No no, there couldn't possibly be any consequences from massive clear cutting removing land based carbon sinks combined with emitting millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the span of about 100 years.
It's all part of the natural order of things. The climate has been changing for billions of years, don't you know.
There's no question that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in air, right now at a rate of ~2 ppm/year.
I also have no question that higher CO2 levels without increase global temperatures. My disagreement is with the degree of temperature increase.
In the link attacking Dr. Happer it said this:
Happer then throws in a few classical straw man attacks such as:
"CO
2
levels have increased from about 280
ppm
to 390
ppm
over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO
2
. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner."
This would, of course, be a perfectly valid counter-argument to would-be fallacious reasoning, yet it isn't the reasoning any real scientist uses, and is therefore a smokescreen.
While Happer acknowledges that correlation is not causation, he does admit that temperatures did increase by 0.8 C at the same time CO2 increased by 110 ppm.
However, let's assume that there is causation. This is where the alarmist global warming argument falls apart -
if CO2 rises from the current 400 ppm to 500 ppm we should expect an increase of about 1 degree C, not the claims of 2-3 degrees C.
rJ, on 18 May 2015 - 8:29 PM, said
You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.
