Easy Town: “Why don’t the critics provide us with information showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has had rates of growth during previous climate cycles anywhere equivalent to the past 100 years.”
(Notice that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, which is opposite of what environmentalists would like to have in order to support their agenda.)
“Why don’t they provide us with information showing that carbon dioxide does not have a tendency to trap heat.”
Why don’t the scientists in support of AGW show that CO2 *does* have a tendanacy to trap heat? This is a theory that came out of seeing correlations between CO2 and temperature, but correlation does not mean causation.
But if you want a refutation, here is one: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm. Too bad that energy of scientists have to be spent on refuting junk science instead of devoting time discovering truths.
“Why don’t they show that we are not really pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the air each year.”
Nobody disputes that. Reducing emissions will result in cleaner air–that’s easy to show. But will it result in cooling the Earth? (BTW, smog cools the Earth, so perhaps we should be polluting more, not less!)
Most of people only hear the anthrogenic global warming stuff, and assume its skeptics are ignorant. This is lazy. There is plenty of material out there that refutes AGW if you turn off your TV, take time away from your hippie friends, and go look for it.
You’re not a hippie? So sorry. We all make grand assumptions don’t we?
