Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[Stryder50]

The better question is
When will you be able to post On Topic re the debate over AGW or EVs instead of demanding personal info.
You little shlt.
Post on Topic.
`

Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.

 

[Stryder50]

False
My OPs are Not opinion pieces.
Read em again. They are hard industry data or reporting such by EIA, WSJ, IRENA, NASA, NOAA, etc.
You just Lied because you are a pathetic little troll/Right Wing cheerleader/hack with ZERO info.
`

Higher global temperatures in the past and not caused by human activity. Hmmm ???

 

[westwall]

You can't "address" anything. Never do.
He has scores of meaty posts, You NOTHING.
Why don't you write more than ONE line in a post.

Crick's last post had more info than any Twenty of your ldiotic contentLess partisan drools.
You're not here to post/"address" any info just Harass and Cheerlead.
You Pitiful POS.
Put your teeth in the glass.
`

Okey dokey, just insults, but as usual, no facts, no data, and especially no science from you, the resident village idiot.

 

[abu afak]

LOL

YOU REPEATED THIS CHART 5 TIMES IN A ROW YOU POOR INADEQUATE IDIOT. #837-#841
FRUSTRATED KNOW-NOTHING... KNOWING INADEQUACY.
YOUR CHART BLITZ PROVES NOTHING.
(NOTHING IS STILL BETTER THAN WESTWALL'S NON-ATTEMPTS, OR TODDSTER' STUPID TROLLS)

YOURS A 600 MILLION YEAR CHART IN 100 MILLION YEAR INCREMENTS.
USELESS!
YOU COULDN'T SEE THE TIME PERIOD/SCALE NEEDED TO SEE AGW OR NOT. (THE LAST 150 YEARS)
IT'S A WASTE, LIKE THE KEYBOARDS (AND EMPTY POSTS) OF WESTWALL AND TOADSTER.

NO ONE HAS ARGUED IT HASN'T BEEN WARMER IN THE PAST!
THE DEBATE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE LAST 150 YEARS OF HUMAN EXPLODED GHGs CAUSED THIS ONE WITHIN A NATURAL CYCLE.


IE, MARCOTT, ETC.


Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were cooling before we turned on the engines.

and the bottom one with 8 Different Temp records

THAT SIMPLE.
GAME OVER.

YOU DIDN'T/COULDN'T WRITE MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE (IF ANY) IN 6 CHART POSTS IN ROW!
THE SAME IRRELEVANT 600 MILLION YEAR CHART IN 5 IN A ROW! (#837-#841)
BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FACT NON-CONVERSANT/KNOWINGLY INADEQUATE ON THE TOPIC!
LOL

`

 

[psikeyhackr]

Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.

There are more factors involved than just CO2.

Ever heard of ocean currents and mountains?
100,000,000 years ago the Indian plate had not collided with the Asian plate thereby creating the Himalayan mountains. Comparing climates over periods of tens of millions of years when differently shaped land masses forced changes in currents of fluid makes no sense.

 

[schmidlap]

The ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change are finally conceding the scientific validity, but want to surrender to it.

Submitting to the ravages of global warming is a very expensive proposition.

After a decade of disputing the existence of climate change, many leading Republicans are shifting their posture amid deadly heat waves, devastating drought and ferocious wildfires that have bludgeoned their districts and unnerved their constituents back home.​

​

“I saved it! I put our miners back to work!”
As of August, 2020, 5,300 coal mining jobs had been lost under Trump.​

Members of Congress who long insisted that the climate is changing due to natural cycles have notably adjusted that view, with many now acknowledging the solid science that emissions from burning oil, gas and coal have raised Earth’s temperature.​

But their growing acceptance of the reality of climate change has not translated into support for the one strategy that scientists said in a major United Nations report this week is imperative to avert an even more harrowing future: stop burning fossil fuels.​

​

Instead, Republicans want to spend billions to prepare communities to cope with extreme weather, but are trying to block efforts by Democrats to cut the emissions that are fueling the disasters in the first place.​

​

With the exception of young Republicans who have been agitating for their party to take climate change more seriously, conservative voters as a whole have not shifted much on the issue over the past 10 years. That skepticism may have reached a pinnacle with Trump, who famously derided climate science, loosened emissions rules and expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands.​

​

[Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change (Published 2021)]​

​

Even in the GOP, for better-educated younger Americans, dogma is, ineluctably, being replaced by data:

'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans​

Young Republicans take up fight against climate change​

Young Republicans push party to act on climate change​

​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change are finally conceding the scientific validity, but want to surrender to it.

Submitting to the ravages of global warming is a very expensive proposition.

After a decade of disputing the existence of climate change, many leading Republicans are shifting their posture amid deadly heat waves, devastating drought and ferocious wildfires that have bludgeoned their districts and unnerved their constituents back home.​

​

View attachment 711347​

“I saved it! I put our miners back to work!”
As of August, 2020, 5,300 coal mining jobs had been lost under Trump.​

Members of Congress who long insisted that the climate is changing due to natural cycles have notably adjusted that view, with many now acknowledging the solid science that emissions from burning oil, gas and coal have raised Earth’s temperature.​

But their growing acceptance of the reality of climate change has not translated into support for the one strategy that scientists said in a major United Nations report this week is imperative to avert an even more harrowing future: stop burning fossil fuels.​

​

Instead, Republicans want to spend billions to prepare communities to cope with extreme weather, but are trying to block efforts by Democrats to cut the emissions that are fueling the disasters in the first place.​

​

View attachment 711345​

With the exception of young Republicans who have been agitating for their party to take climate change more seriously, conservative voters as a whole have not shifted much on the issue over the past 10 years. That skepticism may have reached a pinnacle with Trump, who famously derided climate science, loosened emissions rules and expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands.​

​

[Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change (Published 2021)]​

​

Even in the GOP, for better-educated younger Americans, dogma is, ineluctably, being replaced by data:

'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans​

Young Republicans take up fight against climate change​

Young Republicans push party to act on climate change​

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change are finally conceding the scientific validity, but want to surrender to it.

