Should we allow the alarmists to alarm us as to climate?

[frigidweirdo]

They work for Biden. He has a thriving economy with enough money to pay your SS, Medicare and infrastructure. What did trump give you other than 90 indictments ?

I can't even be bothered with the nonsense you're coming out with. One or two sentences of pure whatever you just decided to write, no evidence, nothing.

 

[abu afak]

Actually it doesn't which is why you couldn't explain how it did in 25 words or less. You are really horrible at articulating your opinion.

That graphs shows lots and lots of climate fluctuations within glacial and interglacial periods, shows the current interglacial is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial, show the current glacial has 26 ft shallower seas than the previous interglacial and has 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial.

So which one of those points do you believe that plot destroys again? Because that plot shows everything I just said.

Actually I was YOU who said Marcott's graphic proved HE was right to several posters OFTEN after you said it to me previous/a Year ago and I refuted it. (I don't know why it blew up to full in my repeat post.)
IOW, Ding is a knowing and daily Liar, along with SunsetTommy who Uses OBSOLETE Marcott graphics/text.

To prove you were Wrong/Lying again I HAD had to Use More than 25 words because those words WERE Marcott's words About His Own Graphic you took Out of Context and LIED about.
I bolded the 2 short paragraphs of Many containing those words. Marcott:

• ...""Because Earth is now Warmer due to the effect of Humans, we have Broken OUT of the Natural ice age cycles. Rather than starting the slow cooling era into the next ice age, we have now Broken out of those Natural cycles and into a New Era of Super Warming. The Human Driven warming “force” is about 80 times stronger than the natural cooling force.

I offer this graphic as one of the simplest ways to communicate two things. 1) that current “global warming” was Triggered by Humans and is a Sharp DEPARTUE From the NATURAL Climate Change Cycles, and 2) that Sea Level is going to rise for a Long time, due to the temperature and CO2 level being far above normal. The warmer the temperature, the more the ice sheets melt, pushing sea level higher."""

(My thoughts exactly above)
I can and have explained AGW in quite short terms and a similar or Less amount of sentences SCORES of Times. Here's 24 words:
(((Usually Solar forcing, but measured as NOT such this time, but radiation back into space Blocked at the exact Spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)))

You, OTOH can't say more than 5 words, OR TWO WORDS "Normal Interglacial" to 'make' your idiotic 20,000 time claim. NOW ELABORATED AS WRONG BY THE PERSON YOU CLAIMED WAS USING IT TO PROVE YOUR OPPOSITE Deception.
Your posts are like jc456's or Shorter.
YOU are both high-frequency/short-post Trolls, of course complaining about more than 25 words.
You are a LYING DECEIVING little Wack Job who can't refute anything.

`

 

[Dagosa]

I can't even be bothered with the nonsense you're coming out with. One or two sentences of pure whatever you just decided to write, no evidence, nothing.

Sure, no evidence ? Why is Trump scheduled for four trials and shitting his pants every day ? Denying climate change is the least of trump’s problems. At some point he may never have worry about the climate in a prison cell.

 

[Dagosa]

I can't even be bothered with the nonsense you're coming out with. One or two sentences of pure whatever you just decided to write, no evidence, nothing.

You can’t bothered because I’m right and you’re wrong….

 

[Dagosa]

You think that's how US politics works huh?

Well, that’s how the left writes it. The right just turn the bills over to the lobbyists for their rich donors who do it for them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can’t bothered because I’m right and you’re wrong….

Yeah, you go do a little dance and declare yourself the world champion of debating.

I, on the other hand, will just ignore your childishness.... bye bye

 

[ding]

Actually I was YOU who said Marcott's graphic proved HE was right to several posters OFTEN after you said it to me previous/a Year ago and I refuted it. (I don't know why it blew up to full in my repeat post.)
IOW, Ding is a knowing and daily Liar, along with SunsetTommy who Uses OBSOLETE Marcott graphics/text.

To prove you were Wrong/Lying again I HAD had to Use More than 25 words because those words WERE Marcott's words About His Own Graphic you took Out of Context and LIED about.
I bolded the 2 short paragraphs of Many containing those words. Marcott:

• ...""Because Earth is now Warmer due to the effect of Humans, we have Broken OUT of the Natural ice age cycles. Rather than starting the slow cooling era into the next ice age, we have now Broken out of those Natural cycles and into a New Era of Super Warming. The Human Driven warming “force” is about 80 times stronger than the natural cooling force.

