Is smoking is bad for your health also a big scientific hoax Ryzorian?
All accepted scientific evidence supports the notion that smoking is bad for your health and increases the risk of numerous cancers and other ailments. Is all that just made up as well? If not, what is the difference between the two streams of science? Both follow similarly strict scientific methods.
Basically dismissing and denying the science of climate change is no different to dismissing and denying the science of the harmful effects of smoking. Or like denying that the earth is round rather than flat.
Your dismissal of the role of C02 as a greenhouse gas only shows a rather incredible willful ignorance of the science behind it.
Please explain the motives behind creating such a huge hoax. What is it's purpose? And just how did they get most of the cliamte scientists around the world to play along? How did they convince most governments that the science is valid? (even if they disagree on how to tackle the issue).
Please show a link to the scientific paper that shows that cows and termites produce more C02 than all human activities. Put up or shut up on this issue.
If the warming trend just coincides with the sun then why has temperature increased so much in the last 60 years when there has been virtually no upward trend at all of solar irradiance? What is driving this temperature increase? It can't be explained by the sun alone. If it was that easy then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If you would actually like to educate yourself at all (I doubt it) have a look at some of the papers listed on the following link regarding the role of C02. It lists papers going back to 1861. Way before any of your conspiracies started I can assure you.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
And in relation to your claim that this is all a hoax to change the way we live. This is completely untrue. The science isn't about changing anything. The science is what the science is. The policies to deal with what the science is telling us are what will affect us. But even those policies aren't really about changing the way we live they are mostly about changing how we source our energy for the lifestyles we lead. Moving away from our reliance on fossil fuels which contribute so much extra C02 into the atmosphere. We have the technology already to mostly move away from this reliance but of course the industries that currently exploit these non-renewable resources are amongst the most powerful companies on the planet and some countries whole economies are reliant on selling these resources. So yes there are very powerful groups who don't wish to see these industries decline. One way or another though it's inevitable. These resources will eventually run out. How soon we make the transition must weigh up a whole lot of political factors like effects on economies and the environment. To deny the science like you do is just stupidity. I'm all for a robust debate around the policies to deal with how we affect the climate but attempting to debate the actual science with a denialist like yourself is an exercise in futility.