Climate Change Realists

[flacaltenn]

None of the more than a dozen studies that have resulted in the 'Hockey Stick' have only one site or one type of proxy. Nor was that the case with the original one.

Show me where I said that...

 

[eflatminor]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the **** inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?

The people. The people will take voluntary action. The demand they create will be responded to by the markets. If the people want cleaner power, markets will drive innovation in cleaner power. If people move away from low lying coastal flood plains (probably a good idea regardless), markets will build inland. If the people reject CO2 producing products and services, alternatives will be supplied. The markets have an incentive to meet the demands of the climate concerned and they face consequences for failure. Not true of any government, who most likely is the same entity providing tax and other subsidies to the oil industry.

Crap. So, the Bangladeshees are supposed to move where? And much of the most productive agricultural land will be inundated world wide if the see level rise is 3 meters. The reason I chose that number is that is what the sea level rose to in the last interglacial, at only 320 ppm of CO2.

Bangladeshees ain't my problem. You want to help them? Write a check to charity, move there and lend a hand, it's your choice. Kindly give others choice as well.

 

[skookerasbil]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Hey man.........you gotta embrace it!! As long as these fools are in here proclaiming this stuff, it means one thing: they are losing. Think about it........Ive spent years in here making fun of these people because I can. Their shit has had zero impact on energy policy in America.......zero. Renewable energy......check the charts.......is significantly fringe in 2017 after 20 years of bomb throwing. That's called losing. And all projections 30 years out is it stays basically the same.

The science isn't mattering........its the only thing that matters!! Every time you see the term "deniers" in here.......it means one thing: WINNING.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you are making man solely responsible for all that difference without regard for ANY natural processes whatsoever.

This is the arrogance/ignorance if the IPCC drones. They do not realize that 99.5% of that rise is due to natural process. The narrative trumps facts and empirical evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The laws of thermodynamics applied to the principles of CO2 amplification, tells us that we reach a certain point of CO2 saturation where no additional warming is realized by more CO2. So this is not a matter of "more CO2 = more warming". We don't know the level at which more CO2 causes no additional amplification effect. We also don't know at what ppm we begin to see a precipitous decline in amplification.

Actually we have a solid understanding of CO2 and its affects.

Its pretty clear were in the range of 0.0 - 1.0 deg above 400ppm for each doubling.

As for an "amplification" factor, its been shown to be at or below zero.. A negative forcing by empirically observed evidence. Our current temp rise of 0.6 deg C is lower than expected with the rise from 280ppm.

This why they were frantically lowering past temps and inflating current temps.The data was calling them out on the lies and deception.. The GHG theroy is predicated on an amplification affect of water vapor which is not present. The adjustments were to validate their failed theroy and get larger rise in temp indicating a water vapor enhancement. Satellites proved that there is no tropospheric hot spot. This is something they have yet to figure out how to fabricate.

 

[Boss]

This why they were frantically lowering past temps and inflating current temps.The data was calling them out on the lies and deception.. The GHG theroy is predicated on an amplification affect of water vapor which is not present. The adjustments were to validate their failed theroy and get larger rise in temp indicating a water vapor enhancement. Satellites proved that there is no tropospheric hot spot. This is something they have yet to figure out how to fabricate.

They want to convey this as some kind of simplistic problem... (x) CO2 = (y) Warming. To think in terms of lowing the CO2 ppm as if we're lowering the thermostat. Less CO2 means lower temperatures. But this is totally unsupported nonsense. While a dramatic decrease in CO2 would theoretically result in less amplification, it is unclear how much less because of factors outside their ability to predict, and less amplification could theoretically result in less warming but again, there is no formula for how much because there are too many unknown variables they can't predict.

 

[Old Rocks]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the **** inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?

The people. The people will take voluntary action. The demand they create will be responded to by the markets. If the people want cleaner power, markets will drive innovation in cleaner power. If people move away from low lying coastal flood plains (probably a good idea regardless), markets will build inland. If the people reject CO2 producing products and services, alternatives will be supplied. The markets have an incentive to meet the demands of the climate concerned and they face consequences for failure. Not true of any government, who most likely is the same entity providing tax and other subsidies to the oil industry.

Crap. So, the Bangladeshees are supposed to move where? And much of the most productive agricultural land will be inundated world wide if the see level rise is 3 meters. The reason I chose that number is that is what the sea level rose to in the last interglacial, at only 320 ppm of CO2.

Bangladeshees ain't my problem. You want to help them? Write a check to charity, move there and lend a hand, it's your choice. Kindly give others choice as well.

