Global Warming is a Scam

I fear that you are correct but understand that those who argue about the cause are the real threat to doing anything at all.We need to understand that so many of the needed remedial solutions will take generations to complete. Infrastructure is slow to construct. If new pipelines or dams or levees or sea walls or detention ponds or roads or power lines or plants are needed we can expect each to take about a quarter century from proposal to completion.We need to be asking where we can relocate the millions of people most effective, about how to rebuild NYC and all other major metropolitan areas so the subways are no longer subject to flooding, about relocating all power distribution systems so that they are underground (that one might be possible in a half century if we started today).We need to understand that the financial costs involved will fall mostly on the Industrialized Nations.But nothing will even get considered until we can get past those people who still want to argue about "Whose fault is it?"

Well, that was weird.Of course any evidence about the cause of climate change is going to be circumstantial. What on earth would direct evidence be like? Are you waiting for an eyewitness to come forward and say: "I was there and I saw the human race shoot the climate in the head with a gun made of carbon dioxide"?When the evidence for a hypothesis and for any counter-hypothesis must, by the very nature of the question, be circumstantial, no matter how right the hypothesis is, then it is not a serious objection to say that the evidence is all circumstantial.

Not only will we survive it; we will thrive in it. There will be greater food production and a greater diversity of new species.

Except for some billions of people. By what reasoning do you reach this conclusion.

What I mean is that nobody can point to the evidence and show that every warming period was preceded by an increase in carbon dioxide. They also cannot show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the result of warmer ocean temperatures. Until someone can show there are no periods of increased carbon dioxide that are not accompanied by an increase in temperatures, all evidence is merely circumstantial.

Why would billions of people necessarily die? Plants thrive on CO2. More carbon dioxide, more plants, more plants, more food.

You make an interesting claim. Where is the evidence to support that assertion?

No, I don't. It temporarily absorbs long wave radiation then re -releases it.

All plants need CO2 to live. That is my evidence.

Then you should have said so. WTF?Why would anyone need to?If we wish to prove that Fred Brown killed John Smith by stabbing him with a knife, it is not necessary to prove that every death was preceded by Fred Brown stabbing someone with a knife. If you think that you're producing the same fallacy as you did at the start of your post, you're wrong. Stop using that word until you're prepared to use it properly. Of course all the evidence is circumstantial. If someone could meet your nutty standards of proof, the evidence they used to do so would still be circumstantial.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Animals need oxygen to live so if oxygen in atmosphere increased animals would do even better?Do you realize that not all plant life is beneficial for human existence? DO you not think agriculture will be affected drastically? More carbon dioxide is not going to mean better crop yields. You might want to take a class on botany while your at it. Plants need much more than CO2 to thrive. Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production You really need to look into things before you open your mouth.

Circumstantial evidence means evidence other than a direct report of a witness. I'm not sure I understand what you have with the current evidence, but I do know that the problem has nothing whatsoever to do with being circumstantial. It is absolutely unnecessary for this to be true even if ACW currently exists. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you really that simple?First of all I did not say die, so quit misrepresenting what I say. Billions will not thrive.Ocean levels rise, billions displaced. Agriculture will be fundamentally changed. Where something grew well before it might not in future. Do you know anything about wheat? Rapeseed? Corn? How about trees?. You really dont have much more than simple thoughts do you. No more CO2 does not mean more plants and if it does more plants does not mean more food.Read about the subject.

That is not evidence as you should know.Are all plants edible?Do plants need anything other than CO²?Do humans forage in the field for plant food?Think.

quote:

---

All plants need CO2 to live. That is my evidence.

---

For consistency with your arguments about global warming, shouldn't you be showing that increases in carbon dioxide always produce increased plant growth and "diversity of new species". How about the end of the Permian ?