Climate Change Deniers Are Immoral

[SSDD]

Except you are the liar here. Anyone can go to IPCC.ch and see the evidence for themselves. As they do so, more and more of them will become aware of the quality of your information.

We have already been crick...and all that you could bring back was a graphic showing that CO2 absorbs IR...and you didn't even bring the one back showing that CO2 also emits what it absorbs...and you claimed that it represents downward radiation but failed to mention...or perhaps just didn't know that the instrument that gathered the data was cooled to a temperature of about -80C...so what you saw was not downward radiation from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth..it was radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...

Downward radiation has never been measured at ambient temperature because it doesn't happen...energy always moves from warm to cool...not the other way around.

 

[Crick]

You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief. I don't know how you manage to keep the keyboard on the table.

YO FOLKS, SSDD IS SHOWING OFF HIS SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU ALL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION. IF I'M STANDING NEXT TO MY WIFE AND SHE IS ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE WARMER THAN I AM, SSDD SAYS I WILL STOP RADIATING TOWARDS HER. That's because my body can tell what her temperature is. correcting my sensations for the color of her clothing and skin and the effect of the air between us. In fact, in SSDD's view, a lump of rock can tell the temperature of another rock on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy INSTANTLY.

Anyone who listens to this man for science information is doing themselves an enormous disservice. He's a fucking idiot.

 

[jc456]

The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.

Is it more moral to demand observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for a thing and remain skeptical till such time as the evidence is produced...or to simply accept a claim based primarily on one's political leanings...and cause untold harm to world and personal economies?

Feel free to remain skeptical while the wold burns.

Do you really think the earth is going to burn? Have you been that thoroughly duped? Do you have any idea what the average temperature on earth has ben across its history?....or what the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been?

I think that the issue is REALLY that even minor changes in
climate and concentrations of this or that gas will have MAJOR
impacts on the DELICATE balance of nature------not that the planet is going to turn into a ball of fire

You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance? Really? Look around. The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica. That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance.

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere? And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

 

[LaDexter]

Whoever wrote the title of this thread is fully qualified as a SUB HUMAN.


Nobody denies that the climate changes. What we deny is that somehow fudge, fraud, and endless parroting equals proof for a theory with precisely no evidence to support it.


Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

If Co2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea ICe growing?

During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving that CO2 had precisely NOTHING to do with either event....

 

[SSDD]

You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief. I don't know how you manage to keep the keyboard on the table.

YO FOLKS, SSDD IS SHOWING OFF HIS SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU ALL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION. IF I'M STANDING NEXT TO MY WIFE AND SHE IS ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE WARMER THAN I AM, SSDD SAYS I WILL STOP RADIATING TOWARDS HER. That's because my body can tell what her temperature is. correcting my sensations for the color of her clothing and skin and the effect of the air between us. In fact, in SSDD's view, a lump of rock can tell the temperature of another rock on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy INSTANTLY.

Anyone who listens to this man for science information is doing themselves an enormous disservice. He's a fucking idiot.

Sorry crick but alas, it is you who is to stupid for words....if you accept the existence of photons that zip about at the speed of light, then you must accept that from their point of view, the distance between their point of origin and their destination is zero and the time to reach that destination is also zero...the energy movement via radiation is the same as the energy movement via conduction....energy always conducts along a temperature gradient...from warm to cool...there is no such thing as back conduction...energy doesn't attempt to move from cooler areas of the material to warmer areas of the material because the distance between the two gradients is zero...the energy always migrates to the cooler regions...the distance from here to there from a photon's point of view is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction...and the time to get there is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction.

Now in so far as a photon's point of view...are you denying that the distance from a rock here on this planet to another rock on the planet in the Andromeda galaxy is zero?...is that what you are denying?...and are you also denying that the time it takes to get from one rock to the other, from the photon's point of view is also zero?...are you really denying that? Go ahead...say it...

 

[LaDexter]

He's a fucking idiot.

That's a huge improvement over what constitutes your supporters, who aren't even human because they cannot think, because all they ever do is...

 

[Crick]

You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief. I don't know how you manage to keep the keyboard on the table.

YO FOLKS, SSDD IS SHOWING OFF HIS SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU ALL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION. IF I'M STANDING NEXT TO MY WIFE AND SHE IS ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE WARMER THAN I AM, SSDD SAYS I WILL STOP RADIATING TOWARDS HER. That's because my body can tell what her temperature is. correcting my sensations for the color of her clothing and skin and the effect of the air between us. In fact, in SSDD's view, a lump of rock can tell the temperature of another rock on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy INSTANTLY.

Anyone who listens to this man for science information is doing themselves an enormous disservice. He's a fucking idiot.

Sorry crick but alas, it is you who is to stupid for words....if you accept the existence of photons that zip about at the speed of light, then you must accept that from their point of view, the distance between their point of origin and their destination is zero and the time to reach that destination is also zero..

You just learned this little tidbit of relativity, didn't you. There's no other explanation for your sudden excitement. The Lorentz Transforms were penned before the turn of last century numbnuts.

.the energy movement via radiation is the same as the energy movement via conduction....energy always conducts along a temperature gradient...from warm to cool...there is no such thing as back conduction...energy doesn't attempt to move from cooler areas of the material to warmer areas of the material because the distance between the two gradients is zero...the energy always migrates to the cooler regions

You're a complete fool. All matter radiates all the time in all directions. All your discussions are STUPID misinterpretations of net flow. Truly stupid. They require all the insane nonsense I and several others have stated. You'd need all matter able to throttle and aim its own emissions, smart photons and routine violations of special relativity. If none of that makes you think you might be looking at radiative heat transfer the wrong way, there's not a fucking thing we can do to help you because you've CHOSEN to be this stupid.