But you and all the industrial nations that put the GHGs into the atmosphere are their problem. You should get as much choice about that as they have had about the warming that will inundate a large portion of their nation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This why they were frantically lowering past temps and inflating current temps.The data was calling them out on the lies and deception.. The GHG theroy is predicated on an amplification affect of water vapor which is not present. The adjustments were to validate their failed theroy and get larger rise in temp indicating a water vapor enhancement. Satellites proved that there is no tropospheric hot spot. This is something they have yet to figure out how to fabricate.

They want to convey this as some kind of simplistic problem... (x) CO2 = (y) Warming. To think in terms of lowing the CO2 ppm as if we're lowering the thermostat. Less CO2 means lower temperatures. But this is totally unsupported nonsense. While a dramatic decrease in CO2 would theoretically result in less amplification, it is unclear how much less because of factors outside their ability to predict, and less amplification could theoretically result in less warming but again, there is no formula for how much because there are too many unknown variables they can't predict.

Homogenization of temperature data makes Capetown South Africa have a warmer climate record

In NASA’s hands, the data pre-1909 was discarded; the 1910 to 1939 data was adjusted downwards by 1.1deg C; the 1940 to 1959 data was adjusted downwards by about 0.8 deg C on average; the 1969 to 1995 data was adjusted upwards by about 0.2 deg C, with the end result that GISS Ver 2 was:-

Funny that I was just talking about this.. You want to see the level of data fabrication and falsification of NOAA, NASA, and GISS.. This is the kind of deception that gives science a bad name.. And the alarmists want us to trust NOAA, NASA and GISS with this level of data tampering.

 

[eflatminor]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the **** inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?

The people. The people will take voluntary action. The demand they create will be responded to by the markets. If the people want cleaner power, markets will drive innovation in cleaner power. If people move away from low lying coastal flood plains (probably a good idea regardless), markets will build inland. If the people reject CO2 producing products and services, alternatives will be supplied. The markets have an incentive to meet the demands of the climate concerned and they face consequences for failure. Not true of any government, who most likely is the same entity providing tax and other subsidies to the oil industry.

Crap. So, the Bangladeshees are supposed to move where? And much of the most productive agricultural land will be inundated world wide if the see level rise is 3 meters. The reason I chose that number is that is what the sea level rose to in the last interglacial, at only 320 ppm of CO2.

Bangladeshees ain't my problem. You want to help them? Write a check to charity, move there and lend a hand, it's your choice. Kindly give others choice as well.

But you and all the industrial nations that put the GHGs into the atmosphere are their problem. You should get as much choice about that as they have had about the warming that will inundate a large portion of their nation.

Your talent as a prognosticator aside, it's still not my problem.

 

[Crick]

Then why are you in this conversation at all? The people of this nation act individually and through their elected representatives. We do not have the option of picking and choosing the technologies our power utilities use to generate electricity. We do have the option of electing representatives who can apply regulatory and economic pressures to reduce carbon emissions from industries and markets under their purview. The government of a democracy moving against a problem IS an action of the people.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Liars

Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds | HuffPost

 

[Boss]

Liars

Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds | HuffPost

They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies....

 

[mamooth]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

In your case, it's because you possess a blind allegiance to your political cult, and your political cult tells you to believe a certain thing, so you devote all your intelligence to the task of being stupid, and you succeed.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

No, that's 'effin dumb. Scale matters. The amount of something matters. By denying that, you're denying the physical reality of chemistry and all science.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories

The same system was used on sulfur dioxide emissions. Those emissions were drastically reduced. What you said can't happen did happen. The real world demonstrates that your claims are totally wrong. That's not debatable. Your kook claims about pollution tax systems are demonstrably wrong.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

So, you've started preaching genocide to back up your kook cult beliefs. That's why the normal people are now backing away from you.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population.

We would under your plan. Under your plan, the fossil fuels eventually run out, and everyone goes back to the stone age. That's why all moral people oppose you. If you want to shiver in the dark and hug trees and pray to Mother Gaia, go do it. Just don't drag us all into the stone age with you.

There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

You're more a reality denier. It's not just science you deny. You also deny logic, history, common sense, and anything that goes against your cult scripture.

 

[mamooth]

You completely missed the point I made. And I've made it a couple times.

And I've addressed it a couple times, and pointed out it's nonsense, because your "Well, you can't absolutely prove my magical claim _didn't_ happen, so it did!" logic isn't science. It's a type of handwaving only done by people who are contradicted by all the science.

