CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath
There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now
Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade
Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians
So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?
I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.
Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.
So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.
It’s a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it’s the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.
I agree with the point made above, that skeptics’ main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It’s too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.
[/quote]
I don’t need anymore propaganda from the zealots with phony data. Thanks anyway.
