolution has yet to be proven beyond doubt, so madace cant discredit scientists opinion on global warming just because they also dont believe in evolution, they are both unproven theories.

[SnakeEyes]

No im not trying to open another topic on evoultion, evolution vs. creationism is a social issue and i dont debate social issues. My point was that evolution has yet to be proven beyond doubt, so madace cant discredit scientists opinion on global warming just because they also dont believe in evolution, they are both unproven theories.

Evolution is proven beyond doubt. But like I said, this is not the place to discuss this. I will open a new topic

[MadAce]

My point MadAce is that merely posting a weblink to support your position does not = argument won!! Of course there is a lot of fantastic material online but it needs to be viewed in context and with some degree of relativity.

The following statements are my basic position on the subject and are not as some may try to say mutually exclusive!

I believe that we need to use our planets resources in a more responsible manner.

I believe we need to pursue renewable sources of energy.

I believe that humanity has had some effect on our climate.

I believe that there are MUCH greater drivers of global climate quite apart from us.

I believe the net effect of our influence is minimal.

Let me ask you another question, was the climate of this planet stable and consistent before we started to burn fossil fuels, etc??

moleman

I never claimed that "link = argument won". But an article (whether it be a good one or a bad one) is an argument. Have you ever listened to a discussion between to high-level academics? They're constantly referincing other people's work. That's simply because it's impossible (and has been for some time) for one person to know everything about his own field. Even impossible to know everything about ones specialization.

Hence why we're forced to refer to what can be considered as proof. I consider something proof if at least two people (and I prefer insitutions a whole lot more) come up with the same conclusion (more or less) independently.

And indeed, often it's not in depth enough. I'm personally quite annoyed that a lot of great papers aren't published online. So I'm often inclined not to discuss that subject online as I'm unable to form a suitable funded opinion. (and especially since my only rule partaining duscussion is: only argue when you're actually RIGHT)

Okay, now you're saying some stuff I'm going to reply to trying not to use any research results or stuff generally considered "fact". So I'm basically going to attack your logic. (tho I might agree )

I believe that we need to use our planets resources in a more responsible manner.

Absolutely. It's the economically sane thing to do. IMHO the past century will be known in the future as "The 20th Spentury".

I believe we need to pursue renewable sources of energy.

Another sane thing to do.

I believe that humanity has had some effect on our climate.

Logical. A bunch of wildebeast farting has an effect on the climate. There's more humans than wildebeast.

I believe that there are MUCH greater drivers of global climate quite apart from us.

I believe the net effect of our influence is minimal.

So there's this massive savanna trough which there flows a mighty river, able to quench the thirst of all the animals living there. But every summer there is a massive drought reducing the immense mass of flowing water with 90% to a minute stream, barely enabling the animals survive. Every year tho, the weak perish. Then when the rain season arrives all animals can drink again.
This cycle of death and renewal continues for thousands of years. Then one day there is a small industrial plant built near the river. Of course they're invironmentally friendly guys who made the plant so there's a minimal need for water. Still every summer the river bed runs completely dry where there usually was a small stream.

When asked what he had done the director of the complex replies:

"It's not my responsibility this happened.
I believe that there were MUCH greater drivers of the river drying up quite apart from us."

My point is that if you're just a small part of the problem that it doesn't mean you're not a part of the problem and don't share ersponsibility for the problem. And sometimes you're enough to tip the scale the wrong way.

I'm not saying the size of mankind's contribution to climate change. I'm questioning whether or not this contribution is welcome or not.

Let me ask you another question, was the climate of this planet stable and consistent before we started to burn fossil fuels, etc??

I never claimed it to be, nor did any other sane person.

Let me ask you a question:

Have past changes in the climate ever affected life on this planet in an adverse way?

[ArdRhys4]

Have past changes in climate ever affected life on this planet in an adverse way?

Yes...

