samcin

A beaver builds a dam and it's considered natural. Man builds a dam and we are interfering with nature. Are we not part of nature and hence should not everything we do be considered natural, be it beneficial or detrimental? If man is influencing climate to a degree that it is changing our environment, the changes cannot be reversed by paying carbon taxes to an elite group of unelected globalists.

List of scientists opposing the assessment of global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Why the assumption that others on this forum are not highly educated? Besides there is such a thing as street smarts and education is not required to know when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes or blowing smoke up your you know what.

What exactly do you mean by "its warming properties which are cumulative". Do excess amounts of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere or are the warming effects you claim cumulative? Let’s assume the earth is warming due to increased CO2 levels caused by man. How does paying a carbon tax through Al Gore's brokerage firm help decrease the carbon levels?

You cannot assume I have a weak knowledge of science from my posts. Just because I don't agree with your exaggerated examples does not make me weak scientifically. The scientific method is based on disagreements and proving your theory is the right. The so called scientists with the strong science component were caught red handed lying to the entire world population about global warming. This is why they now call it climate change. Doesn't say much for the scientific component when it’s based on lies. According to your expertise, by what percentage has man increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

When or whether I finished school is not relevant in a debate. Do people stop learning and researching when they finish school? Not in my case. You don't have to be a scientist to have a political opinion. You just have to do the research available through science and come up with your own conclusions. I thought this was a political forum and not a scientific one. If you want to know the truth about "CLIMATE CHANGE" follow the money.

I am not using incorrect information to make a point. CO2, in the quantities that it is found in nature, even if we double the quantities, will not kill anything. Those pushing the global warming agenda, through the mainstream media, are leading us to believe that we created CO2 which is toxic to the planet. You are exaggerating to make a point. No creature on this planet is in a situation where they are forced to breathe just CO2. Water will cause your brain to swell and kill you if you drink too much of it. Is water toxic? CO2 is not a toxin in the pure sense of the term; increasing CO2 in a closed environment dilutes the oxygen level and that is what causes the syndrome; lack of oxygen. If you breathe just CO2 you will die because you are depriving yourself of oxygen. Breathe any other gas without oxygen and it will kill you. We all take in CO2 with every breath we take.

In that respect I guess water is a poisonous liquid. Fill your sink with water and put you head in it for a few minutes.

The fact that the sun has been relatively quiet for 30 years supports the real numbers that reveal a slight cooling not warming over the past 10 years. Last winter was one of the coldest on record in many areas. They had record lows this summer in California and Hawaii as examples. Many northern regions have experienced snow storms as early as September when they normally start in November. It has been admitted that the hockey stick was fabricated. The scenes of glaciers pouring into the ocean from Gore's movie were stolen from the movie "The Day After". The special effects people who created the scene recognized their work. Some scientists that helped fabricate the entire hysteria have now admitted that the evidence does not favour global warming. The biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses is water vapour. Maybe they should tax us for boiling water to make pasta. Man made CO2 has increased by less than 1%. CO2 is not a poisonous gas. Why did the planet not go into self destruct mode when it was densely populated by dinosaurs? The C02 and methane and other gases they emitted during the decomposition process was far superior to man's contribution today. Scientist cannot be trusted; they are human. They can be persuaded to show evidence to support a hidden agenda. Many will pretend to support a theory just to get research grants. We need to believe in the scientific method and not the individual scientists. Insults are not necessary. I joined this forum because I thought its participants were civilized.

The scare mongers speak of climate change like it's a bad thing. Somehow we are supposed to control climate and stabilize it. Must we absolutely have control over everything? Climate change is a natural occurrence. It's been getting warmer since the last ice age, with some fluctuations, and the planet has survived thus far. The global warming issue (now conveniently termed climate change) has nothing to do with saving our planet and everything to do with carbon credits that fill the pockets of the elite. They create a crisis and then provide the solution; and the solution is always about taking your money. Yes, they found a way to tax the air we breathe by billing us for the CO2 we exhale. Everything green on this planet absorbs Co2 and the more of it in the environment the greener the planet. They have it backwards; CO2 does not cause warming but rather warming causes CO2 levels to temporarily increase. The planet will usually warm through increased solar activity which in turn increases the population of oxygen breathing species which in turn emit more CO2 which causes increased vegetation which absorbs the increased CO2 which provides us with more oxygen to breath. That’s the reality; but you can’t bring reality to the bank.