Yes, it's a very good example. The less people know about the subject, the more they overestimate their understanding of it. This is why so many people think simplistic "common sense" arguments like "climate change is natural" are compelling arguments against AGW.
https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100219134447AAAyCQl
*edit* holy cow, 13 thumbs-down in a half hour. I guess the denier trolls can't handle the truth!
CO2 expeller says "if I say that biofuels will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the believers do insult me"
I wouldn't insult you, but I would point out that you're incredibly wrong, and don't seem to understand that there are many other biofuels besides corn-based ethanol. As usual you're making false statements based on a lack of research.
http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/are-alternative-fuel-vehicles-really-green
As you do again here: "These numbers are only reached by the use of computer models and have no observational backing."
I guess you don't consider paleoclimate data "observational backing". So basically you want us to ignore historical climate data, you want us to ignore climate models and physics, and just assume the planet will keep doing exactly what it's doing now. Yeah, because that's how science works.