Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[RetiredGySgt]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

So, there was a solar flair the week the arctic hit 84-does that mean the arctic temp causes solar flares? You have faulty logic-climate change is planet driven-man can only seed clouds for weather change.

No, it just means Duh publicans are too ignorant to ask the right questions.

I am still waiting for the links to the experiments that show x amount of CO2 cause x amount of increased heat.

 

[Third Party]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

So, there was a solar flair the week the arctic hit 84-does that mean the arctic temp causes solar flares? You have faulty logic-climate change is planet driven-man can only seed clouds for weather change.

No, it just means Duh publicans are too ignorant to ask the right questions.

Here's the right question-Do you want to buy a bridge I have to sell?

 

[Markle]

All scientists agree that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy. They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.
The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet. China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out. Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.

No reason to read any further when your first utterance is a lie?

 

[BWK]

BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.

Do you show up here just let us all know how far you are willing to walk down the stupid trail? I mean seriously, no one steps into more shit than you; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

Meanwhile you claimed no one said that society was coming to an end due to the climate or any other natural reason caused by man. You lied and when presented with 10 claims you said only only said it might happen. Remind us how many scientific tests have been done proving rising CO2 raises temperatures and exactly what raise on CO2 causes the temp to g up......

You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.

And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.

Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.
Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem

200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.


[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]

What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All scientists agree that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy. They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.
The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet. China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out. Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.

No reason to read any further when your first utterance is a lie?

He keeps refusing to link to the experiments conducted by all these scientists that shows x amount of CO2 causes x amount of warming.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.

Do you show up here just let us all know how far you are willing to walk down the stupid trail? I mean seriously, no one steps into more shit than you; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

Meanwhile you claimed no one said that society was coming to an end due to the climate or any other natural reason caused by man. You lied and when presented with 10 claims you said only only said it might happen. Remind us how many scientific tests have been done proving rising CO2 raises temperatures and exactly what raise on CO2 causes the temp to g up......

You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.

And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.

Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.
Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem

200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.


[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]

What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

I am waiting for the link to experiments that PROVE x amount of CO2 cause x amount of warming. You keep claiming you can prove man made global warming because of CO2 provide the proof.

 

[BWK]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

So, there was a solar flair the week the arctic hit 84-does that mean the arctic temp causes solar flares? You have faulty logic-climate change is planet driven-man can only seed clouds for weather change.

No, it just means Duh publicans are too ignorant to ask the right questions.

Here's the right question-Do you want to buy a bridge I have to sell?

Buy it for what? To see it sink into the ocean because there were too many Republican idiots who didn't care what happened to the planet? No thanks. You can sell it to some dumb ass Trump voter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

So, there was a solar flair the week the arctic hit 84-does that mean the arctic temp causes solar flares? You have faulty logic-climate change is planet driven-man can only seed clouds for weather change.

No, it just means Duh publicans are too ignorant to ask the right questions.

Here's the right question-Do you want to buy a bridge I have to sell?

Buy it for what? To see it sink into the ocean because there were too many Republican idiots who didn't care what happened to the planet? No thanks. You can sell it to some dumb ass Trump voter.

I am still waiting for that link.....

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.

Do you show up here just let us all know how far you are willing to walk down the stupid trail? I mean seriously, no one steps into more shit than you; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

Meanwhile you claimed no one said that society was coming to an end due to the climate or any other natural reason caused by man. You lied and when presented with 10 claims you said only only said it might happen. Remind us how many scientific tests have been done proving rising CO2 raises temperatures and exactly what raise on CO2 causes the temp to g up......

You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.

And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.

Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.
Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem

200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.


[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]

What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

How much is manmade vs nature? Why are you posting this on a US Messageboard?

 

[BWK]

All scientists agree that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy. They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.
The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet. China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out. Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.

No reason to read any further when your first utterance is a lie?

He keeps refusing to link to the experiments conducted by all these scientists that shows x amount of CO2 causes x amount of warming.....

I already did, but you failed comprehension class, and took up a wisted semantics class instead. You aren't bright enough to understand what it is that you are reading. That's on you and your own willful ignorance; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

 

[Dekster]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

Thanks for the weather report.

LOl! The Right and their consistent failures to challenge the facts.

I take it you didn't read your own source. No worries, this time this december it won't be 84 degrees in this one place in Russia--the one your article calls a single data point--and atmospheric carbon will be even higher.