I offer this graphic as one of the simplest ways to communicate two things. 1) that current “global warming” was Triggered by Humans and is a Sharp DEPARTUE From the NATURAL Climate Change Cycles, and 2) that Sea Level is going to rise for a Long time, due to the temperature and CO2 level being far above normal. The warmer the temperature, the more the ice sheets melt, pushing sea level higher."""

(My thoughts exactly above)
I can and have explained AGW in quite short terms and a similar or Less amount of sentences SCORES of Times. Here's 24 words:
(((Usually Solar forcing, but measured as NOT such this time, but radiation back into space Blocked at the exact Spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)))

You, OTOH can't say more than 5 words, OR TWO WORDS "Normal Interglacial" to 'make' your idiotic 20,000 time claim. NOW ELABORATED AS WRONG BY THE PERSON YOU CLAIMED WAS USING IT TO PROVE YOUR OPPOSITE Deception.
Your posts are like jc456's or Shorter.
YOU are both high-frequency/short-post Trolls, of course complaining about more than 25 words.
You are a LYING DECEIVING little Wack Job who can't refute anything.

`

Good Lord that's quite the wall of gibberish. You were all over the map. A real spastic kind of post. You need to learn how to write coherent sentences that actually make sense when read together.

 

[ding]

Am I seriously the only one here who thinks APU can't write coherent posts?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Good Lord that's quite a wall of gibberish text that doesn't make any sense. You are all over the map. Are you spastic?

He apparently will ignore this from Marcott himself:

20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

LINK

Warmist/alarmists tries hard to ignore it but it there in his interview that big red uptick was grafted onto his chart to promote a lie while the THESIS paper doesn't show it at all.

LINK

============

See how ignorant misinformed you are Abu and Crick........

It is so easy to make fools of you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Am I seriously the only one here who thinks APU can't write coherent posts?

I put that fool on ignore two years ago, he is really bad.

 

[abu afak]

He apparently will ignore this from Marcott himself:


LINK

Warmist/alarmists tries hard to ignore it but it there in his interview that big red uptick was grafted onto his chart to promote a lie while the THESIS paper doesn't show it at all.

View attachment 858811

LINK

============

See how ignorant misinformed you are Abu and Crick........

It is so easy to make fools of you.

Really LIAR?

and here is what Marcott Said Most Recently for the Fifth or Sixth Time. I already told you a YEAR Ago but you probably thought I was gone so could LIE AGAIN DAILY.
So you are knowingly LYING hoping I'm not around.

Yes and I REFUTED you AS ALWAYS re Marcott as you were using OBSOLETE Citations.

How about Marcott 2021 ? (not 2013, NOT pre 2009 decades)

• NATURE PODCAST
  10 November 2021 Nature

Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate​

Reassessing 24,000 years of global temperatures, and on the ground at COP26.
[......]

Interviewee: Shaun Marcott
"..The past record provides perspective. Papers like this basically point out, just at the very basic level, what has happened before and where we are in that context and where we’re heading towards. In a Prior paper that we had, we said statistically we don’t really know if today is any warmer than what we call the warm period of the last 10,000 years.
This paper has said actually, We’ve Left what was Normal.
That’s an important perspective to have when you think about where We’re off to, considering these Temperatures that we’re Trajecting towards, as far we know, we Haven’t seen in 50 Million years or so, and the world was a lot Different then."".
[......]
Nature
Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate
- - - -


Sunset Tommy cannot even debate Climate!
He Dumps an article from somewhere (like WTFUWT) and says: ""You must refute this paper or you lose.""

WUWT Tommy himself is NOT EVEN CONVERSANT on the topic, and unlike me cannot lay out his position AND/OR why.
He put me on IGNORE after my SIX attempts to make him explain his position on warming and whether and if it was even warming at all.
He could Not!!
He prefers the motor mouth Crick who Unlike me doesn't Crush him with 100%/180° Rebuttal as I just did above AGAIN using his own source: Marcott.
(He Fallaciously/ posted COLD WEATHER DAYS in Skooker's anti-Science "Skeptics Winning" thread as if it was Not warming, but in fact cooling.)

So here Again: ANOTHER SUNSET for TOMMY.
He's posting again since I took a few months off. He thought I was gone.
But he Got so DESTROYED he had to stop.

