What was any of the science that I stated were incorrect ???, I mean I am beyond aware of the fact that scalling up can complicate things but on a atomic level a large deal of CO2 is produced by most popularly used forms of combustion of which ONE BARREL OF *petrolium* produces 51.89kg per barrel....How many barrels of oil or tones of coal are consumed a year by the US and China alone....I mean it goes without saying that humans are the lead contributer to CO2 emissions within the last 100,000 years of which on a atomic scale the trapping of IR rays through CO2 produces heat.....Meaning ???????
(congrats glabal warming is most likely very plausable given the scientific method and most people that want to do something about it by getting you to buy biofuel are scamming you)
(Btw someone stated once that plantlife would be able to absorb most of our issues https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/index.html_p=183.html)
I rather specifically didn't state that any of your "science" was incorrect, only woefully, ridiculously incomplete and oversimplified, and not really relevant to why the public doesn't believe in global warming.
And yes, global warming is certainly "plausible" - even on the extreme fringe "denier" side, exceedingly few claim that it is not "plausible". The gulf between "plausible" and "reasonably proven" is where the vast, overwhelming majority of actual science takes place.
And these two statements are just plain hilarious:
- "I mean it goes without saying that humans are the lead contributer to CO2 emissions within the last 100,000 years" - the global carbon cycle is 750 gigatons per year, and human emissions are 29 gigatons per year (IPCC). That is to say, human emissions at their height are less than 4% of the normal annual CO2 emissions in the world. Human emissions for the last 100 years are far less than that, and human emissions for the last 100,000 years would something like 0.001% of emissions, at best.
- "scalling up can complicate things" - yes, and an atom bomb going off in your lap might have a mild affect on your health
Thank you for trying to lead me through your grossly, insultingly oversimplified case for the plausibility of global warming. I've read quite a bit at the collegiate level, to the point that I'm tired and burned out on the whole thing, and you're giving me the kindergartner's summary with the attitude that I
'm the ignorant one. Crap like this is WHY I SAID TO STAY AWAY FROM THE TOPIC IN THE FIRST PLACE.