Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[otto105]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

 

[flacaltenn]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What question is that consensus on? Because a scientific consensus requires a VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC question.. That's how this sciency works....

State the SPECIFIC question this supposed "consensus" is on.. And realize that you need to ask a HUNDRED questions to get enough consensus on climate change to even ponder future public policies....

Like "what's the temperature anomaly GONNA BE in 2100" ?????????

I just showed that there is NO CONSENSUS on that one worth turning everything inside out....

 

[flacaltenn]

And on top of that EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warmers has been false NOT one has proven to be correct EVER.

Global temperature was predicted to rise, it has risen. Do you deny that?






No, you'll pretend you haven't seen it.

LOL

It was supposed to have risen 8.0 deg C, not 0.67 Deg C as we have seen by empirical evidence. Now prove that the warming was caused by man and not natural variation.....

NO WHERE was it predicted to rise 8 C by now.

You god damn assholes really need to get a fucking education.

We know for a fact that man is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels and we know that means a heightened greenhouse effect

What natural cause do you have?

Ok you lying little fuck here ya go..

IPCC CLAIMS; Temperatures to rise 0.3-4.8 C this century, UN panel says

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

As for natural items... The CLOUD experiment shows how clouds regulate the temperature on the planet and far exceed anything man could do in time spans of weeks, not years or months..

Your beloved man made crap is total bullshit of the highest order and you still do not have a verified and credible link that man is causing anything.

Thanks for showing us you have no grasp of how the system works and your faith is all you have..

You don't have to have faith to believe in science, but you do have to have it to deny it.

Most of what the media and the politicos use to spook the lemmings is NOT GW science.. It's purposeful exaggeration and misinterinpretation of the ACTUAL science.. And too many of YOU -- take that crap "on faith"...

Even GW scientists say that.. Best set of "opinion studies" on what climate scientists believe is the 120 question multiple polls done by Bray and von Storch.. CLEARLY these scientists believe the public has been misinformed by the media and politicos...

If you can't see the consensus on THIS GW question (#113 out of about 130 "consensus questions") -- I'll help you out...

 

[otto105]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What question is that consensus on? Because a scientific consensus requires a VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC question.. That's how this sciency works....

State the SPECIFIC question this supposed "consensus" is on.. And realize that you need to ask a HUNDRED questions to get enough consensus on climate change to even ponder future public policies....

Like "what's the temperature anomaly GONNA BE in 2100" ?????????

I just showed that there is NO CONSENSUS on that one worth turning everything inside out....

You need to ask a 100 questions to believe that GW/CC is not happening?

And just what is "turning everything inside out" supposed to mean? Is that like the day some ape discovered fire and an ape you asked 100 questions before acknowledging its reality?

 

[otto105]

Global temperature was predicted to rise, it has risen. Do you deny that?






No, you'll pretend you haven't seen it.

LOL

It was supposed to have risen 8.0 deg C, not 0.67 Deg C as we have seen by empirical evidence. Now prove that the warming was caused by man and not natural variation.....

NO WHERE was it predicted to rise 8 C by now.

You god damn assholes really need to get a fucking education.

We know for a fact that man is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels and we know that means a heightened greenhouse effect

What natural cause do you have?

Ok you lying little fuck here ya go..

IPCC CLAIMS; Temperatures to rise 0.3-4.8 C this century, UN panel says

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

As for natural items... The CLOUD experiment shows how clouds regulate the temperature on the planet and far exceed anything man could do in time spans of weeks, not years or months..

Your beloved man made crap is total bullshit of the highest order and you still do not have a verified and credible link that man is causing anything.

Thanks for showing us you have no grasp of how the system works and your faith is all you have..

You don't have to have faith to believe in science, but you do have to have it to deny it.

Most of what the media and the politicos use to spook the lemmings is NOT GW science.. It's purposeful exaggeration and misinterinpretation of the ACTUAL science.. And too many of YOU -- take that crap "on faith"...

Even GW scientists say that.. Best set of "opinion studies" on what climate scientists believe is the 120 question multiple polls done by Bray and von Storch.. CLEARLY these scientists believe the public has been misinformed by the media and politicos...

