Question for believers in man made climate change

[CryptoNinja]

Don't need to provide a solution to prove there's a problem, thank you.

So, what are you bitching about if there is no solution?

It all comes down to the solution.

No it doesn't, it comes down to stopping you obstructionist shits from denying there's a ******* problem.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can limit the rise if we act as a planet like in the Paris Agreement.

So, if America pays for everything and starts ******* over Americans, making all of our lives much more expensive, and China and India do nothing, all will be fine?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No it doesn't, it comes down to stopping you obstructionist shits from denying there's a ******* problem.

Does it matter if I or anyone else denies a problem if you have no solution?

 

[Wyatt earp]

No

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

Indeed. 5-8% leaves a lot of room to "reduce"

Conservatives are running around yelling....Liberals want to ban fossil fuels!

Nobody wants to ban. Lets look for a 10% reduction over ten years
More efficient cars, more electric cars
Push industry to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, cleaner burning coal, more solar and wind

10% reduction will not kill our economy

But it will kill the earth. It can't take much more Carbon added to the atmosphere.

Remember the last time CO2 reached 450 ppm the entire coral biome died off from Ocean acidity. The Earth can't sustain Human farming/aquaculture if we kill off the coral reefs.

You moron the CO2 level was 5 times higher then today in the Jurassic era and the plants and animals were huge and going by proxies 5 times more CO2 they can only guess the earth was 2 to 12 degrees hotter then today

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"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.

I don't speak your English of ghetto rap

 

[jc456]

It’s like how as adults we know we have to wash our hands because of germs, but dumb little kids who don’t know any better think they don’t have to if they don’t look dirty.

“Psh humans don’t affect climate” = “psh microscopic imaginary bugs floating around? Yeah right.”

Dude, you have no evidence. Thanks for your failure

 

[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?

We obviously don't need this much CO2, since the Earth had 225ppm for quite some time.

So in your world you think earth climate would of been stable with out man?

What kind of a narcissist are you?


.

 

[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?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

 

[CryptoNinja]

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?

We obviously don't need this much CO2, since the Earth had 225ppm for quite some time.

So in your world you think earth climate would of been stable with out man?

What kind of a narcissist are you?


.

It would have shifted much more slowly. What kind of bad-steward are you?

 

[Foxfyre]

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...

Even as I read articles of how some islands expected to be essentially underwater now by some scientific estimations are actually increasing in size. Which actually has little or nothing to do with the levels of the ocean surrounding them.

But all our seas and oceans are interconnected, yes? So think of your average lake with all its little coves and inlets and perhaps an island or two. At any given time when there has been essentially no seismic activity or wind or precipitation the water level in the lake will be effectively the same all over the lake. Add major heating or major cold that water level will change by a very small amount. Fill some of the lake with thick ice and the water in any ice free areas will be higher. Melt the ice, and those higher water levels return to normal. But add wind and parts of the surface will be higher than other parts of the surface. Pour water into one end and it will for a short time be deeper than the other end. Most especially will anomalies occur in those areas closest to shore, in those inlets and around those islands, where the water piles up under external forces.

The same things are happening all over the planet except on such a massively larger scale that it takes a lot longer for the sloshing or manipulation of the water levels to settle out evenly and perhaps they never can because there are always factors affecting sea levels. And it is much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the local lake or in our bathtubs.

But from NASA'S website, they probably are telling it like it is when they say:

. . .even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulse.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today​

Yes sea levels are higher now than they were in the last century. And yes, sea levels will probably be higher in the 21st century than they are now. The fact is, the Earth warms after every ice age until it reaches a tipping point and starts back into the next ice age which will occur.

So if human activity is warming the Earth, we might consider the possibility that could be a good thing in holding off the next ice age?

 

[CryptoNinja]

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?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

 

[CryptoNinja]

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...

Even as I read articles of how some islands expected to be essentially underwater now by some scientific estimations are actually increasing in size. Which actually has little or nothing to do with the levels of the ocean surrounding them.