[CaptKirk]

What I don't understand is what people think a person would gain by making up a hoax like global warming. Maybe to gain funds somehow and use them for their own gain? Yea I wouldn't be at all surprised if there have been cases of that. People are corrupt wherever you look, it's true. But that doesn't mean that there is not a real effort underway to educate people and attempt to do something about a very serious problem.

peace

I'll grant that many of the people involved in the global warming movement are doing so because of completely good intentions. I haven't tried to debunk the warming trend, or the need for us to make use of the Earth's resources in a more environmentally friendly manner. What I do have a problem with is the HCGW(Human Caused Global Warming) crowd and their "the debate is over, if you disagree you hate the planet". The proof of human causation just isn't there. Even the UN ICC report, and the "scientific consensus" claim human causation as "highly likely", not absolute or proven. Despite this, the HCGW crowd refuses to acknowledge differing viewpoints, and demands corrective actions that, if followed, will cause great harm to already strained economies.

But, on to your question. As a whole, science is something that isn't considered to be a high priority as far as funding goes. When governmental budgets are tight, funding for space exploration, oceanic studies, and other "non-vital" fields usually gets cut or reduced. If, on the other hand, your research can be tied to some sort of emergency, then your funding is more secure.

Thus, we've seen a string of emergencies over the last few decades that have required massive scientific funding to "solve". In the late '60s through the early-mid '70s, we had the "humans are depleting the ozone/next ice age is coming" scare. Nature kind of screwed that one up by the ozone repairing itself(a surprise to science) and the cooling trend reversing. For awhile we got back to funding "routine" science. Some space probes were launched, shuttle developed, etc, but then thanks to Carter, the economy went to crap in the early '80s, space program again took a back burner. Next came the "an asteroid will hit the earth" fad. Movies were made, the possibility was sensationalized, and we looked to the sky with our wallets again.

It didn't last though. The people got bored with it, and it didn't have the backing of large parts of the scientific community because the range of beneficiary research fields was too narrow. Then some sod, possibly after a beer or 3, thought back to the '70s when that damn cooling reversed. Hmm....could warming be an emergency to?

So, some data gets exaggerated, an out of work politician is found, the heart strings of some of the louder mouths in Hollywood get brought on board(It's not like it's difficult to convince them of anything, just let them think they're "helping someone" by shooting off their mouth and off they go), and suddenly we have the next great emergency. We've brought in a far wider range of science fields, and included the entire planet, so the scientific community is happy. And we've got Hollywood and political propaganda specialists on the job to make sure the public doesn't get bored too quick. $ $ $ $

Did you ever stop to wonder whether the environment really benefits when Al Gore offsets his gross consumption by buying carbon credits from a company he shares ownership in?

[ArdRhys4]

or by using a PRIVATE plane to travel around...

[SnakeEyes]

Do you even DO research on the things you're claiming? Like nature fixing the ozone depletion? Of course, ozone is generated worldwide every day. But still there is a steady decline of 4% per decade in the total volume of ozone in the earth's stratosphere.

Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radicals which appear in nature but are also increased dramatically by human activity. A number of measures have been taken to decrease the manmade damage, like the ban on cfc in aerosol spray cans.

[SnakeEyes]

nice lil' reading for both sides =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[MadAce]

What I don't understand is what people think a person would gain by making up a hoax like global warming. Maybe to gain funds somehow and use them for their own gain? Yea I wouldn't be at all surprised if there have been cases of that. People are corrupt wherever you look, it's true. But that doesn't mean that there is not a real effort underway to educate people and attempt to do something about a very serious problem.

peace

I'll grant that many of the people involved in the global warming movement are doing so because of completely good intentions. I haven't tried to debunk the warming trend, or the need for us to make use of the Earth's resources in a more environmentally friendly manner. What I do have a problem with is the HCGW(Human Caused Global Warming) crowd and their "the debate is over, if you disagree you hate the planet". The proof of human causation just isn't there. Even the UN ICC report, and the "scientific consensus" claim human causation as "highly likely", not absolute or proven. Despite this, the HCGW crowd refuses to acknowledge differing viewpoints, and demands corrective actions that, if followed, will cause great harm to already strained economies.

But, on to your question. As a whole, science is something that isn't considered to be a high priority as far as funding goes. When governmental budgets are tight, funding for space exploration, oceanic studies, and other "non-vital" fields usually gets cut or reduced. If, on the other hand, your research can be tied to some sort of emergency, then your funding is more secure.