Submitting to the ravages of global warming is a very expensive proposition.

After a decade of disputing the existence of climate change, many leading Republicans are shifting their posture amid deadly heat waves, devastating drought and ferocious wildfires that have bludgeoned their districts and unnerved their constituents back home.​

​

View attachment 711347​

“I saved it! I put our miners back to work!”
As of August, 2020, 5,300 coal mining jobs had been lost under Trump.​

Members of Congress who long insisted that the climate is changing due to natural cycles have notably adjusted that view, with many now acknowledging the solid science that emissions from burning oil, gas and coal have raised Earth’s temperature.​

But their growing acceptance of the reality of climate change has not translated into support for the one strategy that scientists said in a major United Nations report this week is imperative to avert an even more harrowing future: stop burning fossil fuels.​

​

Instead, Republicans want to spend billions to prepare communities to cope with extreme weather, but are trying to block efforts by Democrats to cut the emissions that are fueling the disasters in the first place.​

​

View attachment 711345​

With the exception of young Republicans who have been agitating for their party to take climate change more seriously, conservative voters as a whole have not shifted much on the issue over the past 10 years. That skepticism may have reached a pinnacle with Trump, who famously derided climate science, loosened emissions rules and expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands.​

​

[Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change (Published 2021)]​

​

Even in the GOP, for better-educated younger Americans, dogma is, ineluctably, being replaced by data:

'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans​

Young Republicans take up fight against climate change​

Young Republicans push party to act on climate change​

​

$76 trillion!!!

 

[westwall]

$76 trillion!!!

All to lower global temperature by one degree in 100 years.....maybe.

 

[Crick]

All to lower global temperature by one degree in 100 years.....maybe.

Maybe is right. It's probably far more likely that our decisions will be made by ignorant cowards like you and temperatures will go up 4C.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Planned obsolescence and ignoring the depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik has not been expensive?

There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994.
Where are those cars? What did the depreciation amount to?

Higher global temperatures in the past and not caused by human activity. Hmmm ???

How many of those changes occurred faster than 1 degree per 1000 years? Changes in the planet's orbit are slow. Big volcanic eruptions me cause sudden changes but the don't last more than 10 years. So where in the record is there fast lasting change?

The Younger Dryas might qualify but how fast was that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe is right. It's probably far more likely that our decisions will be made by ignorant cowards like you and temperatures will go up 4C.

Maybe 10C?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Maybe 10C?

4 C should be sufficient.

 

[EMH]

Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.

Ice age glaciers like Greenland and Antarctica trap a lot of co2. The more ice age glacier, the more co2 gets trapped. The amount of ice and correspondingly the water level are earth thermometers. If the oceans are rising, the planet is warming. "Global warming" does not have any ocean rise, and has to lie about South Pacific islands approaching the pacific ring of fire to produce "evidence."

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ice age glaciers like Greenland and Antarctica trap a lot of co2. The more ice age glacier, the more co2 gets trapped.

What is your source that there is a significant amount of of CO2 trapped in glacier ice? Yeah there is some which is how they determine the composition of ancient atmospheres. But why would there be enough to matter to climate today?

 

[EMH]

What is your source that there is a significant amount of of CO2 trapped in glacier ice? Yeah there is some which is how they determine the composition of ancient atmospheres. But why would there be enough to matter to climate today?

It is what the data suggests, that co2 rise happens after warming, 800-2000 years later per the British court ruling in 2008. Data from ice cores.

The simple truth all along is that co2 has either no effect or statistically negligible effect on temps. The driver of earth climate change is ice. Ice is on land near earth poles. Land moves. Time to get a clue....

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Let me check






Still no

Simply because it's still all bullshit

You b3tter be eating bugs and bicycling to work ...ya fucking brain dead watermelon

 

[Grumblenuts]

Seems anti-science zealots are not accepting anthropogenic climate change yet.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It is what the data suggests, that co2 rise happens after warming, 800-2000 years later per the British court ruling in 2008. Data from ice cores.

The simple truth all along is that co2 has either no effect or statistically negligible effect on temps. The driver of earth climate change is ice. Ice is on land near earth poles. Land moves. Time to get a clue....

Warmer oceans hold less co2 in relation to the atmospheric concentration. The Milankovitch cycles starts the warming first. This causes the oceans to release CO2 thus temperature leads CO2. But this starts a feedback loop with CO2 caused greenhouse effect helping to raise temperatures. Thus the world comes out of glacier periods faster than it goes into them.

People who cannot handle multiple simultaneous variables but think they have clues are hilariously annoying.

 

[westwall]

B

Seems anti-science zealots are not accepting anthropogenic climate change yet.

Because it doesn't exist