Wonder why you chose not to post the story about the research also being reported today that a 3 year study reveals the Ross Ice Shelf is melting because of local surface weather, not because of global ocean temperatures and it is melting in different places than they thought. Is it because that local weather story doesn't fit your narrative or is it because it highlights that the climate models are once again wrong about their assumptions? I mean just last year you folks were proclaiming that the largest piece ever to break off the Ross Ice Shelf ever in history was due to global warming. Why so silent on that now. Just weather, just like your warm day in Russia

 

[Markle]

Just to set the record straight, the US is still the biggest polluter in the world, and the Republican party doesn't give two shits.

ANOTHER lie! Why?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All scientists agree that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy. They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.
The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet. China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out. Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.

No reason to read any further when your first utterance is a lie?

He keeps refusing to link to the experiments conducted by all these scientists that shows x amount of CO2 causes x amount of warming.....

I already did, but you failed comprehension class, and took up a wisted semantics class instead. You aren't bright enough to understand what it is that you are reading. That's on you and your own willful ignorance; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

That does no such thing you lying piece of human garbage. Now either link to an actual experiment or admit you are full of shit.

 

[BWK]

Do you show up here just let us all know how far you are willing to walk down the stupid trail? I mean seriously, no one steps into more shit than you; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

Meanwhile you claimed no one said that society was coming to an end due to the climate or any other natural reason caused by man. You lied and when presented with 10 claims you said only only said it might happen. Remind us how many scientific tests have been done proving rising CO2 raises temperatures and exactly what raise on CO2 causes the temp to g up......

You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.

And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.

Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.
Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem

200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.


[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]

What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

How much is manmade vs nature? Why are you posting this on a US Messageboard?

Don't you understand the link? Are you people so illiterate that you cannot extract the information from what you are reading? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Meanwhile you claimed no one said that society was coming to an end due to the climate or any other natural reason caused by man. You lied and when presented with 10 claims you said only only said it might happen. Remind us how many scientific tests have been done proving rising CO2 raises temperatures and exactly what raise on CO2 causes the temp to g up......

You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.

And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.

Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.
Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem

200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.


[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]

What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

How much is manmade vs nature? Why are you posting this on a US Messageboard?

Don't you understand the link? Are you people so illiterate that you cannot extract the information from what you are reading? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

That is not an experiment and they have not cited a single thing that proves their claim. They simply listed data and provided NO connection via a valid experiment that connects the data. So much for science.

 

[BWK]

All scientists agree that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy. They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.
The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet. China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out. Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.

No reason to read any further when your first utterance is a lie?

He keeps refusing to link to the experiments conducted by all these scientists that shows x amount of CO2 causes x amount of warming.....

I already did, but you failed comprehension class, and took up a wisted semantics class instead. You aren't bright enough to understand what it is that you are reading. That's on you and your own willful ignorance; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

That does no such thing you lying piece of human garbage. Now either link to an actual experiment or admit you are full of shit.

Sure it does. It explains exactly what is going on in our atmosphere between the balance needed from natural CO2 with plants and animals versus industrial CO2. It is pointing out the necessity for balance. Nature itself has to reach a balance. It makes all life on earth possible. Your problem is, you are too ignorant and filled with hate to ever see the forest for the tree. All you can do at this point is attack with ad hominem. You have nothing intelligent to toss back into this argument because you are too uninformed.

Your demands for experiment is on you. My article already has done the experiment and has moved on to conclusions and strategies.

 

[Rambunctious]

Do you know how to herd animals and control their movements?....you frighten them.....

 

[BWK]

You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.

And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.

Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.
Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem

200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.


[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]

What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

How much is manmade vs nature? Why are you posting this on a US Messageboard?

Don't you understand the link? Are you people so illiterate that you cannot extract the information from what you are reading? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/

That is not an experiment and they have not cited a single thing that proves their claim. They simply listed data and provided NO connection via a valid experiment that connects the data. So much for science.

Lol! You are hung up on experiments as if 97% of the scientists who already did their experiments and concluded that industrial CO2 is the problem. They aren't the problem , you are.

 

[BWK]

Do you know how to herd animals and control their movements?....you frighten them.....

Have you ever considered asking a real question instead of making up these stupid one's?

 

[Rambunctious]

Do you know how to herd animals and control their movements?....you frighten them.....

Have you ever considered asking a real question instead of making up these stupid one's?

They have sure succeeded in scarring you....and so you are under their complete control....