Global Warming Update

[Antares]

Relax, Obama told us in his inaugural speech that THAT very day would be the day the oceans would stop rising and that world would heal.

He would never lie about a thing like that.

 

[Erand7899]

Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?

No, KNB, there is no valid reason for clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, or burning toxic sludge for transportation. Does that make you feel better?

I personally don't know of anyone who favors polluting our air, our water, or our earth. Obviously, they do exist, but I doubt there is many of them out there. However, this earth has to feed, clothe, house, transport, warm, and entertain billions of people, all of whom desire to live and thrive here.

That means that we will never have pristine water or air, and we must cut wood, till the soil, mine for minerals, and drill for oil and gas. Consequently, we need to find the proper formula that provides for life to exist, and still maintain reasonably clean water and air. We need to use all of our resources responsibly and with adequate regard to the environment. That is called conservation.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?

There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.

 

[RDD_1210]

That means he ran out of gas and has moved to another bullshit narrative like conservatives hate women, want dirty water & air, etc.

All also true.

and its also true the ALL liberals suck the cocks of homeless drug addicts with aids.

Yeah, so...your point?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

Probably a lot better than you understand the difference between propaganda and science.

 

[auditor0007]

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?

Consensus circa 1200 AD

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that the Earth is a flat plane held up on the back of a giant turtle

We don't need science when we have God.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?

There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.

None of that changes the science tho

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

Probably a lot better than you understand the difference between propaganda and science.

Great point. Why don't you share what "science" studies you have read that lead you to believe that AGW is not real.

 

[Mustang]

Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?

When will you left wing fools learn the difference between man made pollution and man made climate change.

YES, man is polluting the planet

NO, man's pollution is not changing the climate

The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis (slight wobbles), and natural cycles that have been occuring for millions of years.

Man has nothing to do with it. never has, never will----unless we engage in a nuclear war with thousands of nuclear bombs. That would end man's time on the planet, but the planet would survive and in another milion years some other forms of life would show up.

The certitude of fools can be scary when the people who are wrong yet feel so certain about what they believe can affect the outcome of decisions.

Here are some facts for you.

A. The greenhouse effect is a real and easily proven phenomenon.

B. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, our planet's climate would not be warm enough to support human life.

C. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere occurs both as a result of naturally occurring processes which have nothing to do with humans AND as a result of human activity. Some of that human activity involves digging up carbon from inside the earth that's long been locked up in what are commonly known as sinks. This carbon, in the form of coal, oil, natural gas (methane) have been "out of circulation" for millions of years. The human need for energy reintroduces that formerly locked up carbon into the carbon cycle.

Prior to the industrial age, human activity wasn't that significant (burning wood, or peat wasn't much of a factor). That was especially true when the human population was relatively small.

The industrial revolution changed everything. The cheap energy allowed people to grow more crops, thereby supporting a larger population which, in turn, continued to grow while people also developed manufacturing on a much larger scale due to automation. The creation of machines which were used to build even bigger machines, and fuel-based transportation (like cars and trucks), and appliances which ran on electricity (which also consumed fossil fuels) accelerated the process further.

Here's the thing: The greenhouse effect doesn't care what the source of CO2 or methane is. The interaction of sunlight with greenhouse gases and the decrease of heat escaping from the planet is a process that will happen regardless of whether the gases result from a forest fire, or plate tectonics, or human activity.

The point is this. Once humans started reintroducing CO2 into the atmosphere, the trend only increased as the population grew and mechanization and industrialization increased all over the world. At the same time that humans were metaphorically burning the candle at one end (increasing CO2), we were also engaging in deforestation on the other end. It wouldn't be a big deal if we were removing CO2 at an equivalent rate to the reintroduction of CO2, but we are NOT doing that. The science behind the process of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear, and it's NOT in dispute in much the same way that erosion is not in dispute. And any trend line analysis can show both how fast that number is increasing and whether it's a continuous rate (a straight line) or an increasing rate (a curve). Alas, we are unfortunately on a curve while also doing little, if anything, to address the problem.