Thus, we've seen a string of emergencies over the last few decades that have required massive scientific funding to "solve". In the late '60s through the early-mid '70s, we had the "humans are depleting the ozone/next ice age is coming" scare. Nature kind of screwed that one up by the ozone repairing itself(a surprise to science) and the cooling trend reversing. For awhile we got back to funding "routine" science. Some space probes were launched, shuttle developed, etc, but then thanks to Carter, the economy went to crap in the early '80s, space program again took a back burner. Next came the "an asteroid will hit the earth" fad. Movies were made, the possibility was sensationalized, and we looked to the sky with our wallets again.

It didn't last though. The people got bored with it, and it didn't have the backing of large parts of the scientific community because the range of beneficiary research fields was too narrow. Then some sod, possibly after a beer or 3, thought back to the '70s when that damn cooling reversed. Hmm....could warming be an emergency to?

So, some data gets exaggerated, an out of work politician is found, the heart strings of some of the louder mouths in Hollywood get brought on board(It's not like it's difficult to convince them of anything, just let them think they're "helping someone" by shooting off their mouth and off they go), and suddenly we have the next great emergency. We've brought in a far wider range of science fields, and included the entire planet, so the scientific community is happy. And we've got Hollywood and political propaganda specialists on the job to make sure the public doesn't get bored too quick. $ $ $ $

Did you ever stop to wonder whether the environment really benefits when Al Gore offsets his gross consumption by buying carbon credits from a company he shares ownership in?

Or, if scientists can't invent a disaster, they could always suck up to oil companies (see ICECAP and Exxon for just one example).

Oh, no wait... Treehuggers represent more money then the entire global economic establishment...

We DID screw up the ozone layer. Evidence for that even stands today, when no one cares anymore...
Secondly: Meteroids are going to hit the Earth weren't a fad except in Hollywood. We're still screwed when (not if, really simple maths this is) this happens. Oh, and this lil' Hollywood fad didn't do all that much to get them astronomers money...

And I never said:
"the debate is over, if you disagree you hate the planet".

I said:
"the debate is over, if you disagree you're a flaming retard".

Next up: there's more than enough proof that humans contribute greatly to global warming...

But of course scientists usually adopt a nuanced view. Something the average oe just can't wrap his head around. "Whadaya mean, stuff aint black 'n white? theytuukarjooooobs!"

So indeed, when you ask a good scientist "My dear Sir, is the Earth an oblate spheroid?" then he or she will reply (will be forced) to reply "Well, we're almost certain. Like only 99%999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% so it's absolutely not a certainty."

And the average "I'm too chicken to accept responsibility for acting like a big version of a spoiled chicken as I skullfuck the planet and screw over therest of humanity" Joe crowd will then say "The Earth be flat!".

*sigh*

[CaptKirk]

Do you even DO research on the things you're claiming? Like nature fixing the ozone depletion? Of course, ozone is generated worldwide every day. But still there is a steady decline of 4% per decade in the total volume of ozone in the earth's stratosphere.

Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radicals which appear in nature but are also increased dramatically by human activity. A number of measures have been taken to decrease the manmade damage, like the ban on cfc in aerosol spray cans.

See, now you've gone and picked a piece of data from a single source, while implying that I do no research. If you look at the average levels, you find that the level is up from it's 1992 low and has shown a slow but steady increase over the last 15 or so years.

[CaptKirk]

We DID screw up the ozone layer. Evidence for that even stands today, when no one cares anymore...

So, we've done irreperable harm to the ozone, causing cooling. And we've done other irreperable harm to the atmosphere that causes warming. Seems to me that we solved our own problem then. Right??

And I never said:
"the debate is over, if you disagree you hate the planet".

I said:
"the debate is over, if you disagree you're a flaming retard".

And the average "I'm too chicken to accept responsibility for acting like a big version of a spoiled chicken as I skullfuck the planet and screw over therest of humanity" Joe crowd will then say "The Earth be flat!".

*sigh*

You make an excellent puppet

[MadAce]

We DID screw up the ozone layer. Evidence for that even stands today, when no one cares anymore...

So, we've done irreperable harm to the ozone, causing cooling. And we've done other irreperable harm to the atmosphere that causes warming. Seems to me that we solved our own problem then. Right??

And I never said:
"the debate is over, if you disagree you hate the planet".

I said:
"the debate is over, if you disagree you're a flaming retard".

And the average "I'm too chicken to accept responsibility for acting like a big version of a spoiled chicken as I skullfuck the planet and screw over therest of humanity" Joe crowd will then say "The Earth be flat!".

