What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"
BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.
And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?
AGW is real and it is a real threat.
