|
The problem with "greenhouse" or "green hoax", whatever you want to call it, is that the general public don't know enough to really have a properly considered debate on the matter. The science behind it would leave most people bewildered anyway, considering just how much they actually learn from school. The media don't help, because they're pushing agendas left, right and centre. Scientists don't help because they're doing the same thing.
Being a geologist myself, but also having a good background in climatology as well, I'm in a position to see both the pros and cons of the debate. GCM's (Global Cimate Models) are only as good as the data you enter into them, and also only as good as the algorithms you use to create models of a detailed enough resolution, taking in as many variables as can be calculated. Increasing CO2 content is a major variable in the equations but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily the most important, depending on how you use the models to calculate what you are trying to find.
The climate is an extremely complicated beast and whilst pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to help, it's not the only cause of any warming which is occurring. There are far more pressing reasons as to why we should reduce our CO2 output, but having it contribute to a warming of the atmosphere isn't going to help.
|