The Global Warming Scam

A 55ppm increase in Carbon Monoxide in your bedroom is something to be alarmed about, despite how small that is compared with the other things that make up the atmosphere of your bedroom.

No he didn't. He claimed the core was several million degrees and that at just two kilometres down there were some really hot rocks in most places.It's still wrong - but if you're going to criticise someone for getting something wrong it doesn't look good on you if you get wrong what it is they were wrong about.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Nice bit of patronising there Barack. I can't imagine why people are giving you such a hard time Since you're patronising us, please excuse me if I inadvertantly return the favour - we understand that if you draw a graph that charts the composition of the entire atmosphere over time, the change in carbon dioxide content would be completely unrepresented unless the graph was ludicrously large. We all understand that a million is a big number.But in scientific circles (actually in maths, which science uses to good effect), we tend to draw graphs for a purpose. That purpose is to visually display information for rapid comprehension (much quicker than reading through a table of data for instance). In order to do this we have to choose our scale. The scale should be relevant to the values we're interested in.For instance, when we're considering how something changes through time, our x axis is going to be time, and the left most value will be the earliest time we're interested in, and the rightmost the latest time. If we are concerned about the change in CO₂ over the last ten years it would be foolish to have a graph that was 500 years long, the bit we are interested in will be difficult to read accurately.Likewise, we'll want to pick our y axis to represent the minimum and maximum values of the thing we're interested. For instance, CO₂ concentration. Therefore, picking a scale that goes from 0 to 900,000 when the values of interest are 0-500, would be absurd. The graph would not serve the purpose of displaying information in a way that can be understood quickly and easily.The only relevant question, upon seeing a rise in CO₂ levels to this magnitude is: Is this significant enough to cause problems? The size and scale of the graph are meaningless, they are just tools used to help us see the facts. But if we're agreed on the facts, the question is, so now what?I suggested that a similar increase in CO, could have lethal effects on life. This I did to demonstrate that relatively low concentrations of a thing, are not necessarily indicative of low environmental impact.Since you and I agree that the increase is low compared with the total atmosphere, would it be a good idea to now go on to discuss what this implies?Now - for full disclosure, I've not studied the subject in depth. From what I can see, it seems abundantly clear that AGW is a reality. I am not particularly attached to this view, I've absolutely no care for Al Gore whatsoever. If you would like to persuade me that a scam has been perpetrated, then you will have to be persuasive. That means, among other things, being civil and assuming you are talking with someone who can follow along with discussion of a scientific issue, who can read through journal entries of novel disciplines and comprehend the gist of things.Maybe, by example, we can demonstrate to the 'hyenas' how civilized people who have some disagreements can come to understanding through discussion.

Presumably they believe the long term benefits for so doing outweigh the short term costs. But their alleged hypocrisy wouldn't prove AGW is a scam. Presumably because the illustrations are often hatefully condemning themselves. Perhaps because it is the illustrations that are themselves misleading and people treat misleading things with hateful condemnation. Maybe they aren't being hatefully condemning but they are merely mocking someone who makes claims with an air of authority who also seems to making rudimentary reasoning errors.Either way, if you are suggesting that they are hatefully condemning as a means of silencing the critics - then you've made an extraordinary claim. A) Saying things to someone else, jeering at them in writing, criticising them, does not silence them. Their words remain where they were.
B) It clearly hasn't worked, so why continue? AGW deniers have abundant avenues of communications, large numbers of people I work with have expressed doubts and have cited AGW authors as to their reasoning. Off topic. Please stick to the topic or do not continue to post.