5. Although CO2 does not constitute a large portion of the atmosphere, that does not necessarily mean that it is not important. A even slight change in the composition of the atmosphere may have profound impacts on the climate of the Earth.
Thats were your wrong, Im not saying human should start polluting world, but definatly we are not the controllers of climate change through global warming.
Even if you believe CO2 is the cause or not, the difference we make is too small - its just illogical to assume it has an effect.
Secondly, please don't google stuff - you are about to get some of the worst evidence out there.
I understand mathematic model/statistic well, and you know how easy it is to manipulate somthing? Its pretty crazy. Most things on the net, 90% you can reject based on complete bias/unfair result through tinkering or missing out many essential factors.
So, unless you understand a great deal of physics/mathematics, don't be giving this kind of stuff out. You will mislead yourself and others.
I had a 6 hour debate with a guy, who was trying to prove the engineering truth of 9/11. He would go look up facts all over net, present me. It came to a conclusion, he didnt even have the intellect to even understand any of the phsyics involved - even though being a graduate in a science - He just took it in.
So yeah, if you want real research - you got to restrict your study to the BEST. Its like learning islam through a random array of not so great scholars, instead of the greatest - your just asking to be misguided.
There people, who will fight to steer people into untruth on MANY things. Not just on politics, or environment, many are there to prove God cannot exist etc and they try back it up with alot of so called evidence. Unless you are very very educated on the matter, you cannot refute it.
I actually have nothing personal against you, but just get annoyed when you suddenly place certain (even if its a single person, aka Al Gore) above people far more intelligence (eh, reminds me of debates madhab vs salafism lol).
There are engineers who will try prove planes caused twin towers to fall, I read NASA's arguement why the moon landing wasnt fake (oh ye, has anyone other than me researched what NASA itself used as excuses for certain aspects? Made me laugh quite alot). When you look at both sources, you find one CLEARLY has more credibility. Usuaully, people are drawn to the "elite" governement crew, as I like to say, since they have the media on there side greatly to influence people towards them. Truth is though, they don't even come close to the others who dispute them but how are people to know.
Even more amusing is, somtimes my opinions are called propagand - yet my information in MANY circumstance is based on the same source as theres - what has that got to say about credibility of your source?
Being a maths undergraduate atm :D I can make some funny examples here. Basically, these, although at sight to any normal person is FLAWLESS calculations, obviously arnt true
:
PROOF 1=2
Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities
a = b
Multiply through by a
a2 = ab
Subtract b2
a2 − b2 = ab − b2
Factor both sides
(a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b)
Divide out (a − b)
a + b = b
Observing that a = b
b + b = b
Combine like terms on the left
2b = b
Divide by the non-zero b
2 = 1
----
Proof that 0 = 1
Start with the addition of an infinite succession of zeros
0 = 0+0+0+0 etc
Then recognize that 0 = 1 − 1
0 = (1-1) + (1-1) + etc
Applying the associative law of addition results in
0 = 1 + (-1+1) + (-1+1) + etc
Of course − 1 + 1 = 0
And the addition of an infinite string of zeros can be discarded leaving
0 = 1
:D!
---
[edit] Proof that 1 = 3
From Euler's formula we see that
eni denotes e^ni where n = pi
eπi = cos(π) + isin(π) = − 1 + 0i = − 1
and
e3πi = cos(3π) + isin(3π) = − 1 + 0i = i
so we have
eπi = e3πi.
Taking logarithms gives
ln(eπi) = ln(e3πi)
and hence
πi = 3πi.
Dividing by πi gives
1 = 3
--
There a funny integration one aswell, which leads to a result of -2, but from the graph its evident the area cannot be of -2.
Basically ye, alot of things, if you don't understand, you can't refute them.