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 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?
AGW Theory is a far more robust theory than that of gravity. We can observe and measure the effects of gravity, we still do not understand the underlaying principles.
The absorption spectra of the GHGs were measured in 1858 by Tyndall. The first quantifictation of the effects of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were done by Arrhenius in 1896.
If one is interested in the history of the scientific investigation of AGW, one can find it here, the web site of the American Institute of Physics, the single largest scientific society in the world, a scientific society of scientific socities.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Present a experiment that is MEASURABLE. Go ahead...I DARE you!
No, you don't. You wait until the situation is totally out of hand. Then you state that the scientists never warned you it would be this bad.
No, you don't. You wait until the situation is totally out of hand. Then you state that the scientists never warned you it would be this bad.
What's a climatic optimum?
No, you don't. You wait until the situation is totally out of hand. Then you state that the scientists never warned you it would be this bad.
What's a climatic optimum?
For whom and where?
Instead of posting your ignorance with really stupid questions like that, why don't you investigate what a rapid warming will mean to the agriculture that 7 billion people depend on. You might start by looking at the droughts and floods that have affected agriculture worldwide for the last 3 years.
What's a climatic optimum?
For whom and where?
Instead of posting your ignorance with really stupid questions like that, why don't you investigate what a rapid warming will mean to the agriculture that 7 billion people depend on. You might start by looking at the droughts and floods that have affected agriculture worldwide for the last 3 years.
What's a climatic optimum?
Why is it called that?
why don't you investigate what a rapid warming will mean
Rapid? Like 1 degree over the next 80 years?
For whom and where?
Instead of posting your ignorance with really stupid questions like that, why don't you investigate what a rapid warming will mean to the agriculture that 7 billion people depend on. You might start by looking at the droughts and floods that have affected agriculture worldwide for the last 3 years.
What's a climatic optimum?
Why is it called that?
why don't you investigate what a rapid warming will mean
Rapid? Like 1 degree over the next 80 years?
And your source for that number?
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/new...-high-side-climate-projections-analysis-finds
For more than 30 years, ECS in the leading models has averaged around 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius). This provides the best estimate of global temperature increase expected by the late 21st century compared to late 19th century values, assuming that society continues to emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. However, the ECS within individual models is as low as 3 degrees F and as high as 8 degrees F (, leaving a wide range of uncertainty that has proven difficult to narrow over the past three decades.
AGW Theory is a far more robust theory than that of gravity. We can observe and measure the effects of gravity, we still do not understand the underlaying principles.
The absorption spectra of the GHGs were measured in 1858 by Tyndall. The first quantifictation of the effects of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were done by Arrhenius in 1896.
If one is interested in the history of the scientific investigation of AGW, one can find it here, the web site of the American Institute of Physics, the single largest scientific society in the world, a scientific society of scientific socities.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Present a experiment that is MEASURABLE. Go ahead...I DARE you!
The absorption of longwave infrared has been measured many times since Tyndall in 1858.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf
No, you don't. You wait until the situation is totally out of hand. Then you state that the scientists never warned you it would be this bad.
What's a climatic optimum?
For whom and where?
Instead of posting your ignorance with really stupid questions like that, why don't you investigate what a rapid warming will mean to the agriculture that 7 billion people depend on. You might start by looking at the droughts and floods that have affected agriculture worldwide for the last 3 years.
What all posters on these threads need to keep in mind is this:
Posters who deny climate change:
Westwall
SSDD
Oddball
BriPat
Posters who deny that Hitler was right wing:
Westwall
SSDD
Oddball
BriPat
The same posters who deny modern science also deny modern history. Hence, it is not about facts - it is about a desire to deny facts.
At least on this board, Climate scepticism is basically a funding principle of extreme right wing political views.
Westwall -
No, I don't think any of you are Nazis at all, and I apologise if that was how you interpreted my post.
All four of you seem to hold political views closer to a kind of militant Randism than towards Fascism.
I do think all of you hold such very extreme right wing views that dealing with any kind of facts is simply impossible, because facts contradict your extreme world view. The desire to deny what is in dictionaries and what is seen out the window is essential to anyone holding very extreme views - be they Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Fascists, Communists or any other kind of fundamentalist.
No, I just understand that ultra right wing is anarchy and that ultra left wing is totalitarianism. Fascism, communism, theism are all variations on that theme, thus they are all basically the same.
you and your who wish for global government
you and your who wish for global government
...and there you go again.
Your views on everything are just so poisoned by political hate, paranoia and fear that it is impossible for you to post honestly or coherently on any topic.
You just descend immediately into lies and infantile accusations.
Really? What is the goal of the various governments to "control" the CO2 content of the atmosphere? Be VERY specific.
Westwall -
Really? What is the goal of the various governments to "control" the CO2 content of the atmosphere? Be VERY specific.
There is no Marxist global conspiracy, obviously. Hence is there is no "goal".
You are just posting paranoid gibberish. Why not ask you local Church of Scientology or Illuminatti what their view is?! They're very good with conspiracies!