If you can't see the consensus on THIS GW question (#113 out of about 130 "consensus questions") -- I'll help you out...

Nope, not even close.

Let me help you out... Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[RealDave]

I will ask you then, since the OP can't provide it. Post us a link to ACTUAL scientific experiments that tell you how much CO2 cause x amount of warming.

...and how much is contributed by Humans.

They can't do it.

Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.

I have a news flash: You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man. These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb. This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet? Dumbass.

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

 

[RealDave]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

There is adequate consensus to call for action. Show me hpw many climatologist are suggesting we do nothing because we can continue what we were doing 0 years ago with no negative results.

The science say it takes many decades for the Earth to absorb all this extra CO2 to reduce or slow warmng.

Your plan is to ignore it & wait until we are all fucked & then we can't do anything.

You pretend know-it-alls are just ridiculous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...and how much is contributed by Humans.

They can't do it.

Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.

I have a news flash: You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man. These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb. This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet? Dumbass.

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

 

[22lcidw]

...and how much is contributed by Humans.

They can't do it.

Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.

I have a news flash: You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man. These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb. This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet? Dumbass.

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Don't believe it.

 

[flacaltenn]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What question is that consensus on? Because a scientific consensus requires a VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC question.. That's how this sciency works....

State the SPECIFIC question this supposed "consensus" is on.. And realize that you need to ask a HUNDRED questions to get enough consensus on climate change to even ponder future public policies....

Like "what's the temperature anomaly GONNA BE in 2100" ?????????

I just showed that there is NO CONSENSUS on that one worth turning everything inside out....

You need to ask a 100 questions to believe that GW/CC is not happening?

And just what is "turning everything inside out" supposed to mean? Is that like the day some ape discovered fire and an ape you asked 100 questions before acknowledging its reality?

You didn't answer my question of what YOU are claiming has consensus.. And YES, there are over a hundred CRITICAL questions that must be asked and have consensus before your minions of morons go around haranguing everyone about "what's to be done about it"....

Knowing what fraction of the MINUTE warming that has occurred is due to anthropogenic Co2 emissions does NOT GUIDE the solution without KNOWING what the projected temperature in 2100 is gonna be.. Similarly, you need to know how much confidence is in the modeling that is the root of the projections, what assumptions drive the models and how accurate the estimates of critical climate variables are actually known..


Did you understand REAL CONSENSUS on the very limited question of whether the PUBLIC was understanding what climate science ACTUALLY says? By a LARGE MAJORITY, climate scientists agree that the public knowledge of what the science is warped and distorted...

You're one of those haranguers... Too lazy to THINK like a scientist, and too politically rabid to have a conversation with...

 

[Kilroy2]

I believe the scientist as man can affect his environment. Nonrenewable energy will eventually be gone and Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit. There is a consensus with scientist about global warming. Just because people do not understand it does not mean that its not real. Just because man who has been at it for a short time may not always get it right , does not mean that the original premise was incorrect.

Nature has its mechanism for warming and cooling. The question is as the number of people increase on the planet and they use up resources. How can people not affect it.

Coal is hard rock but its man who burns it and changes it structure releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yes it is present in the atmosphere at a level set by nature but Man has changed this equation and balance.

Scientist monitors it and tells us the probable outcome Is science right well if they have enough data and can make predictions on this data
Science is trial and error.

Still the weatherman in his early days was ridiculed for his inaccurate predictions but he has gotten better at it over time.

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL

It was supposed to have risen 8.0 deg C, not 0.67 Deg C as we have seen by empirical evidence. Now prove that the warming was caused by man and not natural variation.....

NO WHERE was it predicted to rise 8 C by now.

You god damn assholes really need to get a fucking education.

We know for a fact that man is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels and we know that means a heightened greenhouse effect

What natural cause do you have?

Ok you lying little fuck here ya go..

IPCC CLAIMS; Temperatures to rise 0.3-4.8 C this century, UN panel says

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

As for natural items... The CLOUD experiment shows how clouds regulate the temperature on the planet and far exceed anything man could do in time spans of weeks, not years or months..