An increasing amount of CO2 translates to more heat which will cause a number effects. Some will seem beneficial...at first. Most will not be beneficial because the temperature is rising faster than plants and animals can adapt to the changes. However, one of the scariest aspects of this trend is that we don't know how it will all play out since most predictions have turned out to be too conservative and we also don't know how it will manifest itself. For example, at first scientists thought that the ice caps would melt on the margins alone, but there appears to be a Swiss cheese effect where melted warmer water falls below the surface, thereby warming the interior of the ice while also melting the ice from underneath and not just on the surface.

You and other deniers need to educate yourself. But I'm sorry to say that I don't expect that to happen. Hopefully, decision makers in gov't and industry will see the light before it's too late. I say that because the trend advances in such a way that CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to affect the climate for at least one hundred years after its introduction. Additionally, an atmospheric rise in temperature ultimately will end up in the ocean. Once a tipping point is reached, it likely won't make much difference what humans do at that point because the warming and the effects of the warming will continue their forward momentum much like a traveling car will continue to move forward once the brakes have been applied.

 

[Antares]

Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?

When will you left wing fools learn the difference between man made pollution and man made climate change.

YES, man is polluting the planet

NO, man's pollution is not changing the climate

The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis (slight wobbles), and natural cycles that have been occuring for millions of years.

Man has nothing to do with it. never has, never will----unless we engage in a nuclear war with thousands of nuclear bombs. That would end man's time on the planet, but the planet would survive and in another milion years some other forms of life would show up.

The certitude of fools can be scary when the people who are wrong yet feel so certain about what they believe can affect the outcome of decisions.

Here are some facts for you.

A. The greenhouse effect is a real and easily proven phenomenon.

B. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, our planet's climate would not be warm enough to support human life.

C. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere occurs both as a result of naturally occurring processes which have nothing to do with humans AND as a result of human activity. Some of that human activity involves digging up carbon from inside the earth that's long been locked up in what are commonly known as sinks. This carbon, in the form of coal, oil, natural gas (methane) have been "out of circulation" for millions of years. The human need for energy reintroduces that formerly locked up carbon into the carbon cycle.

Prior to the industrial age, human activity wasn't that significant (burning wood, or peat wasn't much of a factor). That was especially true when the human population was relatively small.

The industrial revolution changed everything. The cheap energy allowed people to grow more crops, thereby supporting a larger population which, in turn, continued to grow while people also developed manufacturing on a much larger scale due to automation. The creation of machines which were used to build even bigger machines, and fuel-based transportation (like cars and trucks), and appliances which ran on electricity (which also consumed fossil fuels) accelerated the process further.

Here's the thing: The greenhouse effect doesn't care what the source of CO2 or methane is. The interaction of sunlight with greenhouse gases and the decrease of heat escaping from the planet is a process that will happen regardless of whether the gases result from a forest fire, or plate tectonics, or human activity.

The point is this. Once humans started reintroducing CO2 into the atmosphere, the trend only increased as the population grew and mechanization and industrialization increased all over the world. At the same time that humans were metaphorically burning the candle at one end (increasing CO2), we were also engaging in deforestation on the other end. It wouldn't be a big deal if we were removing CO2 at an equivalent rate to the reintroduction of CO2, but we are NOT doing that. The science behind the process of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear, and it's NOT in dispute in much the same way that erosion is not in dispute. And any trend line analysis can show both how fast that number is increasing and whether it's a continuous rate (a straight line) or an increasing rate (a curve). Alas, we are unfortunately on a curve while also doing little, if anything, to address the problem.

An increasing amount of CO2 translates to more heat which will cause a number effects. Some will seem beneficial...at first. Most will not be beneficial because the temperature is rising faster than plants and animals can adapt to the changes. However, one of the scariest aspects of this trend is that we don't know how it will all play out since most predictions have turned out to be too conservative and we also don't know how it will manifest itself. For example, at first scientists thought that the ice caps would melt on the margins alone, but there appears to be a Swiss cheese effect where melted warmer water falls below the surface, thereby warming the interior of the ice while also melting the ice from underneath and not just on the surface.

