It would makes weeds and insects grow faster, too. You've got to think about ALL the variables. It seems strange that you'd put it that way, since it's usually the "warmists" that are accused of only looking to one variable.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It would makes weeds and insects grow faster, too. You've got to think about ALL the variables. It seems strange that you'd put it that way, since it's usually the "warmists" that are accused of only looking to one variable.
Look who's talking. You're making the very mistake Frank says AGW believers are making, i.e. isolating things to a single variable. You guys have to get your stories straight. You're stepping on eah other's toes.
Where is thre proof where is the data they are basing their opinion on? OH that write they disgarded iut . So now they must go back and start over I want to see some data dated 2010 that verifies what you say is true.
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.
The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.
Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
Look who's talking. You're making the very mistake Frank says AGW believers are making, i.e. isolating things to a single variable. You guys have to get your stories straight. You're stepping on eah other's toes.
Where is thre proof where is the data they are basing their opinion on? OH that write they disgarded iut . So now they must go back and start over I want to see some data dated 2010 that verifies what you say is true.
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.
The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.
Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
I knew you'd come back for a beating.Hello professor.
HOWEVER. Without glaciers/snow/ice to melt in the spring so the crops can have irrigation. Epic fail.
Go join the police force or something.
All that is required is to be easy to brainwash. Being brainwashed by YouTubers gets you bonus points and higher pay.
If they won't take you Uncle Sam will.
Stop wasting my oxygen
Idiot.It's the murkin way.
****Melting glaciers Tibet, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Himalayas, Kilimanjaro, Mt Rainier, Cascades, Alaska, US... Fastest area of glacial retreat******Soot ice melt, glaciers*turn desert******The WE News Archives******
It seems like a lot of concentrated CO2 grew a bigger plant to me.
and bigger plants mean more food for people. Why does the left want people to have less food?
Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.
It seems like a lot of concentrated CO2 grew a bigger plant to me.
and bigger plants mean more food for people. Why does the left want people to have less food?
Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.
I knew you'd come back for a beating.Hello professor.
HOWEVER. Without glaciers/snow/ice to melt in the spring so the crops can have irrigation. Epic fail.
Go join the police force or something.
All that is required is to be easy to brainwash. Being brainwashed by YouTubers gets you bonus points and higher pay.
If they won't take you Uncle Sam will.
Stop wasting my oxygen
Idiot.It's the murkin way.
****Melting glaciers Tibet, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Himalayas, Kilimanjaro, Mt Rainier, Cascades, Alaska, US... Fastest area of glacial retreat******Soot ice melt, glaciers*turn desert******The WE News Archives******
Where is thre proof where is the data they are basing their opinion on? OH that write they disgarded iut . So now they must go back and start over I want to see some data dated 2010 that verifies what you say is true.
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.
The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.
Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.
and bigger plants mean more food for people. Why does the left want people to have less food?
Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.
What a load of complete and utter BS.
It would makes weeds and insects grow faster, too. You've got to think about ALL the variables. It seems strange that you'd put it that way, since it's usually the "warmists" that are accused of only looking to one variable.
No, I agree. Thats how dinosaurs and animals of that time got so big. the CO2 concentraiton was higher...right? Im not 100% sure on that but i nkow the CO2 levels were much higher 70 million years ago.
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.
The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.
Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. So what if it's only one variable? It's the one we're talking about. You stated that it's not a very large one. In my home stereo a small increase in voltage leads to a large increase in sound. CO2 is an amplifier, increasing temps just enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which we're constantly told is the most potent GHG. As for the other variables, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources. Don't be fooled by the "Climategate" hoaxers. The REAL fraud is their interpretation, not any any willful deception by researchers. Occassional sloppy work or malfunctioning equipment doesn't mean fraud. Suggesting that all the scientists that believe AGW are making things up IS FRAUD. Don't swallow the lies whole. Think for yourself and pick up a text on logic.
Hmmmm........ A 40% increase in CO2 is teeny-tiny. A 150% increase in CH4 is even smaller, correct?
Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.
What a load of complete and utter BS.
I guess that's all you can say when you've been outed as a fraud. The denier arguments just don't make logical sense. It's a lot of double-talk about different variables, EXCEPT when they want us to focus on only one variable. Then it's apparently OK. Have fun while you can. This line of BS isn't going to pass muster for much longer.
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.
The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.
Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. So what if it's only one variable? It's the one we're talking about. You stated that it's not a very large one. In my home stereo a small increase in voltage leads to a large increase in sound. CO2 is an amplifier, increasing temps just enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which we're constantly told is the most potent GHG. As for the other variables, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources. Don't be fooled by the "Climategate" hoaxers. The REAL fraud is their interpretation, not any any willful deception by researchers. Occassional sloppy work or malfunctioning equipment doesn't mean fraud. Suggesting that all the scientists that believe AGW are making things up IS FRAUD. Don't swallow the lies whole. Think for yourself and pick up a text on logic.