*sigh*

You make an excellent puppet

A pupper who'll accept responsibility for his actions.

[akito]

lets pretend for a second that i work for playtechtonics and recieve a token bonus for each player i recruit. what sort of thing would i have to say about starport? would it be different from my current rhetoric about how god awful patches and empty permas have made it damn near unplayable? as an employee of toonces, totally dependant on maintaining his good graces, how do you think my rhetoric concerning him might shift?

this is why all the climate scientists say "more study is needed", because their job is to do those studies. who pays for the studies?

i feel this is a much more relevant question than "what does this or that study show", especially since 90% of all statistical percentages (including this one, haha) are made up on the spot or deviously manipulated to obtain the "desired" results.

however, lets assume for a moment that there is such a thing as man made global warming... how does a carbon tax help resolve this issue? a carbon tax will only serve to ship more industry over seas to "developing" nations that are immune to the decades old resolutions now going into effect. maybe if the plan to save us from ourselves wasn't envisioned in advance by the same people that engineered and then hyped up the crisis in the first place i would be more open to it?

[calculus]

I really don't know how some people can be such stupid.

You mentioned mars about global warming, but nobody mentioned venus and its 450*c temperature , due to lots of greenhouse gases.

Humans are producing more co2, which will effect climate. Now if this effect will cause warming or cooling I don't care, but it seems it went for warming till now.I bet you all forgot about the europe heatwave of 2003 where it killed over 30,000 people.

However, who is saying that humans can't/is effecting climate of the planet is stupid. Not only they can effect the climate but they can also destroy the surface of the planet and annihilate themselfs if they want.

[MadAce]

lets pretend for a second that i work for playtechtonics and recieve a token bonus for each player i recruit. what sort of thing would i have to say about starport? would it be different from my current rhetoric about how god awful patches and empty permas have made it damn near unplayable? as an employee of toonces, totally dependant on maintaining his good graces, how do you think my rhetoric concerning him might shift?

this is why all the climate scientists say "more study is needed", because their job is to do those studies. who pays for the studies?

i feel this is a much more relevant question than "what does this or that study show", especially since 90% of all statistical percentages (including this one, haha) are made up on the spot or deviously manipulated to obtain the "desired" results.

however, lets assume for a moment that there is such a thing as man made global warming... how does a carbon tax help resolve this issue? a carbon tax will only serve to ship more industry over seas to "developing" nations that are immune to the decades old resolutions now going into effect. maybe if the plan to save us from ourselves wasn't envisioned in advance by the same people that engineered and then hyped up the crisis in the first place i would be more open to it?

You're confusion real problems with solutions thought up by politicians.

It's not because someone chants an incantation to destroy a cancer within you that you don't have cancer.

It's not because someone is abusing a fact to help their own agendas that this fact suddenly becomes untrue.

[Caia]

Caia. Nice attempt. But I just kinda owned your "source". So you owe me a credible source. Or I'll just settle with anything that you actually read.

I suggest you make a fool of yourself only one discussion at a time.

Epic fail.

[MadAce]

Caia. Nice attempt. But I just kinda owned your "source". So you owe me a credible source. Or I'll just settle with anything that you actually read.

I suggest you make a fool of yourself only one discussion at a time.

Epic fail.

DOn't be so hard on yourself. I alerady called it "nice attempt". No reason for you to correct me and suggest it should've been "epic fail".

[akito]

the "politicians" thought up "the solutions" before there was ever even a problem.

im not trying to show any facts as untrue. i did however succesfully show the ridiculous unreliability of all the scientists and studies which were used to support an untrue theory as if it were a fact.

its not a bad thing that you want to "save the earth", and it most certainly is true that humans have done (and will continue to do) incredible harm to the ecosystem. so why not go fight real issues with real solutions? you know, instead of falling into this bs debate over imaginary man made global warming, because all you are doing here is helping the tyrannical fascist leaders of this world enslave and destroy it.

[DarkLStrike]

[General_Neox]

Ace Ventura, pet detective.

[tekkamanblade]

so how stupid do all you man made global warming kool aid drinkers feel now that even mainstream media has come out and openly admitted that the numbers were doctored all along (exactly as i had said)?

