Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[Pappa]

I like the rainforest, and hate seeing them destroyed. But it's entirely false to intimate that they help cool the planet. They actually heat the planet, by producing methane, and vast quantities of water vapour. Both more significant greenhouse gases than CO2.

But realising more CO2 heats up the atmosphere creating more water-vapour in a positive feedback loop.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-v ... se-gas.htm
I've read your link on the carbon cycle and as far as I can make out the carbon remains roughly the same if things are left as they are but when humans come along and cut down forests and burn fossil fuels they release more carbon into the atmosphere and upset the balance so I don't see where anyone is making any false claims here.

We're in exactly the same situation with the Nitrogen Cycle too. In both cases, human activity is adding significant amounts of material, more than the natural cycle can process/recycle... the net result is a glut of nitrogen in the seas and carbon in the atmosphere.

[mistermack]

I don't see where anyone is making any false claims here.

Isaac Asimov in the video says that rain forests are the most efficient "consumers" of CO2 on the planet. Big fat lie. They don't "consume" CO2, they just cycle and recycle it, putting out slightly less than they take in. ( the difference is emitted as methane, which is worse than CO2 ).
So he's either lying, or so uniformed he's not worth listening to.
That scepticalscience site is just a rabid GW scare blogging site. You can't believe what you read on it. It's totally one-sided, not balanced at all.
.

[Animavore]

I don't see where anyone is making any false claims here.

Isaac Asimov in the video says that rain forests are the most efficient "consumers" of CO2 on the planet. Big fat lie. They don't "consume" CO2, they just cycle and recycle it, putting out slightly less than they take in. ( the difference is emitted as methane, which is worse than CO2 ).
So he's either lying, or so uniformed he's not worth listening to.
.

How is he lying? If they recycle it that are consuming it at some stage. Without trees then all the carbon released from cutting them down is not absorbed back into the carbon cycle and is left in the air.

[Pappa]

Isaac Asimov in the video says that rain forests are the most efficient "consumers" of CO2 on the planet. Big fat lie. They don't "consume" CO2, they just cycle and recycle it, putting out slightly less than they take in. ( the difference is emitted as methane, which is worse than CO2 ).
So he's either lying, or so uniformed he's not worth listening to.

I think you're being overly pedantic about a use of a word. Obviously nothing can be consumed to the point that it ceases to exist, or it would break the first law of thermodynamics. I'm sure Asimov is well aware of this.

That scepticalscience site is just a rabid GW scare blogging site. You can't believe what you read on it. It's totally one-sided, not balanced at all.

Seriously mistermack, when you say things like that, you just come across as a tin-hatter.

[mistermack]

How is he lying? If they recycle it that are consuming it at some stage. Without trees then all the carbon released from cutting them down is not absorbed back into the carbon cycle and is left in the air.

Ok, if you want to interpret "consume" to mean "take in", then it is dishonest and deceitful to say that rain forests "consume" vast quantities of CO2, without pointing out that they "emit" equally vast quantities.
So he's either lying, deceitful, or so uninformed he's not worth listening to.

Personally, I think he knows the truth, and is trying to deceive his audience. And he CERTAINLY IS NOT talking about the one-off release of CO2 when it's cut down. He's referring to rainforests as CONTINUOUS consumers of CO2.
.

[mistermack]

I think you're being overly pedantic about a use of a word. Obviously nothing can be consumed to the point that it ceases to exist, or it would break the first law of thermodynamics. I'm sure Asimov is well aware of this.

I'm sure he knows exactly what he's doing. He's trying to deceive his audience. Trying to give the impression that rain forests are taking net amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

That scepticalscience site is just a rabid GW scare blogging site. You can't believe what you read on it. It's totally one-sided, not balanced at all.

Seriously mistermack, when you say things like that, you just come across as a tin-hatter.

Maybe to you, but you're biased, or gullible, if you can't see how that site bends everything to meet one conclusion only.
And they have the nerve to call it sceptical.
REAL sceptics are sceptical of everything. That site is anything but.
.

[Pappa]

I think you're being overly pedantic about a use of a word. Obviously nothing can be consumed to the point that it ceases to exist, or it would break the first law of thermodynamics. I'm sure Asimov is well aware of this.

I'm sure he knows exactly what he's doing. He's trying to deceive his audience. Trying to give the impression that rain forests are taking net amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

That scepticalscience site is just a rabid GW scare blogging site. You can't believe what you read on it. It's totally one-sided, not balanced at all.

Seriously mistermack, when you say things like that, you just come across as a tin-hatter.

Maybe to you, but you're biased, or gullible, if you can't see how that site bends everything to meet one conclusion only.
And they have the nerve to call it sceptical.
REAL sceptics are sceptical of everything. That site is anything but.
.

The site is based on the conclusions of thousands of scientists and thousands upon thousands of scientific papers.

[mistermack]

The site is based on the conclusions of thousands of scientists and thousands upon thousands of scientific papers.

"Based on" means nothing, if it's totally biased. I don't think there is a more biased site on the web.
I don't think it's "based on" science, it draws what suits its purpose from science papers, and ignores what doesn't.

This format of "the sceptics argue that" vs "the science says" just shows the mindset. Their own opinion is "the science". Anybody who disagrees is just giving "the sceptics' argument".
Are you seriously saying you can detect no bias on this site?
.

[Animavore]

How is he lying? If they recycle it that are consuming it at some stage. Without trees then all the carbon released from cutting them down is not absorbed back into the carbon cycle and is left in the air.

