Global Warming Pie Chart

[Dragonlady]

More like, how do we know they're right and why should we spend trillions and give the government more power, to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

Since the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that carbon emissions are affecting climate, the bigger question is why are you so keen on denying that there might be something to it.

Nobody has asked for "trillions of dollars". They've asked businesses to cut carbon emissions. At worst, it's helping us breath better. At best, we're helping the planet to survive.

Is it possible that your reluctance to participate is because you fear this may cost you money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought someone would've debunked this by now. Only thing that's been said is "it snowed today" + "how do we know they're right? Maybe they aren't" and in some circles observing today's weather plus questions rising from ignorance equals debunking.

It's like a child saying "oh yeah, well if Elephants are so fast then why are they fat?"

"how do we know they're right?

More like, how do we know they're right and why should we spend trillions and give the government more power, to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

Well, considering that thousand of scientist agree while that doesnt prove they are correct...it's a lot more convincing than the 24 that disagree. If you are looking to cause reasonable doubt thats fine. But 24 vs thousands isnt a good start.

To answer your question is to err on the bad side of the what if?
What if humans can have an impact on the earth?
Your answer would be: Do nothing
My answer would be: Do something

You might ask why? Well, if we do nothing the planet that we live on could be adversly affected. what happens to the water also happens to the ppl. That is bad. What if we did something! Well, if we do something the planet that we live on could be affected less by our actions.

Seems like a good bet to take, wouldnt you agree?

Well, considering that thousand of scientist agree while that doesnt prove they are correct...

Especially when you read their emails.

To answer your question is to err on the bad side of the what if?

The bad side? Feel free to spend your trillions, leave my money alone.

Well, if we do nothing the planet that we live on could be adversly affected.

Or warming could be beneficial. What's a climatic optimum?

What if we did something!

What if we built a few dozen new nuclear power plants?

Well, if we do something the planet that we live on could be affected less by our actions.

I know, we could spend trillions to reduce temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080.

Seems like a good bet to take, wouldnt you agree?

I can think of much better uses for the trillions you feel we should spend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More like, how do we know they're right and why should we spend trillions and give the government more power, to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

Since the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that carbon emissions are affecting climate, the bigger question is why are you so keen on denying that there might be something to it.

Nobody has asked for "trillions of dollars". They've asked businesses to cut carbon emissions. At worst, it's helping us breath better. At best, we're helping the planet to survive.

Is it possible that your reluctance to participate is because you fear this may cost you money?

Since the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that carbon emissions are affecting climate

Or the climate could be affecting the carbon emissions.

Nobody has asked for "trillions of dollars".

Really? Didn't Energy Secretary Chu want $9 gas?
You think all these big government mandates have no price tag?

They've asked businesses to cut carbon emissions.

Asked?

At worst, it's helping us breath better.

You have trouble breathing with CO2 at 400 ppm?

At best, we're helping the planet to survive.

How did the planet survive when CO2 was several thousand PPM?

Is it possible that your reluctance to participate is because you fear this may cost you money?

Why would I be afraid of political insiders getting hundreds of millions in taxpayer loan guarantees just because they donated to Obama? (Solyndra...cough...cough)
Why would I be afraid of government regulations crushing our economy?
I'm sure those wise bureaucrats would never waste our tax dollars to reduce temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080.

 

[Obamanation]

The sky is falling...

Have you ever seen a bigger bunch of wack jobs??

I mean really...

Global warming -- hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Todd just has anti-points...He values money of anything that COULD happen to the planet. Every answer consists of cost and money but he sees no value in doing anything about the current state of the planet.

Hes a do nothing, whos proud of doing jack squat and promotes nothing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd just has anti-points...He values money of anything that COULD happen to the planet. Every answer consists of cost and money but he sees no value in doing anything about the current state of the planet.

Hes a do nothing, whos proud of doing jack squat and promotes nothing

Waste trillions, it may prevent the problem that might not be a problem.
And hurry!!!

 

[FJO]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Discuss..

That is about the same proportion as the Earth Is The Center Of The Universe Deniers were 600 years ago.

Luckily for the Climate Change deniers, they are not going to be burned on the stake.

 

[tap4154]

No one I know doubts that climate cycles exist.

The evidence is in the ice core data:

Note that CO2 increases lag behind temp increases, by about 800 years. This is because when the oceans warm dissolved gases are released from them, including CO2. Also note the spike in CO2 at the far right due to the industrial age, yet temps do not follow that spike up.

The attempt to make CO2 into a commodity to be taxed and traded is simply an attempt to redistribute wealth. Has nothing to due with altering natural climate cycles.