`

 

[Dagosa]

Yeah, you go do a little dance and declare yourself the world champion of debating.

I, on the other hand, will just ignore your childishness.... bye bye

Absolutely. I have the entire world of science on my side to refer to, while you have have the world of deranged misfits with the mentality of a mature cucumber. No comparison.
I’m right not because I have superior intellect, but because I know what I don’t know and the scientific method is a tried and true search engine. You’re a scammer.

 

[Viktor]

I am a member of the Judith Curry website so can spread this to the forum.
This discussion may please both the Alarmists and also the so called deniers.
It comes close to straddling the fence. This is very simple reading and should enlighten all of us.

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis

by Iain Aitken As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against u…

judithcurry.com

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis​

Posted on October 31, 2023 by curryja | 78 Comments
by Iain Aitken
As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against us’ war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the ‘facts’.

Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, ‘doomsters’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign – and ‘deniers’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.
So what is the doomsters’ story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report as ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk’. And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.’ So what is all this ‘irrefutable evidence’ of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let’s examine a few representative examples:
(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur.
(2) We know, based on ice core data (and more recently direct atmospheric measurements), that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen by about 50% to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(3) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that the post-industrialization global warming cannot be explained by natural phenomena.
(4) We know, based on all the leading temperature datasets, that in post-industrialization times about 1.2ºC of global warming has already occurred, a level of warming that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years (and probably the last 125,000 years) – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(5) We know, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, that the last 8 years have been the hottest years since records began and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one.
(6) We know, based on global tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, that in post-industrialization times the global mean sea level has already risen by about 9 inches as a result of global warming – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice has already declined by 50% and is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade as a result of global warming – and the decline rate is accelerating.
(8) We know, based on observations and attribution studies, that extreme weather around the world has already become more frequent and intense and, based on the world’s largest study of climate-related mortality, that that is already causing almost 10% (5 million) of global deaths each year.
(9) We know, based on the Paris Climate Accord, that warming must be limited to 1.5ºC to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts – and that based on the current warming trends that critical threshold may be crossed by 2030.
(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6ºC of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5ºC critical threshold by 4.5ºC) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.
The adverse climate change impacts noted above are just representative – many more could have been added, such as ocean acidification, coral reef loss, biodiversity loss and species extinctions – and that’s even before the consideration of potential ‘tipping points’ into irreversible climate change impacts. The climate crisis narrative (i.e. the cause and effect storyline) based on such evidence is simple and certain and compelling: our escalating burning of fossil fuels has caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which have in turn caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in global surface temperatures which has in turn already caused huge and unprecedented and accelerating climate change impacts on the planet and mankind – and very soon it’s going to get catastrophically worse, unless we stop climate change by stopping burning fossil fuels. In this narrative climate change is a new and terrifying man-made phenomenon, an existential threat that has arisen as an insidious ‘by product’ of rampant industrialization and capitalism and that it can, and must, be stopped by urgent global decarbonization.
So how many of the above ten statements are actually true? I would argue that all of them are true – at least exactly as worded – and assuming we accept as beyond reasonable dispute the ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions of the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted authority on climate change’. Trusting the IPCC and believing such evidence and the frightening story it apparently tells is entirely rational and reasonable; in fact, why would any rational, reasonable person doubt it? On the face of it this evidence alone makes an irrefutable case in support of the existence of a climate crisis and it’s surely not at all hard to understand why so many people accept it – and think that those who do not accept it (the so-called ‘climate deniers’) are deluded, badly-informed, badly-intentioned, scientifically-illiterate, irresponsible fools (or are perhaps covertly in the pay of Big Oil).
But what if we don’t just accept as ‘beyond reasonable dispute’ the IPCC’s ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, its Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions, but instead consider criticisms of them by ‘denier’ scientists? In that case we find that the ‘simple and certain’ climate crisis narrative unravels and becomes decidedly complex and uncertain. I deconstruct the ten statements above and set out some of the key complexities and uncertainties in my eBook, in which I conclude that we simply don’t know (with a confidence level sufficient to inform climate policy)