But all our seas and oceans are interconnected, yes? So think of your average lake with all its eddies and inlets and perhaps an island or two. At any given time when there has been essentially no seismic activity or wind or precipitation the water level in the lake will be effectively the same all over the lake. Add major heating or major cold that water level will change by a very small amount. Fill some of the lake with thick ice and the water in any ice free areas will be higher. Melt the ice, and those higher water levels return to normal. But add wind and parts of the surface will be higher than other parts of the surface. Pour water into one end and it will for a short time be deeper than the other end.

The same things are happening all over the planet except on such a massively larger scale that it takes a lot longer for the sloshing or manipulation of the water levels to settle out evenly and perhaps they never can because there are always factors affecting sea levels. And it is much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the local lake or in our bathtubs.

But from NASA'S website, they probably are telling it like it is when they say:

. . .even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulse.​

Yes sea levels are higher now than they were in the last century. And yes, sea levels will probably be higher in the 21st century than they are now. The fact is, the Earth warms after ever ice age until it reaches a tipping point and starts back into the next ice age which will occur.

So if human activity is warming the Earth, we might consider the possibility that could be a good thing in holding off the next ice age?

Provide the articles or you're full of shit.

And no, ocean levels are different at different places and different times based on many factors, the ocean is similar to a pocked-golf-ball.

 

[Foxfyre]

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...

Even as I read articles of how some islands expected to be essentially underwater now by some scientific estimations are actually increasing in size. Which actually has little or nothing to do with the levels of the ocean surrounding them.

But all our seas and oceans are interconnected, yes? So think of your average lake with all its eddies and inlets and perhaps an island or two. At any given time when there has been essentially no seismic activity or wind or precipitation the water level in the lake will be effectively the same all over the lake. Add major heating or major cold that water level will change by a very small amount. Fill some of the lake with thick ice and the water in any ice free areas will be higher. Melt the ice, and those higher water levels return to normal. But add wind and parts of the surface will be higher than other parts of the surface. Pour water into one end and it will for a short time be deeper than the other end.

The same things are happening all over the planet except on such a massively larger scale that it takes a lot longer for the sloshing or manipulation of the water levels to settle out evenly and perhaps they never can because there are always factors affecting sea levels. And it is much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the local lake or in our bathtubs.

But from NASA'S website, they probably are telling it like it is when they say:

. . .even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulse.​

Yes sea levels are higher now than they were in the last century. And yes, sea levels will probably be higher in the 21st century than they are now. The fact is, the Earth warms after ever ice age until it reaches a tipping point and starts back into the next ice age which will occur.

So if human activity is warming the Earth, we might consider the possibility that could be a good thing in holding off the next ice age?

Provide the articles or you're full of shit.

And no, ocean levels are different at different places and different times based on many factors, the ocean is similar to a pocked-golf-ball.

How does anything I posted suggest anything different? If you can't show that, then I'm not the one full of shit.

 

[BlackFlag]

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.

I don't speak your English of ghetto rap

Oh sorry, I didn’t know you were mentally ill

 

[CryptoNinja]

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...

Even as I read articles of how some islands expected to be essentially underwater now by some scientific estimations are actually increasing in size. Which actually has little or nothing to do with the levels of the ocean surrounding them.

But all our seas and oceans are interconnected, yes? So think of your average lake with all its eddies and inlets and perhaps an island or two. At any given time when there has been essentially no seismic activity or wind or precipitation the water level in the lake will be effectively the same all over the lake. Add major heating or major cold that water level will change by a very small amount. Fill some of the lake with thick ice and the water in any ice free areas will be higher. Melt the ice, and those higher water levels return to normal. But add wind and parts of the surface will be higher than other parts of the surface. Pour water into one end and it will for a short time be deeper than the other end.