You and other deniers need to educate yourself. But I'm sorry to say that I don't expect that to happen. Hopefully, decision makers in gov't and industry will see the light before it's too late. I say that because the trend advances in such a way that CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to affect the climate for at least one hundred years after its introduction. Additionally, an atmospheric rise in temperature ultimately will end up in the ocean. Once a tipping point is reached, it likely won't make much difference what humans do at that point because the warming and the effects of the warming will continue their forward momentum much like a traveling car will continue to move forward once the brakes have been applied.

Uh....sure....and NO dissenter could POSSIBLY be correct because you have the only truth.
We get it.

 

[BlindBoo]

That means he ran out of gas and has moved to another bullshit narrative like conservatives hate women, want dirty water & air, etc.

All also true.

and its also true the ALL liberals suck the cocks of homeless drug addicts with aids.

Nothing like displaying true colors.

 

[Mustang]

When will you left wing fools learn the difference between man made pollution and man made climate change.

YES, man is polluting the planet

NO, man's pollution is not changing the climate

The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis (slight wobbles), and natural cycles that have been occuring for millions of years.

Man has nothing to do with it. never has, never will----unless we engage in a nuclear war with thousands of nuclear bombs. That would end man's time on the planet, but the planet would survive and in another milion years some other forms of life would show up.

The certitude of fools can be scary when the people who are wrong yet feel so certain about what they believe can affect the outcome of decisions.

Here are some facts for you.

A. The greenhouse effect is a real and easily proven phenomenon.

B. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, our planet's climate would not be warm enough to support human life.

C. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere occurs both as a result of naturally occurring processes which have nothing to do with humans AND as a result of human activity. Some of that human activity involves digging up carbon from inside the earth that's long been locked up in what are commonly known as sinks. This carbon, in the form of coal, oil, natural gas (methane) have been "out of circulation" for millions of years. The human need for energy reintroduces that formerly locked up carbon into the carbon cycle.

Prior to the industrial age, human activity wasn't that significant (burning wood, or peat wasn't much of a factor). That was especially true when the human population was relatively small.

The industrial revolution changed everything. The cheap energy allowed people to grow more crops, thereby supporting a larger population which, in turn, continued to grow while people also developed manufacturing on a much larger scale due to automation. The creation of machines which were used to build even bigger machines, and fuel-based transportation (like cars and trucks), and appliances which ran on electricity (which also consumed fossil fuels) accelerated the process further.

Here's the thing: The greenhouse effect doesn't care what the source of CO2 or methane is. The interaction of sunlight with greenhouse gases and the decrease of heat escaping from the planet is a process that will happen regardless of whether the gases result from a forest fire, or plate tectonics, or human activity.

The point is this. Once humans started reintroducing CO2 into the atmosphere, the trend only increased as the population grew and mechanization and industrialization increased all over the world. At the same time that humans were metaphorically burning the candle at one end (increasing CO2), we were also engaging in deforestation on the other end. It wouldn't be a big deal if we were removing CO2 at an equivalent rate to the reintroduction of CO2, but we are NOT doing that. The science behind the process of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear, and it's NOT in dispute in much the same way that erosion is not in dispute. And any trend line analysis can show both how fast that number is increasing and whether it's a continuous rate (a straight line) or an increasing rate (a curve). Alas, we are unfortunately on a curve while also doing little, if anything, to address the problem.

An increasing amount of CO2 translates to more heat which will cause a number effects. Some will seem beneficial...at first. Most will not be beneficial because the temperature is rising faster than plants and animals can adapt to the changes. However, one of the scariest aspects of this trend is that we don't know how it will all play out since most predictions have turned out to be too conservative and we also don't know how it will manifest itself. For example, at first scientists thought that the ice caps would melt on the margins alone, but there appears to be a Swiss cheese effect where melted warmer water falls below the surface, thereby warming the interior of the ice while also melting the ice from underneath and not just on the surface.

