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.
Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.
So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?
Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.
So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?
The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.
On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.
That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.
More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.
P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.
- What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
- Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.
On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.
That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.
More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.
P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.
- What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
- Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?
we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.
If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.
On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.
That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.
More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.
P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.
- What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
- Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?
we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.
If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.
On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.
That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.
More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.
P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.
- What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
- Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?
we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.
If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?
Red:
You'd have to ask them not me.
Truly, I could yield a bit of reliability, particularly if the unreliability is predictable, if there is a reasonable chance that the alternative is that by the time my kids or their kids are my age (almost 60) the planet isn't as habitable as it is now. Men once lived by firelight. If that's what's needed, I can do so, at least intermittently.
Thank you for this hysterically funny snapshot of reality. I gotta read more political humor. So rich!Let's do this the easy way...that even idiots that believe that MAN can cause climate change can understand!
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.
On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.
That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.
More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.
P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.
- What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
- Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?
we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.
If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?
Thats ridiculous.
We don't have to support nuclear. Nuclear does nothing to reduce CO2 and costs a fortune.
We need to support renewables.
Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today
Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.
On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.
That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.
More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.
P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.
- What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
- Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?
we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.
Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.
If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?
Thats ridiculous.
We don't have to support nuclear. Its incredibly unreliable, there isn't enough high grade fuel and it does nothing to reduce CO2. It also costs a fortune.
We need to support renewables.
I think the point is some of us don't see much rational thought for climate change, let alone man-caused global warming, global climate change,or whatever the moniker du jour is for this "science". Come on, you really aren't just a wee bit skeptical?Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.
So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?
I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:
I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.
- When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
- When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.
This is rather interesting.
Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.
Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change
It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.
You asked a scientific question ?
Sorry I hadn't noticed.
And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location
release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years
Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study
You asked a scientific question ?
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years
Is that bad? Why?
None of those are scientific questions.
firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.
on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.
on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.
Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.
So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?
The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".
So you are proposing a conspiracy
Going back hundreds of years
CO2 discovered 1750
Greenhouse effect discovered 1824
Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896
So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?
Thats brilliant
Lets go with that ;--)
This is rather interesting.
Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.
Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change
It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.
You asked a scientific question ?
Sorry I hadn't noticed.
And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location
release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years
Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study
You asked a scientific question ?
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years
Is that bad? Why?
None of those are scientific questions.
firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.
on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.
on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.
Uh, that is his point. The AGW group claims we are too warm, warming too fast, and doomed unless we stop it. What temperature is too warm? Too warm for what? Life flourishes in warmth. We have been much warmer before. Coming out of an ice age, we are supposed to be warming. What is too fast, scientifically?
This science is in its infancy. We know next to nothing, not even enough to perform an adequate lab experiment because of too many variables in an open system. To claim that we are certain at this point is deceitful. It is done for political and economic reasons.
I am skeptical but do not deny, yet I am considered a denier. That is politics and it is used as a weapon. I am skeptical because I remember scientists warning of global cooling and because I remember when we knew squat about el nino and la nina. We know just enough for some to claim they know it all.
If it is too warm, there must be a temperature that is not too warm. What is it? If we are warming too fast, there must be a rate that is not too fast. What is it? These are not silly questions. How the hell can it be too warm without a not warm enough and a just right?
NO ONE is denying globull warming aka climate change.
what they Disagree with you bully warmers: is what's causing it. the earth has been warming and cooling before we had some freak like Al Gore wailing over the CLIMATE.
I will bet you my bottom dollar that if these "coercive instruments of government" didn't cost you any money, you wouldn't object in the least. It's always, in the end, about businesses having to spend money to clean up their act.Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.
So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?
The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".
So you are proposing a conspiracy
Going back hundreds of years
CO2 discovered 1750
Greenhouse effect discovered 1824
Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896
So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?
Thats brilliant
Lets go with that ;--)
It is a conspiracy yes, but to suggest that it has been going on since the mid 1700's is ridiculous.
The goal of the conspiracy is about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.
I will bet you my bottom dollar that if these "coercive instruments of government" didn't cost you any money, you wouldn't object in the least. It's always, in the end, about businesses having to spend money to clean up their act.Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.
So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?
The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".
So you are proposing a conspiracy
Going back hundreds of years
CO2 discovered 1750
Greenhouse effect discovered 1824
Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896
So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?
Thats brilliant
Lets go with that ;--)
It is a conspiracy yes, but to suggest that it has been going on since the mid 1700's is ridiculous.
The goal of the conspiracy is about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.
What is having a planet for your descendants to live on worth?
This is rather interesting.
Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.
Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change
It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.
You asked a scientific question ?
Sorry I hadn't noticed.
And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location
release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years
Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study
You asked a scientific question ?
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years
Is that bad? Why?
None of those are scientific questions.
firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.
on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.
on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.
Uh, that is his point. The AGW group claims we are too warm, warming too fast, and doomed unless we stop it. What temperature is too warm? Too warm for what? Life flourishes in warmth. We have been much warmer before. Coming out of an ice age, we are supposed to be warming. What is too fast, scientifically?
This science is in its infancy. We know next to nothing, not even enough to perform an adequate lab experiment because of too many variables in an open system. To claim that we are certain at this point is deceitful. It is done for political and economic reasons.
I am skeptical but do not deny, yet I am considered a denier. That is politics and it is used as a weapon. I am skeptical because I remember scientists warning of global cooling and because I remember when we knew squat about el nino and la nina. We know just enough for some to claim they know it all.
If it is too warm, there must be a temperature that is not too warm. What is it? If we are warming too fast, there must be a rate that is not too fast. What is it? These are not silly questions. How the hell can it be too warm without a not warm enough and a just right?