[M2-Destroyer]

so how stupid do all you man made global warming kool aid drinkers feel now that even mainstream media has come out and openly admitted that the numbers were doctored all along (exactly as i had said)?

Can i just point out that the last post was in APRIL?!

Stop reviving old topics.

Stupid Trolls.

Myk

[-nox-]

so how stupid do all you man made global warming kool aid drinkers feel now that even mainstream media has come out and openly admitted that the numbers were doctored all along (exactly as i had said)?

It could be that, that is exactly what you said. I don't believe you made a post here.

That said, I may be wrong, but as far as i saw only one of the independent databases may have had some "doctoring with". There are other databases, such as the one of NASA, which are still considered reliable and apparently still show a global tempature increase tendency. Ah well, i guess you shouted rather loud so I'm happy to go along with your opinion.

[Caia]

so how stupid do all you man made global warming kool aid drinkers feel now that even mainstream media has come out and openly admitted that the numbers were doctored all along (exactly as i had said)?

You're talking about "Climategate"? The so called mainstream media has been reporting on a bunch of data that some hacker got his hands on. The hacker also (apparently) only let loose documents that made global warming look bad.

I don't generally buy into the whole global warming thing being caused by humans. And I don't because I've yet to see enough evidence to persuade me. However, anything that was released by the hacker is very very suspect.

[-nox-]

eh? is that really your opinion or are you making fun of 'anti-global-warming people' by using some hugely ridiculous arguments?

[MadAce]

eh? is that really your opinion or are you making fun of 'anti-global-warming people' by using some hugely ridiculous arguments?

-Nox-, between you and me buddy... Don't you think that this whole global warming thing isn't what we should be worrying about? I mean, it's bad. Very bad. But there's things that's worse.

Global nuclear war. Famine. Super pandemics. Meteoroids crashing into earth. And there's even one thing that's worst of all. Worse than anything you or I can imagine:









democracy (need proof? see above comments)

[BLADE2]

Global warming is the biggest bunch of bull crap I have ever seen, shame on you for actually believing it. Seriously, how in the hugging hell are we going to change the climate of the planet earth!!!!!

Also, I'd like to point out that carbon dioxide (a vital part of life, plants need CO2 to produce oxygen which we breathe) is a dangerous pollutant? wtf were those enviromentalists smoking? do you know that their is less than 1% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that is the cause of this man made global warming? Think of this, governments want to tax you on you releasing CO2 into the atmosphere... what do you breathe out? CO2... This whole global warming scheme is just another way for the Government to get ahold of your money, if you don't believe me, do some research on the internet... Al Gore has made millions off of this Global warming BBQ.

My 2 cents

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively)

However, if you look at before and after pix of glaciers that have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, you will see how quickly they erode in less than a hundred years correlating within the time frame of our industrial revolution.

http://www.palebludot.com/2008/01/27/me ... er-photos/

And that small amount of CO2 may not sound like it would have that much of an impact, but consider this. A deadly poison known as Ricin, one of the deadliest in the world can kill a human with as little as 500 micrograms. That's .00000000063% of the average human's body (176 lbs.). So small things can have a major effect. Ricin can kill you almost immediately, but the earth is much larger than a human, so it's effects will take longer.

Also, plants don't make as much oxygen as people may think. Algae, which are micro-organisms, produce 71% of the worlds oxygen from our waters. Plants make up the 29% difference. Earth is 71% water, 29% land. You see the correlation there? Pollute the air, acid rain is produced, seeps into our waterways, absorbed by plants, kills algae. Pollute the water, kills the algae. Pollute the land, kills the plants.

I could go on and on. There is a lot to back up the claim that global warming is a farce, and a lot to prove it true. You have to decide for yourself. I believe it to be true, so I recycle, live off the grid, making my own power, and using rain and grey water systems to do my part. Me doing this may not make a big difference, but I can at least say I'm doing something, and not be a hypocrite.

And for those who know me, yes I'm back for some rebangs, I hope my account is still active. Been gone a long time, I hope there is at least one new ship by now!

[BLADE2]

The earth has been going through natural warming and cooling periods. I'm trying to prove that man made global warming/cooling is a hoax. Environmentalists are tying to make you feel bad about the planet when you can't do anything to stop it, just so they can reach into your wallet and take your cash in taxes.

