Is Herr Doktor Wackelpudding's misleading statements designed to minimize the importance of atmospheric CO2?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

HAHAHAhahahahaaaaa Doktor Wackelpudding....

Jim Z: Something can be harmful in certain application and essential in another... Saying CO2 is essential for life... Well no duh, but it's still a pollutent to the atmosphere.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

This forum is getting wacko because of these deniers!

Answer 2

It's designed to obfuscate. Laymen will see the number 0.01% and think, "oh, that's a small number. I guess global warming isn't such a big issue after all."

Answer 3

Yes, but only in the minds of the ignorant. Which apparently includes most global warming deniers.

*edit* interesting, jim z calls the US Supreme Court "alarmists" about an hour after bravozulu says the same. And the probability that they're the same person increases...

Source(s):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…

Answer 4

Does this help explain why the polar ice caps on mars are melting? There are no SUVs there.

Answer 5

I don't think so, however, I do think your statements clearly indicate that you are a close relative of Tom Sizemore's detachable plastic unit.

Answer 6

A much larger problem is from Alarmists that exaggerate the threat of increases in CO2. They diminish the importance of CO2 as they seek to call it a pollutant.

Answer 7

This is my answer from another question, but I copied it for here:

This is crazy. That colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic gas called carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It underpins all life on Earth. It is plant food. All plants require CO2 for photosynthesis, and plants (especially photosynthetic micro-organisms) are the pillare supporting all life on Earth. The slight increase in CO2 over the last 35 years from 325 ppmv to 385 ppmv has increased grain yields.
It is really disturbing that you use the term "denier". A scientific consensus does not equate scientific fact. Consensus is a political term, NOT a scientific term. Just as "belief" is a religious term and not scientific.
You know what drives me nuts? Almost every time a global warming story is featured on television, there is a background image of a cooling tower on a coal-fired power station. The visible plume is not CO2, it is H2O. The plume of minute water droplets is the visual stimulus to support the popular view that CO2 is a pollutant of human origin.
When governments can change the galactic path of the Solar System, the variable energy emitted by the Sun, change cosmic ray flux, the wobbles in the Earth's orbit, the behaviour of bacteria and plate tectonics and ocean currents, then I will be convinced that they can change the climate.
I wonder if you can explain why the planet was warmer than today in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warming periods, and there was no form of industry?
Or even look to today, we have been cooling since 1998. The computer models did not predict that. They said that after 1998 the planet would keep warming indefinatley.
So to the Anthropogenic Global Warming "believers", they have created a religion where logic, questioning or contrary data are not permitted.
Let me ask you this. What information would you need to reverse your stance on the theory of manmade global warming? Think about it. If you have no answer, then you are akin to an irrational, fanatical belief in an ascientific theory rooted in miscalculations and incomplete data.
Jonathan Swift once said "it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never reasoned into".
Life has been very hard in cold times, war, famine, disease, poverty, struggle to survive. More people die in winter than in summer, there is more depopulation in global cooling events than in global warming events, and yet we are the first generation on planet Earth to fear warmth.

Source(s):

My Brain, Heaven & Earth by Prof. Ian Plimer

Answer 8

The sad irony is that Jello Brain will be hurt by the warming more than the rest of us. Cold Jello doesn't do very well if placed in a warm place for a while.

Answer 9

Gentlemen please do not argue with a true believer, remember what happened when people argued with Torquemada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_…

And when they argued with Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Crom…

We do not need another repeat of this kind of religious frenzy by a true believer felling the need to suppress better educated heretics that believe in scientific method instead of politically correct peer review.

Answer 10

As I’ve just explained in Dana’s question, stating the rise in CO2 as 0.01% is just as valid as quoting 36% - it’s simply representing the information in another way.

Why does that make 0.01% “misleading”?

If we were debating something else, where your *preferred* method of representing the data was 0.01%, you’d be sitting here telling everyone that 36% was “misleading”.

All you’re doing here is revealing your own prejudiced views and attempting to silence anyone who presents an alternative view.

Oh yes, very “scientific”.

As ever with Global Warming - don't believe the hype.