• whether carbon dioxide is the main (let alone sole) controller of the Earth’s climate system
• whether rising carbon dioxide levels are on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
• whether the post-industrialization global warming has been abnormal (even over the last 2,000 years)
• how much of the post-industrialization global warming has been human-caused
• whether global warming is currently accelerating
• whether our warming climate system is on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
• how much of the post-industrialization sea level rise has been human-caused
• whether the sea level rise is currently accelerating
• whether global decarbonization would materially reduce future sea level rises – and whether global decarbonization is anyway the most cost-effective policy for addressing future sea level rise
• whether the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been abnormal
• how much of the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been human-caused
• whether the Arctic sea ice loss is currently accelerating
• whether recent extreme weather events have been abnormal
• whether recent extreme weather events have been human-caused
• whether extreme weather events will become significantly more frequent and intense as a result of global warming
• whether exceeding 1.5ºC of warming would be ‘dangerous’
• whether achieving net zero by 2050 (in order to limit warming to 1.5ºC) is technically feasible (never mind geopolitically realistic)
• whether achieving net zero by 2050 would materially improve the climate in this century
• how much further global warming there will be this century and whether it might lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt. Doubts about the reliability of the science, doubts about the reliability of the climate models, doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC, doubts about the scale of future warming, doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring), doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’ – and doubts about the wisdom, not of decarbonization, but of precipitate and precipitous decarbonization (as epitomized by ‘net zero by 2050’ policies) that may do more socioeconomic harm than good largely as a result of the vast transitional costs and societal impacts of such fast and radical decarbonization and the current lack of affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels. Basically, the ‘irrefutable evidence’ that there is a climate crisis is not, perhaps, so irrefutable. So when António Guterres asks, ‘Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency?’, the answer is, yes, many people can – and for very good reasons.
The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story. It largely expunges all the scientific complexities, unknowns and uncertainties, all the benefits of global warming and higher carbon dioxide levels, all the serious difficulties, costs, impacts and risks of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels – as well as expunging the option of simply adapting to living in a warmer world as an alternative (to net zero) policy response. It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity (with a presumption of guilt) – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury. It has apparently been found guilty, not on the basis of certainty, not on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not even on the basis of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ but simply on the basis of the possibility that it could be guilty, if not now, then in the future.
The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant. Both positions are rational and reasonable and worthy of intelligent debate – there is no ‘correct’ position. There does, however, appear to be a politically correct position and that, of course, is the position of the ‘doomsters’. To put it another way, the statements, ‘Climate change is probably not a very serious problem but net zero by 2050 probably is’ and ‘Climate change is possibly a very serious problem and net zero by 2050 possibly isn’t’ are not incompatible. Furthermore both sides agree that human activity, in particular our burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to a warming, changing climate – the debate is about how much we are contributing and how dangerous that warming actually is. On which basis there appears to be more uniting the two sides than dividing them.
Whether the IPCC’s theory and climate models are reliable (at least reliable enough to be fit to inform climate policy) is just a matter of opinion. Whether carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of global warming is just a matter of opinion. How emissions will evolve this century is just a matter of opinion. Whether natural climate variability can partially (or even largely) explain the post-industrialization global warming is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate sensitivity is relatively low or high is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming there will be this century is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming is ‘dangerous’ is just a matter of opinion. Whether renewables technology will evolve quickly to deliver affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem.
In summary, believing that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must eradicate fossil fuels as fast as possible is rational and reasonable – as is doubting that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must be very circumspect about how deeply and how quickly we eradicate fossil fuels (because the radical decarbonization ‘cure’ may be worse than the climate change ‘disease’). That simple claim may horrify ‘deniers’ and ‘doomsters’ alike, who both tend to a belief that they have the monopoly on rationality and reasonableness – which is why accepting this would be an excellent first step to reducing the current polarization of attitudes to the issue. To approach the truth about climate change you really do need to hear both sides of the story – and they are both good stories. At the very least, given all these doubts, if a climate crisis really exists then it is a very curious one.

DEMOCRAT LIES

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/list-of-democrat-lies.876915/page-4





https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/tired-of-democrat-lies-and-racism-join-the-walkaway-campaign.888743/





https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/democrats-lie-about-trump-tax-cut.1071513/



https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/cnn-obliterates-joe-bidens-lies-on-the-economy-fact-check-biden-makes-false-and-misleading-claims-in-economic-speech.1019912/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/biden-fact-checker-100-days/



https://www.kabc.com/2022/07/21/the-many-lies-of-adam-schiff/





https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-wrap-up-smear/





https://nypost.com/2021/09/26/alejandro-mayorkas-7-border-lies/



https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2020/03/08/why-do-the-2020-democrats-lie-about-everything-n2563920

 

[Robert W]

Absolutely. I have the entire world of science on my side to refer to, while you have have the world of deranged misfits with the mentality of a mature cucumber. No comparison.
I’m right not because I have superior intellect, but because I know what I don’t know and the scientific method is a tried and true search engine. You’re a scammer.