Also please explain to me how we came out of the last ice age when their were no cars, no "heavily polluting" factories, and no real human causes for it.

We didn't come out of the last ice age yet, we are still in it. An average ice age lasts 100,000 years. Although if may appear that our orbit around the sun is okay for now, every 100,000 years, the planet goes through a cycle. For 23,000 years, our planet begins to veer away further from the sun than normal, when it finally gets it's furthest away point, it stays there for about 41,000 years, then spends another 23,000 years coming back closer to the sun. Then spends 12,000 years close to the sun before it starts travel back further away.

Currently we are towards the end of an ice age. When the earth finally gets back to it's original position closer to the sun, the ice caps are suppose to fully melt, as they have every ice age. But since our planet is currently warming at a pace of 1 degree every hundred years, faster than it should, by the time earth gets back to it's closer position to the sun, the surface temperature of the earth will be so hot, the oceans will have evaporated. This is what scientists believed to have happened on Mars. They have proof that water existed at one time on Mars and now it is gone. With no water to feed plants, plants stop giving off oxygen, excess CO2 that's not feeding the plants makes the entire planet an inhospitable literal greenhouse planet. solar radiation gets in, but heat doesn't get out.

[Caia]

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively)

True.

However, if you look at before and after pix of glaciers that have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, you will see how quickly they erode in less than a hundred years correlating within the time frame of our industrial revolution.

So your argument is such: I drink milk daily. The Network news is on daily. Because I drink milk, the network news is on daily.

Correlation is NOT causation.

More over the glaciers have come and gone for millions of years by out estimates. Sometimes we've had very little, sometimes we've had a lot. So, saying the glaciers are melting may be true, but that's what tends to happen anyway.

And that small amount of CO2 may not sound like it would have that much of an impact, but consider this. A deadly poison known as Ricin, one of the deadliest in the world can kill a human with as little as 500 micrograms. That's .00000000063% of the average human's body (176 lbs.). So small things can have a major effect. Ricin can kill you almost immediately, but the earth is much larger than a human, so it's effects will take longer.

More or less true. The big problem is that a lot of the excess CO2 that humans are producing is being absorbed by the oceans. Also, those forests that we were told that were all going to be killed by acid rain? Yeah, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has actually caused some species of plants to grow quicker (and also absorb more CO2).

Is more CO2 in the atmosphere bad? So far its pretty inconclusive. There are some detractors and some benefits. And while we're on the topic, you guys realize that (according to theory) both water vapor and methane and much much worse for global warming than CO2 is. Why harp on CO2 if you're worried about global warming?

Also, plants don't make as much oxygen as people may think. Algae, which are micro-organisms, produce 71% of the worlds oxygen from our waters. Plants make up the 29% difference. Earth is 71% water, 29% land. You see the correlation there? Pollute the air, acid rain is produced, seeps into our waterways, absorbed by plants, kills algae. Pollute the water, kills the algae. Pollute the land, kills the plants.

Algae is a plant. So, yeah, plants produce just as much oxygen as people have been told. What's more, is the because the oceans tend to absorb a lot of the extra CO2, the algae population has boomed. What does this mean? As more CO2 is produced, then absorbed into the oceans, algae grow faster and produce more O2. We get a nice balance between the two.

Algae in the oceans (where I'm going to guess over 90% of the algae population is), it just doesn't do much. The oceans are far to big to be effected all that much by acid rain.

As for Algae in lakes and other such closed (or mostly closed) area of water, acid rain actually HELPS algae. Source: http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.w ... d_rain.htm

Periphytic algae

- many acidified lakes exhibit a large increase in the abundance of periphytic algae (those that coat rocks, plants and other submerged objects). This increase has been attributed to the loss of heterotrophic activity in the lake (i.e., the loss of both microbial and invertebrate herbivores in the lake).

I could go on and on. There is a lot to back up the claim that global warming is a farce, and a lot to prove it true. You have to decide for yourself. I believe it to be true, so I recycle, live off the grid, making my own power, and using rain and grey water systems to do my part. Me doing this may not make a big difference, but I can at least say I'm doing something, and not be a hypocrite.

There is some decently sound theory out there that global warming may be impacted by humans. Most of it hasn't been tested, though. If the theory was so sound, they'd stop revising it every 6 months.