...the distance from here to there from a photon's point of view is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction...and the time to get there is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction.

You believe conduction happens instantaneously? Conduction doesn't involve photons you know... You didn't know, did you. I guess you can impress the other furniture movers at the water cooler with this stuff, but don't let that ever give you the impression that you have the faintest fuck of an idea what's actually going on.

Now in so far as a photon's point of view...are you denying that the distance from a rock here on this planet to another rock on the planet in the Andromeda galaxy is zero?...is that what you are denying?...and are you also denying that the time it takes to get from one rock to the other, from the photon's point of view is also zero?...are you really denying that? Go ahead...say it...

No time passes for a photon, that is absolutely true. But apparently you haven't thought out the actual repercussions of that point. If no time passes, nothing can happen. No event can take place. No change can occur. If you think Lorentz time dilation has rescued your insanity from violating relativity... you were wrong. You're still fucked and still fucking stupid.

 

[IanC]

Is it more moral to demand observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for a thing and remain skeptical till such time as the evidence is produced...or to simply accept a claim based primarily on one's political leanings...and cause untold harm to world and personal economies?

Feel free to remain skeptical while the wold burns.

Do you really think the earth is going to burn? Have you been that thoroughly duped? Do you have any idea what the average temperature on earth has ben across its history?....or what the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been?

I think that the issue is REALLY that even minor changes in
climate and concentrations of this or that gas will have MAJOR
impacts on the DELICATE balance of nature------not that the planet is going to turn into a ball of fire

You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance? Really? Look around. The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica. That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance.

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere? And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

 

[jc456]

Feel free to remain skeptical while the wold burns.

Do you really think the earth is going to burn? Have you been that thoroughly duped? Do you have any idea what the average temperature on earth has ben across its history?....or what the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been?

I think that the issue is REALLY that even minor changes in
climate and concentrations of this or that gas will have MAJOR
impacts on the DELICATE balance of nature------not that the planet is going to turn into a ball of fire

You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance? Really? Look around. The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica. That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance.

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere? And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

 

[irosie91]

Do you really think the earth is going to burn? Have you been that thoroughly duped? Do you have any idea what the average temperature on earth has ben across its history?....or what the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been?

I think that the issue is REALLY that even minor changes in
climate and concentrations of this or that gas will have MAJOR
impacts on the DELICATE balance of nature------not that the planet is going to turn into a ball of fire

You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance? Really? Look around. The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica. That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance.

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere? And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

 

[IanC]

I think that the issue is REALLY that even minor changes in
climate and concentrations of this or that gas will have MAJOR
impacts on the DELICATE balance of nature------not that the planet is going to turn into a ball of fire

You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance? Really? Look around. The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica. That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance.

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere? And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

 

[irosie91]

You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance? Really? Look around. The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica. That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance.

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere? And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

 

[jc456]

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Well for me, I'd prefer to see evidence that CO2 has magic powers. Four years in here, Zero evidence provided.

 

[Billy_Bob]

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

The earth has survived CO2 levels above 7,000ppm... The kind of change needed to "throw" the earth off its game is going to be a whole lot more than man burning everything on earth...

 

[irosie91]

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Well for me, I'd prefer to see evidence that CO2 has magic powers. Four years in here, Zero evidence provided.

CO2 has VERY MAGICAL POWERS-------try googling what happens to a HUMAN BEAN----who, because of respiratory
problem----ie--lung problems RETAINS CO2. CO2 also
kinda acidifies the---"situation" Want to die? ("god" forbid) put yourself in a sealed room and pump it full or CO2---you will need a one way valve to let the O2 out

on the other hand----without CO2-----where would PEPSI be?

 

[IanC]

or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Warmer temps, increased CO2 (plant food). Kinda sounds like a commercial greenhouse for growing food and flowers, doesn't it?

 

[irosie91]

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.



You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Warmer temps, increased CO2 (plant food). Kinda sounds like a commercial greenhouse for growing food and flowers, doesn't it?

sorry----only very simplistically and superficially------O2 Nitrogen, CO2 balance is not all that simple

 

[jc456]

Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Warmer temps, increased CO2 (plant food). Kinda sounds like a commercial greenhouse for growing food and flowers, doesn't it?

The only accurate part of that was plant food. Verified

 

[jc456]

so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe, It's fairly simple to know why. and therefore the question is,....so?

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Well for me, I'd prefer to see evidence that CO2 has magic powers. Four years in here, Zero evidence provided.

CO2 has VERY MAGICAL POWERS-------try googling what happens to a HUMAN BEAN----who, because of respiratory
problem----ie--lung problems RETAINS CO2. CO2 also
kinda acidifies the---"situation" Want to die? ("god" forbid) put yourself in a sealed room and pump it full or CO2---you will need a one way valve to let the O2 out

on the other hand----without CO2-----where would PEPSI be?

Sorry, but nope

 

[Crick]

the "so" depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Well for me, I'd prefer to see evidence that CO2 has magic powers. Four years in here, Zero evidence provided.

CO2 has VERY MAGICAL POWERS-------try googling what happens to a HUMAN BEAN----who, because of respiratory
problem----ie--lung problems RETAINS CO2. CO2 also
kinda acidifies the---"situation" Want to die? ("god" forbid) put yourself in a sealed room and pump it full or CO2---you will need a one way valve to let the O2 out

on the other hand----without CO2-----where would PEPSI be?

Sorry, but nope

Why do you think the world's scientists - essentially every single one of them - disagree with you JC?