Quote: "So this makes an increase of 0.000000057% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. When you look at it like that, it suddenly seems slightly insignificant. I hate the way the media hypes up these (pointless) studies...they could just as easily write a news article based on the same report, explaining how it shows spam CO2 is totally insignificant."
That argument is spurious. The eco-system on which life depends on this planet has always been finely balanced - a tiny shift in one direction can rapidly wipe out whole species or groups of species. The shift might be of natural origin from the planet itself, like a huge volcanic eruption, or from outside, like a huge meteor, or the activities of life itself. At the present time the small - but consistent - effect of mankind (especially over the last 200 years) is the greatest immediate threat to life as we know it on this planet. Fortunately (or more correctly hopefully) mankind is capable of understanding what it is doing.
In the case of spam the real question is "which is worse, spam or whatever would replace it?". I have no idea. Do you? It certainly raises the temperature on this forum.
Quote: "I personally believe it's far to early to be claiming human CO2 emmissions are the primary cause of climate change....it's going to take 100's of years for scientists to develop a better understanding of the mechanics of the earths climate."
True - but if it is, what then? No use being wise after the event. The only rational thing for mankind to do is to exercise caution in the face of the unknown. Just ask yourself what the consequences of the two errors might be:
1. controlling CO2 unnecessarily
2. failing to control CO2 when it is necessary.
Your "personal beliefs" (or mine for that matter) have nothing to do with it.