Well learn from this renowned scientist then.

She is a Lawyer and then she switched to being a Journalist so she could talk to interesting people. Here she has discussions with a world famous scientist.

 

[Dagosa]

Well learn from this renowned scientist then.

I’m not reading or listening to it. Obviously, real science is AGREEMENT by the plurality of scientist working together in dedicated programs in institutional settings. Unless they’re speaking for one of these dedicated institutions, it’s just background noise. Younstill don’t know what science is. It has nothing to do with a few bozos you can find that say what you want to hear….nothing.
We know youre scamming. You keep bringing up the same few retreads..

 

[Robert W]

I’m not reading or listening to it. Obviously, real science is AGREEMENT by the plurality of scientist working together in dedicated programs in institutional settings. Unless they’re speaking for one of these dedicated institutions, it’s just background noise. Younstill don’t know what science is. It has nothing to do with a few bozos you can find that say what you want to hear….nothing.
We know youre scamming. You keep bringing up the same few retreads..

However, you refuse to learn. I gave you the video of more than likely the top rated climate scientist on Earth. So you said nope.
Of course I know what science it. And it is not a bludgeon to be used by a fake Dennis Eckersley who was a super pitcher. Dennis came from Fremont, Ca and played for Washington High school and though I never met him, a friend of mine who was super tight with Dennis knew him very well. Best friends in fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am a member of the Judith Curry website so can spread this to the forum.
This discussion may please both the Alarmists and also the so called deniers.
It comes close to straddling the fence. This is very simple reading and should enlighten all of us.

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis

by Iain Aitken As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against u…

judithcurry.com

​

Excerpted from the OP:
". . .Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem. . ."

Actually there are 'right answers.' The right answer is that our climate is changing as our climate has always changed per the paleontological/anthropological record and recorded history.

Science should use the best of scientific knowledge and ability to pick up on any trends that are likely to continue into the foreseeable future, and those with the power to do so should be figuring out how best for humankind to adapt and utilize, even benefit from, those likely trends.

What the world should stop doing immediately is thinking that humankind is responsible for all the climate change currently happening or that we can reasonably do anything at all about it. Trillions of dollars spent, sometimes draconian rules and regulations imposed on all of Europe and most of North America have not lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere by one particle. There is no reason to believe that any effort of humankind is likely to lower CO2 in the atmosphere by any measurable amount.

With eight billion people on Earth that will likely increase to nine billion in the next 25 years, we should be focused on the necessities and quality of of life that population will need and developing sustainable means to provide that.

We shouldn't be wasting human, financial, and physical resources on policy and products and practices that will not only not change the climate, but will limit our ability to provide the people of the world with what they will need.

 

[Dagosa]

However, you refuse to learn. I gave you the video of more than likely the top rated climate scientist on Earth. So you said nope.
Of course I know what science it. And it is not a bludgeon to be used by a fake Dennis Eckersley who was a super pitcher. Dennis came from Fremont, Ca and played for Washington High school and though I never met him, a friend of mine who was super tight with Dennis knew him very well. Best friends in fact.

I Refuse to be indoctrinated by a Heartland spokesman, a propaganda arm of libertarians anti climate change and pro cigarette smoking tripe. . . So you want me to listen to promoting cigarette smoking and smog. Nice guy. CO2 is a known gas for the increase in the presence of smog, a deadly respiratory affecting condition. Wow. You must love pollution. You’re doing everything to promote it.

 

[Dagosa]

However, you refuse to learn. I gave you the video of more than likely the top rated climate scientist on Earth. So you said nope.
Of course I know what science it. And it is not a bludgeon to be used by a fake Dennis Eckersley who was a super pitcher. Dennis came from Fremont, Ca and played for Washington High school and though I never met him, a friend of mine who was super tight with Dennis knew him very well. Best friends in fact.

Read my lips. Science is institutional consensus agreement or it is isn’t science.

 

[ding]

Read my lips. Science is institutional consensus agreement or it is isn’t science.

No. That's not science at all. That's the antithesis of science. It's not a popularity contest.