Sunspot cycles, variation in Earth's orbit, wobbles in Earth's rotation, and ocean current cycles cause the large climate cycles -- not CO2, or Man.

We do need to address REAL surface air pollution, which CO2 is not, and have done a pretty good job in America!

But nations like China and India are a mess.

 

[FJO]

China and India can do whatever the Hell they want.

They are "Developing" nations.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Todd just has anti-points...He values money of anything that COULD happen to the planet. Every answer consists of cost and money but he sees no value in doing anything about the current state of the planet.

Hes a do nothing, whos proud of doing jack squat and promotes nothing

Waste trillions, it may prevent the problem that might not be a problem.
And hurry!!!

See, it wouldnt be a waste if it is a problem now would it? Your mights only work one way...thats not how possibilities work

 

[tap4154]

China and India can do whatever the Hell they want.

They are "Developing" nations.

Yes, as America is declining under the ineptness of Obama and the Dem senate, and liberal legislators across the nation, destroying the cities and states they control.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd just has anti-points...He values money of anything that COULD happen to the planet. Every answer consists of cost and money but he sees no value in doing anything about the current state of the planet.

Hes a do nothing, whos proud of doing jack squat and promotes nothing

Waste trillions, it may prevent the problem that might not be a problem.
And hurry!!!

See, it wouldnt be a waste if it is a problem now would it? Your mights only work one way...thats not how possibilities work

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

 

[healthmyths]

More like, how do we know they're right and why should we spend trillions and give the government more power, to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

Since the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that carbon emissions are affecting climate, the bigger question is why are you so keen on denying that there might be something to it.

Nobody has asked for "trillions of dollars". They've asked businesses to cut carbon emissions. At worst, it's helping us breath better. At best, we're helping the planet to survive.

Is it possible that your reluctance to participate is because you fear this may cost you money?

Did you ever hear of "net carbon sink - sequesters"? (Not financial as relates to congress ok??)

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket.
World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing

So again I ask what country should pay a carbon tax if our landscapes absorbs all the USA emits and can absorb another 10%?

 

[westwall]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Discuss..

Yes, let us look at that wonderful little pie chart and let us also not forget that the warmists control who gets to publish in their journals in the first place shall we. As another example of how the warmists control who and what gets published I present the facts behind how the 97% meme got started. You know...that claim that 97% of the worlds scientists believe in agw..remember that one?

Here's how it all came about....

The survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, it was a short survey that took less then 2 minutes to fill out. Thus 3,146 responded to it. Out of nine questions in the survey the two important ones were....

"When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" = 90% responded yes

And

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" = 82% responded yes

Both loaded questions and ones that wouldn't pass muster in any legitimate survey but we'll ignore that fact for now... what is more interesting is what the survey takers did with the numbers. 86% is not as impressive a number as they wanted so they began culling respondents. First they got rid of everyone who was not a climatologist..then they settled on every respondent had to have published 50% of their papers in the field of climatology and that dropped the total number down to 79. And of that number only 74 agreed with both loaded questions. That's how you got the 97% meme. And that is also how you get the fatally flawed pseudo science of AGW.

However, you will not pay attention to real science as you are clearly a religious fanatic so "faith" is all you need.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.


If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming? - Forbes

 

[ClosedCaption]

Waste trillions, it may prevent the problem that might not be a problem.
And hurry!!!

See, it wouldnt be a waste if it is a problem now would it? Your mights only work one way...thats not how possibilities work

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

 

[tap4154]

Cycles, dude.

Natural cycles.

Just happens that we're at the top of one right now.

CO2 is harmless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See, it wouldnt be a waste if it is a problem now would it? Your mights only work one way...thats not how possibilities work

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Why do you keep saying Trillions?

Because the government wants us to waste/spend trillions.

Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Because that's the maximum reduction we'd buy with our wasted trillions.

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing?

Then your wasted trillions would be wasted.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yes, let us look at that wonderful little pie chart and let us also not forget that the warmists control who gets to publish in their journals in the first place shall we.

Lets remember that you have nothing to prove that to be true and will now cry about it instead of provide anything resembling proof

As another example of how the warmists control who and what gets published I present the facts behind how the 97% meme got started. You know...that claim that 97% of the worlds scientists believe in agw..remember that one?

However, you will not pay attention to real science as you are clearly a religious fanatic so "faith" is all you need.

Where is this real science you speak about? And why havent the cons presented it? Is it a secret?

 

[tap4154]

CO2 lags behind temp increases, it does not create warming.