Myth 1 - Volcanoes release more CO2 than man

[EternalOptimist]

I read them. Try doing so yourself.

I always hated relgious nuts with a cause, then I learned to hate PC tw@ts with a cause. I am starting to hate some 'scientists' who persue a cause.

Take you cause and shove it where the sunspots dont shine. Lets have a bit more objectivity and a little less fervour please.

[sasguru]

Says someone who subscribes to the "Kings' New Clothes" mantra on anything more complex than Connect 4!


I have looked at the "science", and there are very few indisputable facts. That is why other factors and agendas must simultaneously be factored in and examined if we are to arrive at anything resembling the truth. If that process is, as seems to be the case, beyond you, then stick to less complex topics sg. It is not as if you are bringing much to THIS party with your selective ill-informed speculative gibberish riddled with "uncertainties" and "unknowns" anyway. Why not confine yourself to countering alexei's latest little suite of numbered puerile postings? That would seem to more accurately encompass your limited intellectual ceiling. Leave the tricky multi-faceted stuff to the grown-ups.

In all this verbiage, I notice there are no specific criticisms/refutations/well thought out arguments. Topping yourself would certainly substantially reduce the hot air being released by humankind.

[sasguru]

I always hated relgious nuts with a cause, then I learned to hate PC tw@ts with a cause. I am starting to hate some 'scientists' who persue a cause.

Take you cause and shove it where the sunspots dont shine. Lets have a bit more objectivity and a little less fervour please.

I don't have a cause. The science of this is fascinating and incidentally raises some interesting issues about the scientific process when dealing with a complex issue aka Popper and Kuhn.
Please criticise the scientific arguments on a point by potint basis and leave the emotion behind.






[/QUOTE]

[shaunbhoy]

In all this verbiage, I notice there are no specific criticisms/refutations/well thought out arguments.

They were contained in my first post which has probably been overwritten in your cranial buffer by now sg. Suffice it to say that only one of us feels the need to try and support their point by selectively cutting and pasting alleged "scientific" facts. Some of us can think for ourselves.

Topping yourself would certainly substantially reduce the hot air being released by humankind

Possibly, but by nowhere near the factor that topping YOU might harvest!

[EternalOptimist]

ok

why are you concentrating on CO2 as a greenhouse gas ? Is it because the main greenhouse gas , water vapour , cannot be blamed on human activity ?.

IIRC water vapour is 100 times more culpable than CO2, and there are other gases too.

[xoggoth]

Water vapour accounts for 95% to 99% of greenhouse effect (ie why the earth is some 55'C hotter than it would be with no atmosphere or only N2/O2 in the atmosphere).

That does not mean that adding effect of CO2 on top of that is necessarily insignificant. A 2-3'C rise postulated is only 5% of the effect due mostly to water vapour. That 2-3% rise may be significant, and don't forget (if true) that would be ON TOP OF any peaks due to solar activity.