Arsenic and asbestos are scientifically proven polluters of both the earth and humans, as proven and replicated repeatedly in laboratories all over the world. Models and consensus for AGW, when the models are already shown as inaccurate, isn't science. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
OK, you got me. I agree. The earth is the earth, and humans trying to change it for our supposed survival needs is the biggest poison to it. Gaia4life!
We will intentionally change the climate in certain areas of the earth to make it more hospitable and beneficial to us humans. Fact. And it will be done for profit. That also is a fact.
It's your little biting comment that make your post so damn jerky it is hard to have any kind of discussion with you. You should stop and think why posters react to you so negatively. It's not what you have to say but the way you say it. Anyways, I have no interest in have a discussion with someone who thinks they know it all and act like are superior in every topic they discuss. If I feel like venting and being a dick one night, maybe we can fun venting session. Till then go be a SPD to someone else.
Yes, I caught you trap the first time. Can we move on to discussing the science of this, rather than semantic gotchas?
CO2 can make things really warm at several orders of magnitude higher concentration. I saw it on mythbusters once. They pumped CO2 into a sealed greenhouse and at between 1% and 7% (vs. the .04% we have now), they saw a 1 degree F increase.
I don't think I know it all. I don't know if there is a god, and I don't know if AGW is a fact, as Further claims. I'm quite willing to admit things I don't know or understand. What bothers me is people who claim to know things as fact, when a basic scientific method isn't even used to prove these facts. People already drove Mags away from this board for purporting to "know" there is no god. I have to laugh at that arrogance, just as I laugh at the arrogance of the AGW Believers. I'm as agnostic on AGW as I am religion/gods. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Wait, so there is no control for any possible experiment unless it's on Mythbusters?!? That's kinda funny.
I think someone filled your greenhouse with laughing gas. Can't wait to see it next season on Mythbusters.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control experiment control experiment n 1. an experiment designed to check or correct the results of another experiment by removing the variable or variables operating in that other experiment. The comparison obtained is an indication or measurement of the effect of the variables concerned
The Mythbusters' experiments are conducted in a much more controlled setting than anything that global scientists can put together to justify AGW. AGW science has infinite variables, because the data is literally compiled from a sample of the entire planet. Mythbusters usually can keep their variables down to a much more manageable level, with wind, temperature, humidity, altitude some of the variables.