I am not a global warming alarmist. I was just trying to point out that saying CO2 isn’t harmful because plants need it is ridiculous.
There are many unknowns about the entire idea of climate change and the link to greenhouse gasses. However, the alarmists use actual scientific facts in their studies. The facts are just twisted and manipulated to make their case.
I just don’t understand why so many try to deny the scientific part, while ignoring the manipulation.
You've almost got it right. The alarmists take observational data and feed it to their computer "models". The model is supposed to use the raw input to calculate the expected changes in the world's climate. The problem is if you take any one of the models back to 1997 (Ie: feed it data up to 1997) and then ask for a projection to 2007, the projection does not match the actual observed data for that decade. Furthermore, the further ahead you project the greater the deviation from reality.
The models factor in some (but not all) of the parameters known to effect climate and in some calculations use "positive" feedback. When you model a dynamic system and use positive feedback in the calculations a very small tweak in an input parameter can cause a wild swing in the output. This does not mean that the earth's climate is dynamically unstable, only that the model is! To make a accurate model would require that we know all the parameters that effect climate (which we don't!) and the modes by which they interact (we don't know that either) They leave some out because we don't know how to describe the interaction of, lets say, Gamma rays on cloud cover. So that parameter is just ignored.
Furthermore, the real partisan GW supporters are expert in "figures don't lie but liars can sure figure". Take a change in CO2 of from 0.02% to 0.03%. Which would you find most alarming? Report the change as 0.01ppm (parts per million) or in increase of 133%! Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.
Regards,
GtG