You and other deniers need to educate yourself. But I'm sorry to say that I don't expect that to happen. Hopefully, decision makers in gov't and industry will see the light before it's too late. I say that because the trend advances in such a way that CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to affect the climate for at least one hundred years after its introduction. Additionally, an atmospheric rise in temperature ultimately will end up in the ocean. Once a tipping point is reached, it likely won't make much difference what humans do at that point because the warming and the effects of the warming will continue their forward momentum much like a traveling car will continue to move forward once the brakes have been applied.

Uh....sure....and NO dissenter could POSSIBLY be correct because you have the only truth.
We get it.

I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently of whether I or anyone else likes it, or agrees with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced depending on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.

 

[ClosedCaption]

See the pattern: Ask for evidence, then ignore it once its provided. Wait a week and start a thread asking for evidence, then ignore it once its provided....Wait a week...

 

[Antares]

The certitude of fools can be scary when the people who are wrong yet feel so certain about what they believe can affect the outcome of decisions.

Here are some facts for you.

A. The greenhouse effect is a real and easily proven phenomenon.

B. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, our planet's climate would not be warm enough to support human life.

C. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere occurs both as a result of naturally occurring processes which have nothing to do with humans AND as a result of human activity. Some of that human activity involves digging up carbon from inside the earth that's long been locked up in what are commonly known as sinks. This carbon, in the form of coal, oil, natural gas (methane) have been "out of circulation" for millions of years. The human need for energy reintroduces that formerly locked up carbon into the carbon cycle.

Prior to the industrial age, human activity wasn't that significant (burning wood, or peat wasn't much of a factor). That was especially true when the human population was relatively small.

The industrial revolution changed everything. The cheap energy allowed people to grow more crops, thereby supporting a larger population which, in turn, continued to grow while people also developed manufacturing on a much larger scale due to automation. The creation of machines which were used to build even bigger machines, and fuel-based transportation (like cars and trucks), and appliances which ran on electricity (which also consumed fossil fuels) accelerated the process further.

Here's the thing: The greenhouse effect doesn't care what the source of CO2 or methane is. The interaction of sunlight with greenhouse gases and the decrease of heat escaping from the planet is a process that will happen regardless of whether the gases result from a forest fire, or plate tectonics, or human activity.

The point is this. Once humans started reintroducing CO2 into the atmosphere, the trend only increased as the population grew and mechanization and industrialization increased all over the world. At the same time that humans were metaphorically burning the candle at one end (increasing CO2), we were also engaging in deforestation on the other end. It wouldn't be a big deal if we were removing CO2 at an equivalent rate to the reintroduction of CO2, but we are NOT doing that. The science behind the process of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear, and it's NOT in dispute in much the same way that erosion is not in dispute. And any trend line analysis can show both how fast that number is increasing and whether it's a continuous rate (a straight line) or an increasing rate (a curve). Alas, we are unfortunately on a curve while also doing little, if anything, to address the problem.

An increasing amount of CO2 translates to more heat which will cause a number effects. Some will seem beneficial...at first. Most will not be beneficial because the temperature is rising faster than plants and animals can adapt to the changes. However, one of the scariest aspects of this trend is that we don't know how it will all play out since most predictions have turned out to be too conservative and we also don't know how it will manifest itself. For example, at first scientists thought that the ice caps would melt on the margins alone, but there appears to be a Swiss cheese effect where melted warmer water falls below the surface, thereby warming the interior of the ice while also melting the ice from underneath and not just on the surface.

You and other deniers need to educate yourself. But I'm sorry to say that I don't expect that to happen. Hopefully, decision makers in gov't and industry will see the light before it's too late. I say that because the trend advances in such a way that CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to affect the climate for at least one hundred years after its introduction. Additionally, an atmospheric rise in temperature ultimately will end up in the ocean. Once a tipping point is reached, it likely won't make much difference what humans do at that point because the warming and the effects of the warming will continue their forward momentum much like a traveling car will continue to move forward once the brakes have been applied.

Uh....sure....and NO dissenter could POSSIBLY be correct because you have the only truth.
We get it.

