Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't believe 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 is a problem like you do, so why should I? I'm willing to bet your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine. Since you believe it IS a problem, what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?
Take it up with the climatologists at NASA if you don't like their math or conclusions.
How many mammoths do you see running around today? If you want to see a man-made climate disaster, go to the Greek islands. What was a lush forested land is now dessert. They chopped the trees down to build warships and changed the climate.Where has climate changed that suggests catastrophe?
My links were to NASA so that is just what I was doing. Their data analysis techniques are likely above my head, never having taken a statistics class, but I understand their conclusions just fine.Then you are a fool ... you should let NASA speak for themselves ... you don't understand what they say ... and you're just making a fool of yourself here ...
Thanks, I much prefer to be called a 'fool'.I apologize for the "liar" comment ... that was over the top and you don't deserve that ... I respect someone who knows their limits ...
The earth is in an interglacial period which is still 2C below temperatures of previous interglacial temperatures. So yes, the planet is still warming and within the normal range of previous interglacial periods.First off, my hypocrisy is none of your concern and deserves a thread of its own.
Secondly, whatever the truth about CO2, do you accept that the Earth is warming and the seas are rising?
So what? That has nothing to do with anything.Lots of things are perfectly natural but will kill us just as dead.
Humans live in all sorts of climates. You believe the planet will get warmer and that that will have catastrophic results. I don't believe the planet will get any warmer than previous interglacial periods and that it won't be harmful for life.Culturally, we are adapted this climate. Any change will require us to adapt and that will mean winners and losers. The US is rich and will likely be among the winners. Should we care about the losers?
Me too!!!!I quit filling my gas tank once a month, like the past 25 years ... today's stabilizers let's me go two months between fills without the gasoline going stale ...
And I want a warmer world ... so I also advocate the legalization of tire burning ... and arson along the Texas coast ... no reason, just random ... don't know why I thought of that ...
How many mammoths do you see running around today? If you want to see a man-made climate disaster, go to the Greek islands. What was a lush forested land is now dessert. They chopped the trees down to build warships and changed the climate.
My links were to NASA so that is just what I was doing. Their data analysis techniques are likely above my head, never having taken a statistics class, but I understand their conclusions just fine.
Thanks, I much prefer to be called a 'fool'.
If there were a way stop sea level rise and global warming, would you think it is a good thing for mankind?The earth is in an interglacial period which is still 2C below temperatures of previous interglacial temperatures. So yes, the planet is still warming and within the normal range of previous interglacial periods.
The sea level has been rising for 20,000 years and the rate of that rise has not materially changed in the last 6,000 years. So yes, the seas are still rising at the same rate they have been rising at for the past 6,000 years.
Do I think I (or you) know more than climate scientists? I do not.Do you believe that rate will triple by the end of the decade? Because that's their projection. It's completely ridiculous.
Depends upon the unintended consequences of the actions required to control the climate of the planet. Would you make it harder for other nations in climb out of poverty? Energy use equals improved living conditions. We should be burning more fossil fuels, not less.If there were a way stop sea level rise and global warming, would you think it is a good thing for mankind?
Do you have a brain? When the data shows a 6,000 year trend and someone tells you it will triple in ten years, do you just blindly accept that?Do I think I (or you) know more than climate scientists? I do not.
Exactly wrong. Arguing that we're in an interglacial period has nothing to do with anything. Sea levels are rising or they are not. Why has nothing to do with anything.So what? That has nothing to do with anything.
Exactly wrong. The goal should not be to encourage more fossil fuel use but less. The more the rich nations use of a finite resource the more expensive that resource will become. We can afford to pay more, others are not so fortunate. The smarter alternative is increased efficiency, nuclear, and renewable alternatives.Depends upon the unintended consequences of the actions required to control the climate of the planet. Would you make it harder for other nations in climb out of poverty? Energy use equals improved living conditions. We should be burning more fossil fuels, not less.
Plenty of species have gone extinct as climates change, I don't want to be among them. Any change in the global climate will create winners and losers. The Sahara was much lusher in previous times. If that happens now will the people who live there share their new found wealth with the farmers in Bangladesh?Humans live in all sorts of climates. You believe the planet will get warmer and that that will have catastrophic results. I don't believe the planet will get any warmer than previous interglacial periods and that it won't be harmful for life.
My argument is hardly emotional and I don't pretend to be any better than anyone else. I only see a looming disaster that others, like yourself, don't see. Only one of us is right.Stop trying to make this an emotional moral argument. Your carbon footprint is no different than mine. Pretending you care makes you look like a hypocrite.
He talked about mammothsWatched the first 1/3 but it didn't seem likely to answer the original question,
You say "fudge and twist", I'd wager they'd say they removed the noise in the data and the anomalous outliers.Go back ... stupid ... and read your own words again ... you made the claim that link contained the mathematics of the greenhouse effect ... something I am intimately familiar with ... and I agree the link contains the data this mathematics produces, if we fudge and twist some of the factors involved ...
I understand completely. They don't support your analysis so it must be fraud. (Kind of like Trump saying the only way he could lose was through fraud.) Am I stupid to post or you even more stupid to respond?What you're saying is you don't understand the fraud, so it can't be happening ... that's stupid ... why do you keep posting? ...
He said mammoths, mastodons, and elephants were all related. Duh.He talked about mammoths