Ok, if you want to interpret "consume" to mean "take in", then it is dishonest and deceitful to say that rain forests "consume" vast quantities of CO2, without pointing out that they "emit" equally vast quantities.
So he's either lying, deceitful, or so uninformed he's not worth listening to.

Personally, I think he knows the truth, and is trying to deceive his audience. And he CERTAINLY IS NOT talking about the one-off release of CO2 when it's cut down. He's referring to rainforests as CONTINUOUS consumers of CO2.
.

And if the forest isn't being renewed then that one-off release of CO2 has no where to go no matter what way you try to cut it. Nothing deceitful in what he said at all.

[Animavore]

The site is based on the conclusions of thousands of scientists and thousands upon thousands of scientific papers.

"Based on" means nothing, if it's totally biased. I don't think there is a more biased site on the web.
I don't think it's "based on" science, it draws what suits its purpose from science papers, and ignores what doesn't.

This format of "the sceptics argue that" vs "the science says" just shows the mindset. Their own opinion is "the science". Anybody who disagrees is just giving "the sceptics' argument".
Are you seriously saying you can detect no bias on this site?
.

The site clearly gives a list of what sceptics say vs what climate scientists say. I don't see any bias at all. They haven't misrepresented any of the other sides views or demonised them or anything like that. I deliberately picked this site because it isn't alarmist or political and is only interested in giving the different views and letting you decide for yourself.

[mistermack]

And if the forest isn't being renewed then that one-off release of CO2 has no where to go no matter what way you try to cut it. Nothing deceitful in what he said at all.

We'll have to disagree on that one. I think what Asimov is saying is crystal clear, and there is nothing in it about a one-off burn of forest clearance. I think I'm responding to what he SAID, you're spinning it.

The site clearly gives a list of what sceptics say vs what climate scientists say. I don't see any bias at all. They haven't misrepresented any of the other sides views or demonised them or anything like that. I deliberately picked this site because it isn't alarmist or political and is only interested in giving the different views and letting you decide for yourself.

The site is just about as biased as it could be. The only UNBIASED bit, is the comments section, which at first sight, appears to be genuine, although I suspect that some of the more strongly sceptical might have been weeded out.
At every point, it portrays sceptical views as "arguments" and pro-global warming views as "the science". How can you possibly call that unbiased?

If you look at the top of every page, you'll see "getting sceptical about global warming scepticism", so they don't even claim to be unbiased.
.

[Pappa]

Mistermack, the only thing the site is biased towards is the current scientific consensus. I know that for you, the consensus is meaningless, it's an artefact of thousands of scientists wanting to keep getting funding for churning out lies, right?

There's a good reason why "skeptics" (and I use that term in it's coloquial sense) are in a tiny minority compared to the mainstream scientific community. Unfortunately, your blind insistence that it's all a conspiracy makes you unable to understand why that is the case.

[Animavore]

The site is just about as biased as it could be. The only UNBIASED bit, is the comments section, which at first sight, appears to be genuine, although I suspect that some of the more strongly sceptical might have been weeded out.
At every point, it portrays sceptical views as "arguments" and pro-global warming views as "the science". How can you possibly call that unbiased?

If you look at the top of every page, you'll see "getting sceptical about global warming scepticism", so even they don't claim to be unbiased.

You seem to not know what biased is. If there were no comment section and they were providing opposing arguments without links then you could say it was biased. And saying they remove the more "strongly sceptical" arguments is totally unfounded on your part.

[mistermack]

Mistermack, the only thing the site is biased towards is the current scientific consensus. I know that for you, the consensus is meaningless, it's an artefact of thousands of scientists wanting to keep getting funding for churning out lies, right?

There's a good reason why "skeptics" (and I use that term in it's coloquial sense) are in a tiny minority compared to the mainstream scientific community. Unfortunately, your blind insistence that it's all a conspiracy makes you unable to understand why that is the case.

I've never claimed a conspiracy. What I see is a so-called new science, climate forecasting, with a history of NO correct forecasts, giving us prophecies of doom and gloom, unsupported by any track record.

(and please don't point out the "pretend" forcasts, where they fiddle with a model till it fits the past)

I don't think there is any conspiracy, but there is a fucking great bandwagon, with some tasty goodies for those who jump on board.
And anybody working in the field who has any doubts would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. Your point about concensus is false. People with doubts have learned to keep "schtum". And who can blame them?
.

[Animavore]

Mistermack, the only thing the site is biased towards is the current scientific consensus. I know that for you, the consensus is meaningless, it's an artefact of thousands of scientists wanting to keep getting funding for churning out lies, right?

There's a good reason why "skeptics" (and I use that term in it's coloquial sense) are in a tiny minority compared to the mainstream scientific community. Unfortunately, your blind insistence that it's all a conspiracy makes you unable to understand why that is the case.

I've never claimed a conspiracy. What I see is a so-called new science, climate forecasting, with a history of NO correct forecasts, giving us prophecies of doom and gloom, unsupported by any track record.

(and please don't point out the "pretend" forcasts, where they fiddle with a model till it fits the past)

I don't think there is any conspiracy, but there is a fucking great bandwagon, with some tasty goodies for those who jump on board.
And anybody working in the field who has any doubts would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. Your point about concensus is false. People with doubts have learned to keep "schtum". And who can blame them?
.

You've just defined a conspiracy. Well done. 95% of climate scientists agree global warming is caused by increasing CO2 because of human activities. The only people I ever see speaking against it are economists, scientists in unrelated fields and wing-nuts like Glenn Beck.