I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently on whether I or anyone else likes it, or agree with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Uh....sure....and NO dissenter could POSSIBLY be correct because you have the only truth.
We get it.

I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently on whether I or anyone else likes it, or agree with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

So you have nothing but a list of what things are NOT?

Ok, so you dont believe in scientific consensus as being proof of anything but you believe that BELIEVING is enough proof for you? Because you dont have any evidence to back you up, no polls, research anything but you believe it?

Based on what? Faith?

 

[Antares]

I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently on whether I or anyone else likes it, or agree with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

So you have nothing but a list of what things are NOT?

Ok, so you dont believe in scientific consensus as being proof of anything but you believe that BELIEVING is enough proof for you? Because you dont have any evidence to back you up, no polls, research anything but you believe it?

Based on what? Faith?

Is it your contention that the studies disagreeing with your findings are not
"peer reviewed"?

Is it your contention that ALL of the evidence provided to show you that it isn't happening are wrong?

Is it your contention that emails from the East Anglia folks showing that they knowingly fudged the data not true?

 

[Mustang]

Uh....sure....and NO dissenter could POSSIBLY be correct because you have the only truth.
We get it.

I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently on whether I or anyone else likes it, or agree with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

I didn't say that science proved that humans are causing climate change.

I said that the greenhouse effect is a proven fact. It is.

Some people may be willing to embrace the notion that human activity (and the greenhouses gases we put into the atmosphere) is not significant enough to make a difference in the climate. But it's STILL a fact that the greenhouse effect is real.

So, the REAL question is what level of increased CO2 introduced to the atmosphere is necessary to affect the climate. If that's ever established, it won't make a difference what the source of the CO2 is. Whether it's natural, or caused by humans, it will have the same effect because the atmosphere does not distinguish between the two; it reacts the same way, regardless of the source.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

So you have nothing but a list of what things are NOT?

Ok, so you dont believe in scientific consensus as being proof of anything but you believe that BELIEVING is enough proof for you? Because you dont have any evidence to back you up, no polls, research anything but you believe it?

Based on what? Faith?

Is it your contention that the studies disagreeing with your findings are not
"peer reviewed"?

Is it your contention that ALL of the evidence provided to show you that it isn't happening are wrong?

Is it your contention that emails from the East Anglia folks showing that they knowingly fudged the data not true?

Yes

Maybe, is it peer reviewed for accuracy?

No but that, or Al Gore, Solyndra, Green Tech etc...None of that changes the science and the science says that Global warming is real.

Your turn.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real? Faith?

 

[Antares]

I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently on whether I or anyone else likes it, or agree with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

I didn't say that science proved that humans are causing climate change.

I said that the greenhouse effect is a proven fact. It is.

Some people may be willing to embrace the notion that human activity (and the greenhouses gases we put into the atmosphere) is not significant enough to make a difference in the climate. But it's STILL a fact that the greenhouse effect is real.

So, the REAL question is what level of increased CO2 introduced to the atmosphere is necessary to affect the climate. If that's ever established, it won't make a difference what the source of the CO2 is. Whether it's natural, or caused by humans, it will have the same effect because the atmosphere does not distinguish between the two; it reacts the same way, regardless of the source.

There are many studies showing that Water Vapor is the culprit, not co2.

 

[Antares]

So you have nothing but a list of what things are NOT?

Ok, so you dont believe in scientific consensus as being proof of anything but you believe that BELIEVING is enough proof for you? Because you dont have any evidence to back you up, no polls, research anything but you believe it?

Based on what? Faith?

Is it your contention that the studies disagreeing with your findings are not
"peer reviewed"?

Is it your contention that ALL of the evidence provided to show you that it isn't happening are wrong?

Is it your contention that emails from the East Anglia folks showing that they knowingly fudged the data not true?

Yes

Maybe, is it peer reviewed for accuracy?

No but that, or Al Gore, Solyndra, Green Tech etc...None of that changes the science and the science says that Global warming is real.

Your turn.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real? Faith?

I am on an IPAD right now, I have no idea how to post things on it.

There is NO reason to "peer review" for anything OTHER than accuracy.