The same things are happening all over the planet except on such a massively larger scale that it takes a lot longer for the sloshing or manipulation of the water levels to settle out evenly and perhaps they never can because there are always factors affecting sea levels. And it is much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the local lake or in our bathtubs.

But from NASA'S website, they probably are telling it like it is when they say:

. . .even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulse.​

Yes sea levels are higher now than they were in the last century. And yes, sea levels will probably be higher in the 21st century than they are now. The fact is, the Earth warms after ever ice age until it reaches a tipping point and starts back into the next ice age which will occur.

So if human activity is warming the Earth, we might consider the possibility that could be a good thing in holding off the next ice age?

Provide the articles or you're full of shit.

And no, ocean levels are different at different places and different times based on many factors, the ocean is similar to a pocked-golf-ball.

How does anything I posted suggest anything different? If you can't show that, then I'm not the one full of shit.

You are guilty of "TLDR" (I did read though) and just simplified it for you. Didn't mean to write it so contentious to what you wrote however.

But I did mean to be contentious about the articles. I just don't think they are valid. There's not a bunch of rising islands, probably not even one, that isn't volcanic.

 

[Foxfyre]

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...

Even as I read articles of how some islands expected to be essentially underwater now by some scientific estimations are actually increasing in size. Which actually has little or nothing to do with the levels of the ocean surrounding them.

But all our seas and oceans are interconnected, yes? So think of your average lake with all its eddies and inlets and perhaps an island or two. At any given time when there has been essentially no seismic activity or wind or precipitation the water level in the lake will be effectively the same all over the lake. Add major heating or major cold that water level will change by a very small amount. Fill some of the lake with thick ice and the water in any ice free areas will be higher. Melt the ice, and those higher water levels return to normal. But add wind and parts of the surface will be higher than other parts of the surface. Pour water into one end and it will for a short time be deeper than the other end.

The same things are happening all over the planet except on such a massively larger scale that it takes a lot longer for the sloshing or manipulation of the water levels to settle out evenly and perhaps they never can because there are always factors affecting sea levels. And it is much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the local lake or in our bathtubs.

But from NASA'S website, they probably are telling it like it is when they say:

. . .even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulse.​

Yes sea levels are higher now than they were in the last century. And yes, sea levels will probably be higher in the 21st century than they are now. The fact is, the Earth warms after ever ice age until it reaches a tipping point and starts back into the next ice age which will occur.

So if human activity is warming the Earth, we might consider the possibility that could be a good thing in holding off the next ice age?

Provide the articles or you're full of shit.

And no, ocean levels are different at different places and different times based on many factors, the ocean is similar to a pocked-golf-ball.

How does anything I posted suggest anything different? If you can't show that, then I'm not the one full of shit.

You are guilty of "TLDR" (I did read though) and just simplified it for you. Didn't mean to write it so contentious to what you wrote however.

But I did mean to be contentious about the articles. I just don't think they are valid. There's not a bunch of rising islands, probably not even one, that isn't volcanic.

Show me HOW I am guilty of TLDR whatever that is. I did edit my post to add a link for the NASA sentence I quoted. But for the rest, you're going to have to make an argument for how I am wrong about any of it in order to have any credibility of accusing me of anything but accuracy. How does my post differ from what you said in any way other than I didn't use personal insults as an argument?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

We obviously don't need this much CO2, since the Earth had 225ppm for quite some time.

So in your world you think earth climate would of been stable with out man?

What kind of a narcissist are you?


.

It would have shifted much more slowly. What kind of bad-steward are you?

Shifted more slowly prove it ...


The damn great Sahara turned tropical to dry in just a few hundred years according to proxies ..


What are you a snow shovel salesman, you do know about the milankivoch cycles theory we were heading towards another ice age so what's your problem other then you want to redistribute world wealth?

 

[BluesLegend]

Why don't you libs reduce the amount of filthy trash you toss weekly then worry about the climate. Here's Los Angeles the city of angels, good job libs. /sarcasm

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict