how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[bripat9643]

It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.

One degree is a problem for us on a planet that experiences wild temperature swings?
The Miocene, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were at least a degree warmer than the present...what sort of problems does history tell us that temperature increase caused other than to allow mankind to flourish?

They hadn't arranged their civilization around a previous climate like we have. Plus the whole world population then was nothing compared today.

Too many mouths to feed today. To many farms and cities to relocate.

A warmer climate is better for food production. When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.

 

[Foxfyre]

One degree is a problem for us on a planet that experiences wild temperature swings?
The Miocene, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were at least a degree warmer than the present...what sort of problems does history tell us that temperature increase caused other than to allow mankind to flourish?

They hadn't arranged their civilization around a previous climate like we have. Plus the whole world population then was nothing compared today.

Too many mouths to feed today. To many farms and cities to relocate.

A warmer climate is better for food production. When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.

Yup. Some areas might have to switch to crops more suitable for a somewhat warmer environment and Canada and Siberia could become breadbaskets for the world. But nobody ever seems to want to focus on the potential positives.

 

[westwall]

Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?

Prove that even one of the concepts that I posted was wrong using actual observed data.

Yes, I am informed about physics...yes I saw your posts. You didn't offer up the slightest proof of anything. You made claims and nothing more and I never saw any instance of you completing a thought based on a principle of physics.

What do you think you posted that was based on actual observed data?

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

 

[westwall]

One degree is a problem for us on a planet that experiences wild temperature swings?
The Miocene, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were at least a degree warmer than the present...what sort of problems does history tell us that temperature increase caused other than to allow mankind to flourish?

They hadn't arranged their civilization around a previous climate like we have. Plus the whole world population then was nothing compared today.

Too many mouths to feed today. To many farms and cities to relocate.

A warmer climate is better for food production. When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.

Yes that time is called the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and it was immediately followed by the Dark Ages...... Kind of appropriate as the enviro libtards want to see us descend into a new Dark Age.

 

[SSDD]

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

You are probably right. If he doesn't start making some sort of coherent argument soon, I am going to grow bored and ignore him as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

You are probably right. If he doesn't start making some sort of coherent argument soon, I am going to grow bored and ignore him as well.

Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD. It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.

 

[SSDD]

Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD. It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.

I am pretty sure that he CAN see the emperor's new clothes and I am equally sure that he pitys us poor proventials who can't.

 

[PMZ]

Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?

Prove that even one of the concepts that I posted was wrong using actual observed data.

Yes, I am informed about physics...yes I saw your posts. You didn't offer up the slightest proof of anything. You made claims and nothing more and I never saw any instance of you completing a thought based on a principle of physics.

What do you think you posted that was based on actual observed data?

Is this the sum total of your evidence that anything that I posted is wrong!

 

[PMZ]

Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD. It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.

I am pretty sure that he CAN see the emperor's new clothes and I am equally sure that he pitys us poor proventials who can't.

I have never read a more apt moniker than yours.

SSDD.

 

[PMZ]

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

You are probably right. If he doesn't start making some sort of coherent argument soon, I am going to grow bored and ignore him as well.

Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD. It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.

What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?

 

[PMZ]

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

You are probably right. If he doesn't start making some sort of coherent argument soon, I am going to grow bored and ignore him as well.

How on earth would you know if I made a coherent argument or not? Do you have a friend who reads?

 

[SSDD]

Is this the sum total of your evidence that anything that I posted is wrong!

You didn't post anything that means anything. You made some claims and that is it. You didn't finish a single point based on physical principles. You started something regarding black bodies, but dropped it before you got to the point at which you could be proven wrong.

The failure of the climate models proves the AGW hypothesis wrong. Those models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they have failed. They failed because they are based on unproven, unphysical assumptions. You have failed because you believe in them.

 

[SSDD]

I have never reads more apt moniker than yours.

SSDD.

It describes what I hear from warmists. You folks universally fail to provide any proof at all to substantiate your claims.

 

[SSDD]

What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?

Again, you haven't posted anything that means anything. You have posted some incomplete thoughts that suggest that you may have read some warmist literature but didn't understand it well enough to actually discuss the topic.

The one actual statement you made that AGW was fact has yet to be proven so in that, you were wrong...unless you care to provide proof that AGW exists.

 

[PMZ]

They hadn't arranged their civilization around a previous climate like we have. Plus the whole world population then was nothing compared today.

Too many mouths to feed today. To many farms and cities to relocate.

A warmer climate is better for food production. When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.

Is this why the farms are so lush in the Sahara?





Yes that time is called the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and it was immediately followed by the Dark Ages...... Kind of appropriate as the enviro libtards want to see us descend into a new Dark Age.

Actually the extinction of conservatism has us already in America's Renasance. Our Dark Ages have been ended by the gift of democracy.

 

[PMZ]

What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?

Again, you haven't posted anything that means anything. You have posted some incomplete thoughts that suggest that you may have read some warmist literature but didn't understand it well enough to actually discuss the topic.

The one actual statement you made that AGW was fact has yet to be proven so in that, you were wrong...unless you care to provide proof that AGW exists.

I'm still awaiting the first iota of evidence. Some little scrap or tidbit. Something?

 

[SSDD]

How on earth would you know if I made a coherent argument or not? Do you have a friend who reads?

Once more, pretended intellectual superiority doesn't play well when you can't back up your claims. I keep asking for actual evidence and you keep not providing it. Which of us is in the weaker position? If you have any actual debate experience, you know full well that you are holding an untennable position.

One must be careful when making claims. When you make one and are asked for hard evidence or proof to support that claim, if you can't provide it, you lose the point. I have asked repeatedly for hard evidence and you continue to fail to provide it. That means you lose.

Care to actually provide what you believe to be hard evidence for the existence of AGW?

 

[PMZ]

I have never reads more apt moniker than yours.

SSDD.

It describes what I hear from warmists. You folks universally
fail to provide any proof at all to substantiate your claims.

It describes every post of yours that I've read.

 

[SSDD]

I'm still awaiting the first iota of evidence. Some little scrap or tidbit. Something?

You want me to prove a negative? You really are lost here. The weight of proof lies on your shoulders. You are the one making claims of AGW and the terrors of AGW. Therefore the responsibility of proving AGW rests on you. I have asked for proof and you have not provided it therefore you have lost the debate. It's that simple.

 

[PMZ]

How on earth would you know if I made a coherent argument or not? Do you have a friend who reads?

Once more, pretended intellectual superiority doesn't play well when you can't back up your claims. I keep asking for actual evidence and you keep not providing it. Which of us is in the weaker position? If you have any actual debate experience, you know full well that you are holding an untennable position.

One must be careful when making claims. When you make one and are asked for hard evidence or proof to support that claim, if you can't provide it, you lose the point. I have asked repeatedly for hard evidence and you continue to fail to provide it. That means you lose.

Care to actually provide what you believe to be hard evidence for the existence of AGW?

There are many things that you could ask for that you are completely unequipped to understand. Anyone delivering on your request would be wasting their time, right? What's true has nothing at all to do with your understanding of it.