Other Answers (13)

• The %26quot;alarmism%26quot; will persist until someone does something about it.
  
  To be sure, there is always a slight possibility that we may be wrong. But that is no excuse not to act. There is a slight possibility that we are wrong about just about anything. For example, there is a slight possibility that we are wrong about the theory that exercise is good for you. That doesn%26#039;t mean we don%26#039;t do it.
  
  If you think the computer models are starting with a false premise, what exactly is that false premise, and how do you know it%26#039;s false?
  http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...
  http://www.dvgu.ru/meteo/library/3076000...
  http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab... http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5433.f...
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41...
  http://magmo.typepad.com/VitousekHumanDo...
  http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...
  http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positi...
  http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos1...
  http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_...
  http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/060720...
  http://www.ipcc.ch/ Nelson asks: %26quot;Therefore, it is theoretically possible for increases in CO2 to cause increases in surface temperature. The question is, is the amount of warming enough to be significant?%26quot;
  
  And the answer is: %26quot;CO2 is more evenly distributed than water, so if CO2 caused warming it would have a proportionately greater effect in areas where there is little water vapor (such as deserts and in very cold regions), while in areas with a lot of water, the effect of CO2 may be insignificant compared to the effect of water vapor. This is one of many factors that mitigate against the idea of a %26quot;climate catastrophe.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can%26#039;t make it any darker.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;The analogy with a greenhouse would be that the glass in the roof becomes slightly thicker. The effect of warming also depends on the conditions inside the greenhouse. If the greenhouse were full of ice at exactly -0.01 degrees Celsius, making the glass slightly thicker just might be enough to melt all the ice and flood the greenhouse. But if the greenhouse had some regions that were hot and some that were very cold (as the planet Earth does), it would have a very small overall effect.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;As an aside, the term %26quot;greenhouse effect%26quot; is actually a misnomer. In greenhouses, most of the warming that is observed is not caused by carbon dioxide, or by absorption of infrared radiation by the glass as many people think, but by reduction in convection.%26quot; ...in fact, CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900.%26quot;
  
  
  %26quot;Nelson%26#039;s conclusion is very important: %26quot;large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.%26quot; http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
• 1) As long as the sponsors are willing to pay the bill for promoting it and as they are some of the richest people on the planet they can waste pocket money for a long time, at least until temps drop to the late 40s level.
  
  2) The Co2 drives global warming thing has less value than nitrogen in a cars exhaust is a prime factor in smog. At least nitrogen gives smog its brown color all Co2 does is make plants grow better as does nitrogen. What have these greens got against plant food and fertilizer for plants that mage them grow better.
  
  
  Really it is the biggest of the big oil conglomerates that is funding the whole AGW scam and they have from the begining.

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  *yawn* These kinds of questions are such a bore.
  
  %26quot;When did you decide that AGW is a hoax?%26quot;
  %26quot;Did you know Al Gore%26#039;s underpants have a carbon footprint bigger than Uzbekistan?%26quot;
  %26quot;How many chucks would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck Al Gore?%26quot;
  
  Until the deniers can present some solid scientific evidence to support their arguments, these sort of questions are just empty rhetoric.
  
  Additional details:
  
  %26quot;The false premise is that CO2 drives climate change.%26quot;