Quote:
Originally Posted by ryker
Never trust the Govt to do anything correctly. Good intentions can go very wrong.
|
I think the difference between the far left and far right is where people place their faith in. Far right (Libertarian) place the faith on the individual. Far left (Communist) place it with the govt. Our founding fathers were (rightly) suspicious of govt, hence all the checks and balances (some which seemed to have bypassed and ignored).
I'm not opposed to spending on global warming, but so much of the momentum seems based on emotional pleas than concrete data. Everything from "your children will be drowning in water!" to "poor polar bears will have no land and die!"
What angers me is the deceptive practices of those saying global warming is true, which only makes skeptics like myself very suspicious. Or, from very craptastic analysis of graphs. "See this CO2 spike here? It coincides with the industrial revolution... it MUST be because of the industrial revolution. Lets spend billions!"
Let's takes exes graph for example:
The implication in that graph is that the majority of the increased CO2 is anthropogenic--that is, we caused it. But take into account naturally produced CO2, and you see the anthropogenic CO2 is extremely small.
This paper details natural and anthropogenic CO2 output:
Why does atmospheric CO2 rise
In the section "Carbon Flux", you'll see that:
Naturally-produced CO2 comes out to 440 GtC, or 1614 gigatons of CO2.
Anthropogenic CO2 is 21 GtC, or 78.171 gigatons of CO2.
If you do the math, manmade CO2 is 4.2% of total CO2. Being generous and rounding up the number,
naturally-produced CO2 accounts for a whopping 95% of total CO2.
Does that mean global warming is false? Not necessarily. But does that mean that graph above is wrongfully deceiving the masses into believing the bulk of CO2 produced is anthropogenic? It sure does. I HATE selective knowledge, and scientists are guilty of picking and choosing data that they like, and throwing out others. It's especially the case with global warming.
If global warming is true, why the need for selective (biased) knowledge? Why the deceitful graphs that, by omission, implicate the bulk of CO2 produced is due to humans? When scientists are trying to manipulate people by bending facts to suit their own opinions, that's when I get very wary.