We can't absolutely prove that fairies didn't occasionally blot out the sun for several minutes each day in the Eocene period. So, according to your logic, we thus must assume that fairies did do such a thing. That illustrates the problem with your logic.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

In your case, it's because you possess a blind allegiance to your political cult, and your political cult tells you to believe a certain thing, so you devote all your intelligence to the task of being stupid, and you succeed.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

No, that's 'effin dumb. Scale matters. The amount of something matters. By denying that, you're denying the physical reality of chemistry and all science.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories

The same system was used on sulfur dioxide emissions. Those emissions were drastically reduced. What you said can't happen did happen. The real world demonstrates that your claims are totally wrong. That's not debatable. Your kook claims about pollution tax systems are demonstrably wrong.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

So, you've started preaching genocide to back up your kook cult beliefs. That's why the normal people are now backing away from you.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population.

We would under your plan. Under your plan, the fossil fuels eventually run out, and everyone goes back to the stone age. That's why all moral people oppose you. If you want to shiver in the dark and hug trees and pray to Mother Gaia, go do it. Just don't drag us all into the stone age with you.

There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

You're more a reality denier. It's not just science you deny. You also deny logic, history, common sense, and anything that goes against your cult scripture.

He's so right boss

 

[Boss]

In your case, it's because you possess a blind allegiance to your political cult, and your political cult tells you to believe a certain thing, so you devote all your intelligence to the task of being stupid, and you succeed.

No... that's YOU, you insipid little pissant.

The same system was used on sulfur dioxide emissions. Those emissions were drastically reduced. What you said can't happen did happen. The real world demonstrates that your claims are totally wrong. That's not debatable. Your kook claims about pollution tax systems are demonstrably wrong.

Sulfur dioxide is a completely different thing. Carbon dioxide is NOT a POLLUTANT! PERIOD!

So, you've started preaching genocide to back up your kook cult beliefs. That's why the normal people are now backing away from you.

The only thing I am preaching is for people to disavow any and all association with you ******* nutbags!

We would under your plan. Under your plan, the fossil fuels eventually run out, and everyone goes back to the stone age. That's why all moral people oppose you. If you want to shiver in the dark and hug trees and pray to Mother Gaia, go do it. Just don't drag us all into the stone age with you.

Well, no we WON'T under my plan. Fossil fuels are not going to run out anytime soon. In the meantime, they are essential for poor and developing nations. YOU are the immoral bastards! YOU want to relegate humanity to the stone age! And you're going to sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth night and day, 24/7/365, pushing this kook theory narrative that has been debunked time and time again.

 

[Boss]

He's so right boss

No he's not. I doubt that goofball has EVER been right about ANYTHING!

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Liars

Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds | HuffPost

So what?? If you read that report from the 1980s --- the PROJECTIONS based on THE Exxon science turn out to be far BETTER than any of the science projections from the IPCC or US govt. Just doing their job. Didn't DENY a thing. Just did a VERY realistic assessment. That's the EMBARRASSING part of this that you don't get..

In order to mislead the public -- Exxon would be ON RECORD with denials that CO2 COULD affect the thermal equilibrium at the surface. That's what they concluded in the report. WHERE was that denied to "lie to the public"??

What you don't understand here is that there are at least 10 important questions on GW. Not just the ONE which has a 97% consensus (if it does at all which is questionable.) That consensus says NOT A THING about the magnitude of the problem in the future in any USABLE or quantitative way....

 

[sealybobo]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Liars

Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds | HuffPost

So what?? If you read that report from the 1980s --- the PROJECTIONS based on THE Exxon science turn out to be far BETTER than any of the science projections from the IPCC or US govt. Just doing their job. Didn't DENY a thing. Just did a VERY realistic assessment. That's the EMBARRASSING part of this that you don't get..

In order to mislead the public -- Exxon would be ON RECORD with denials that CO2 COULD affect the thermal equilibrium at the surface. That's what they concluded in the report. WHERE was that denied to "lie to the public"??

What you don't understand here is that there are at least 10 important questions on GW. Not just the ONE which has a 97% consensus (if it does at all which is questionable.) That consensus says NOT A THING about the magnitude of the problem in the future in any USABLE or quantitative way....

So now you admit it's real you just don't believe it'll be that bad?

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Liars

Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds | HuffPost

So what?? If you read that report from the 1980s --- the PROJECTIONS based on THE Exxon science turn out to be far BETTER than any of the science projections from the IPCC or US govt. Just doing their job. Didn't DENY a thing. Just did a VERY realistic assessment. That's the EMBARRASSING part of this that you don't get..

In order to mislead the public -- Exxon would be ON RECORD with denials that CO2 COULD affect the thermal equilibrium at the surface. That's what they concluded in the report. WHERE was that denied to "lie to the public"??

What you don't understand here is that there are at least 10 important questions on GW. Not just the ONE which has a 97% consensus (if it does at all which is questionable.) That consensus says NOT A THING about the magnitude of the problem in the future in any USABLE or quantitative way....

So now you admit it's real you just don't believe it'll be that bad?

Pick a thread that you bumped to discuss this. Won't do it in both..