Who do so many people believe the Global Warming Scam?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

@Smallz

I guess my first question is where you got Mauna Loa CO2 data from 1900, since my textbook lists data starting circa 1960, hence I can’t say anything about your claims from 1900-1940 and 1940-1960’s, if you could post a link that would be helpful.

The CO2 data was from my Biology textbook. It noted that some CO2 data was estimated between 1900 and 1960. The graph for that period is less smooth, but follows the same curve as the rest of the graph, leveling off towards fairly steady in the 390s. I’ll see if I can find another source for that info.

@Smallz

The “global mean temperature” is a bad indicator. Anything that plots an average temperature over the entire earth is very vague, but if you have a link I’ll take a look. I think I mentioned that before somewhere. But even with that bad data, it makes sense that temperature levels don’t vary widely (but you should note that .4 degrees is still significant, if it is truly representative of the actual temperatures). The global mean would average hot summers in Death Valley and cold winters in the antartic. But as I said, global warming doesn’t just mean “heating”. It leads to more extreme seasons, so that summers get hotter, and winters get colder. I don’t know the proportionality, but because of that, averaging over the world wouldn’t, therefore, lead to spectacularly varying temperatures.

The temperature info was from NASA’s site. I don’t remember noticing an increase in extree temperatures, but it’s been a long time so it’s quite possible. I’ll have to look at it again. The actual change in temperature over the last 100 years is .9 degrees: but .5 of that happened before the CO2 levels began increasing significantly. The other .4 happened since the 90’s. It hasn’t really been going long enough to tell if it is a trend or an insignificant variation.

@Smallz

I never said (nor do scientists) that greenhouse gas emissions was a straightforward tracking. There are many variables. El Nino, volcanoes, earthquakes, are some natural ones that come to mind. Also, it isn’t like human CO2 emissions just “turned on”. The U.S./Britain industrial revolutions started circa 1800, with India and China (4 largest contributers) staggered later on, increasing output at varying rates.

Of course it didn’t just “turn on,” but apparently the CO2 levels didn’t really skyrocket until the '40s. Of course, since we don’t have data for CO2 before 1900, or for temperature (besides rough estimates) before the late 1800’s, it’s only conjecture for those periods.

@Smallz

I also never said humans were the sole source of global warming, but when anyone says people play no part, it’s ridiculous and mind-boggling.

I don’t say people play no part, but I think the part we play is a probably a very small one, and have yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>Basically, my thoughts on Global Warming are:</p>

<p>Would you give half your savings to a person who claimed the sky was falling, without strong evidence that the sky was in fact falling AND that he could stop it with your money?</p>