Question for believers in man made climate change

[LaDexter]

Higher sea levels?

Sea levels are actually dropping, which is why the "warmers" have to lie about three island chains in the Pacific sinking.... never mind all three are on the "lip" of the tectonic formation known as the Pacific Ring of Fire...

 

[RealDave]

The conversation always seems to break down when we start talking about solutions, instead of the problem.

How can we talk about solutions when people cannot agree on the problem?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

informed people know what the problem is. Dumbasses deny it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Simple... stop asking people who know jack shit about any of it what they think. If a doctor diagnoses you with cancer, do you go to a landscaper for a second opinion?

Okay. Fine.

What's the solution again?


If I have a disease and the doctor tells me I need to chop off my dick, I need to know:
1. Why?
2. Are you sure?
3. Is there any other, less life-ending solution?

That's all I'm saying.

 

[bripat9643]

Coral bleeching isn't laughable.

Your explanation for it is...


The Marshall islands sinking is not laughable.

Your explanation for it is....



Still waiting for you to answer

Why Greenland froze while NA thawed during the past million years...


Did CO2 heat up NA while freezing Greenland???


That is your "mentally" unstable "answer..."

According to the following map, Greenland was covered by an ice sheet:

 

[LaDexter]

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

Yeah, you went back 100 million years ago in your time travel starship and measured it...

except you didn't, and you have no data backing that claim up...


Even if the Sun's output varies, which I dispute, that didn't cause Greenland to freeze while NA thawed....

LOL!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

I was taught in school that carbon is one of the 118 elements that scientists have so far identified on Planet Earth. It is unlikely that humankind will do anything to reduce it unless they ship it off into space somewhere. We can move it around somewhat however.

 

[rightwinger]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

There's nothing sensible about reducing our carbon output? It will cost $trillions, and CO2 is actually beneficial. Why would we even want to reduce it?

Water is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

Salt is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

A lot of things are beneficial in the proper quantities


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When the earth had 20 times what it has now, life thrived.

You mean 800 million years ago when the Sun was 30% COOLER!?

LOLOLOLOL

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

WTF?

The sun was the same temperature?

 

[CryptoNinja]

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

Yeah, you went back 100 million years ago in your time travel starship and measured it...

except you didn't, and you have no data backing that claim up...


Even if the Sun's output varies, which I dispute, that didn't cause Greenland to freeze while NA thawed....

LOL!!!

So you're an ldiot who can't defend your beliefs so belittle basic scientific fact that the Sun was cooler 150 million years ago?

The Sun and all stars like it have a very basic irradiance curve, it is contantly getting hotter.

 

[Wyatt earp]

AGW is the lefts religion. Just fill in all the holes with "man" instead of "god."
Faith, it does a body good

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

They just wanted to build a billion dollar pipe line just to stick it the face?


Say what we are not liberals and play that flaunting , in spite game.


.

 

[bripat9643]

There's nothing sensible about reducing our carbon output? It will cost $trillions, and CO2 is actually beneficial. Why would we even want to reduce it?

Water is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

Salt is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

A lot of things are beneficial in the proper quantities


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When the earth had 20 times what it has now, life thrived.

You mean 800 million years ago when the Sun was 30% COOLER!?

LOLOLOLOL

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It breaks down when my side realizes that your side can't understand shit.

First off, don't assume I am on any "side." Secondly, it breaks down when no one ever discusses the worst-case scenario if we do nothing (the risk) and the solutions have NOTHING to do with the alleged problem.

Assuming the science on whether humans are causing warming is settled (it's not), the REAL solution is to reduce the population down to about 2 billion people. That REAL solution will not fly, so what else do you have?

 

[RealDave]

Carbon has no IR Transitive Properties.

Also, the amount of Carbon on Earth is static.

Carbon is just recycled on Earth.

We are a carbon based planet with carbon based life forms.

The Left's war against Carbon is actually a War Against Life.

We cannot exist without carbon. The very air The Left Exhales is Carbon.

Our entire modern world cannot exist without carbon.

The Loony Left can't pollute our airwaves, message boards and children's minds without carbon.

We cannot have oxygen, water, plant life without carbon.

Carbon in the ground has no effect on the greenhouse effect. When you move that carbon to the atmosphere it does.

We can't exist without water so flooding can't kill people. Brilliant.

Morons like you claim higher carbon means more plant growth totally ignoring that higher temps mean lower plant production & plants grown under increased carbon ave less nutritional value.

 

[BlackFlag]

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

They just wanted to build a billion dollar pipe line just to stick it the face?


Say what we are not liberals and play that flaunting , in spite game.


.

English please.

 

[LaDexter]

According to the following map

Thanks for your absolutely wonderful "scientific" evidence.... you have a BIRDBRAIN and you PARROT...

I'll present mine....


Actual scientists went to Greenland, drilled through the thickest parts of the ice, and carbon dated what they found...


Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green



The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice,

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles




THAT MAP you produced was from the ASSUMPTION that "ICE AGES" were planetary. They are NOT. ICE AGES are CONTINENT SPECIFIC, and change in opposite ways AT THE SAME TIME, as Greenland and NA just did....

 

[CryptoNinja]

Water is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

Salt is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

A lot of things are beneficial in the proper quantities


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When the earth had 20 times what it has now, life thrived.

You mean 800 million years ago when the Sun was 30% COOLER!?

LOLOLOLOL

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

 

[LaDexter]

When you move that carbon to the atmosphere it does

Not according to the actual unFUDGED satellite and balloon data....



Key claim against global warming evaporates


" satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."




So stop lying and parroting and polluting minds with left wing lies. Global Warming is 100% bullshit. Co2 does NOTHING.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It happens every time. When confronted with the truth, the libs always disappear from the thread.

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

 

[LaDexter]

Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

My understanding is that the "solar cycle" theory comes from the FRAUD itself, a "skeptic argument" for morons, easy for the climate "scientists" to refute...

Global Warming gets so much money from the taxpayer, it funds false "skeptic" arguments so it can "discredit skeptics..."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All this debate and no talk about the worst-case scenario and the solution to prevent it.



It goes here every time.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

Firstly, climate denial is a serious issue only in the US, so when you say 60 percent of humans. You mean only Republicans,who aren't even 60 percent of the US.
Secondly. If I accept your premise, then I have to ask why would you reject clean air and water because you don't agree on climate change? Something that is being done by your party as we speak. Coal polutes the air it creates smog yet you accept Trump promoting it. Why if you are for clean air?

see, you still don't get it. I fully support and demand that we stop polluting air and water. You don't need to make climate claims in order to get the vast majority of humans to support those efforts.

You & your denier buddies claim CO2 is not a pollutant.

Why should we lie because your ilk is stupid?

Because we need CO2 to live..and you call us the stupid one?