>Let's try again. Show us some data that shows that CO2 emissions directly from humans are significant compared to emissions from industry and transportation.
>Or else, admit that you're talking out of your ass.
I'm sorry. I thought it was actually extremely obvious that I was talking out of my ass on this particular point. Especially since I advocated a tax on exercising and eating, if I recall correctly. While you're at it, though, why don't you look up some data on the significance of emissions from industry and transportation, when compared to natural sources? (Protip, the movie 'the great global warming swindle' discusses this too. Conclusion: not very significant) Yeah.... isn't it fun to tell other people to look up data, and to read whole books? (Read Marx, Schumpeter and Riccardo to see why I am right - like hell you'd do that, right?)
---------------------------------------------------------
>>91 you are right about the ad hominem. >>81 had it coming, though.
---------------------------------------------------------
>>92 I am actually convinced that global warming is real. The movie which started this thread of, actually acknowledges global warming also. I'd like to state one of its conclusions here: Al Gore, in 'an inconvenient truth,' shows how there is a strong correlation between global warming and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's real data, and I think its relatively trustworthy. However, what the 'great global warming swindle' remarks about the relation between global warming and levels of CO2, is that we should look at the direction of causality. According to that movie, CO2 development lags behind global temperature, indicating that a warmer earth causes more CO2 in the atmposphere, not the other way around. The lag is a couple hundred of years.
I find that a highly relevant finding.
Another finding is that, according to the same models which are used to predict the future climate, changes in the temperature of our earth (I mean overall increases in climate) should be observed most drastically in the higher regions of our atmosphere, which is where the larger amounts of greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap more sunlight. Measurements of temperature at these heights have been conducted for ages, by means of simple weather balloons. 'The great global warming swindle' argues that the measurements are in conflict with what the climate models predict.
Again, I find that highly relevant: these predictions come from a central part from the climate models, which is the role of greenhouse gasses. These temperature data indicate that there is a fundamental flaw (not just a small mistake) in the model.
I am aware that some people featured in the movie were happy about the way they were portrayed, and about the way their comments were included in it. However, to my knowledge, only the oceanographer has made complaints about this. The two reasons for doubt which I posed, have for as far as I know, have not been challenged by the scientists who posed them in the movie.
It should be obvious that, if human caused CO2 emissions are insignificant to global warming, there is no reason at all to cut such emissions.
I hope this soothes the commenters who criticized my sloppy style. I do think I posed relevant arguments here although I did not pose contra arguments to all criticisms. The arguments above, causal relation between CO2 and global warming, and counter evidence to climate models, are the ones that I can support best. I must say that I am glad that there is debate on this issue though.
-----------------------------------------------------------