The AGW-debate seems most alive in the US currently. In most of the rest of the world (afaik) the majority seems to believe that human activities has and will influence out climate and enviroment. I’m one of those.
I’ve read and (I think) understood the explanations given for AGW and its effects. Basically, we systematically dig up stuff from the rock and pump it out in the atmosphere, while at the same time diminishing the ecosystems ability to re-absorb it. This would logically lead to a surplus of different carbon-based substances. If you burn down a tree, that’s OK as long as a new tree is allowed to grow. The previous tree had absorbed carbon, and the carbon released will be absorbed by a new tree. Assuming one is allowed to grow. A zero sum proposition.
But assuming that is is true that we’re diminishing the global ecosystems ability to absord carbon (I think this is pretty easy to prove but if needed I guess I will get cites). Also assuming we are systematically moving carbon from the rock to the atmosphere. Where does it go? What does it do?
As far as I can tell, the people sceptical of AGW do not present an alternative model. They just criticise the one that proponents of AGW use. Kind of like how creationists mainly attack the Theory of Evolution, but don’t really offer an alternative unless you count the Genesis (which, I’m sorry, isn’t very scientific).
I’ve checked, and it turns out only hydrogen has the velocity to escape earths atmoshpere unaided. So where does all the extra stuff go?
Ps. I’m pretty sure there’s a few misspellings in the text, please be understanding, second language and no spell check function…