Your beloved man made crap is total bullshit of the highest order and you still do not have a verified and credible link that man is causing anything.

Thanks for showing us you have no grasp of how the system works and your faith is all you have..

You don't have to have faith to believe in science, but you do have to have it to deny it.

Most of what the media and the politicos use to spook the lemmings is NOT GW science.. It's purposeful exaggeration and misinterinpretation of the ACTUAL science.. And too many of YOU -- take that crap "on faith"...

Even GW scientists say that.. Best set of "opinion studies" on what climate scientists believe is the 120 question multiple polls done by Bray and von Storch.. CLEARLY these scientists believe the public has been misinformed by the media and politicos...

If you can't see the consensus on THIS GW question (#113 out of about 130 "consensus questions") -- I'll help you out...

Nope, not even close.

Let me help you out... Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

The only surveys done BY climate scientists and OF climate scientists, are not opinion surveys.. Most of them are shoddy studies of the papers they chose to look at.. And their methodology doesn't pass the basics of "polling"... In fact, the ones oft quoted didn't even ASK climate scientists any questions.. They took a bunch of papers and looked for "key words".. And then they cheated by counting papers that didn't TAKE a stand on opinion as "yes" votes on their phony consensus.. That would be the COOK study in the Wiki.. The guy is a failed cartoonist and activist -- not a scientist of any type...

And you're not really READING these Wiki entries if you think the questions are definitive... For example from your link....

Powell, 2013[edit]
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[6][7][8][9] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[10][11][12]

So critically speaking, only 24 of 13,000 articles totally DENIED "anthropogenic warming".., Guess the fuck what Bullwinkle ?????

I DON'T DENY "anthropogenic warming".. So by that WEAK QUESTION that was asked -- I'm officially by THEIR definition, -- not a denier.... But that's a USELESS question to ASK and base public policy that rips apart the infrastructure and economy of this country for something we have little chance of suceeding at.. Especially if it's along the lines of the "Green Raw Deal"..

That's WHY ALL of those survey (polls) are purposely uninformative..

From Bray and von Storch -- ANOTHER question about Climate Science that's MORE critical than any others asked in those survey(polls) mentioned BESIDES Bray and von Storch... If you don't have complete FAITH in the accuracy of the modeling, you cannot TELL ANYONE how bad it's gonna get in the future....

Before you return just to harangue me again, you should ponder WHY this GW/CC issue has lost traction so badly in the last 10 or 12 years. It's because the science is NOT completely known or settled and the original dire forecasts that panicked folks have been defused..

And most of the predictions for 50 or 100 years out have FAILED BADLY within 10 yrs of their existence.. THAT'S WHY --- that question above is VITAL to any "consensus" on GW/CC...

 

[flacaltenn]

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

You're projecting your views here.. Not using the actual science... I just told you a PAGE AGO, that the official projection on temp anomaly in 2100 was between 0.3DegC and 4.8DegC... The media and politicians and rabid fanboys will just LEAP to the highest number.. But that's NOT the prediction... And with a range of uncertainty AS WIDE AS THAT ----

You can rant, foam, invent pants crapping scenarios, propose $90TRILL "Green Raw Deals", flame ME, or just flap your arms -- but you're paying NO attention to what the science actually can do or says....

And a MINORITY of climate scientists propose this "trigger temperature" dealy that AOC believes "ENDS THE WORLD in 12 years"... But that's not consensus science either.. And so far, NONE of things we SHOULD be seeing if there was to be "run-away accelerations" of warming have manifested..

It's FAR more nuanced and detailed than an issue you can just flame people about and believe you understand it and THEY don't....

 

[flacaltenn]

It's real simple for the Church of GW/CC Catastrophe types.. If the BEST GUESS at the temperature in 2100 covers a range of values that goes 16 to 1, and the majority of climate scientists say that the public has been misled about what their technical work says (the 1st chart I posted) and 35% of them have DOUBTS about the models being able to PREDICT temperatures even 50 years into the future (the 2nd chart I just posted) ---

There IS no general consensus on GW/CC, other than there ARE anthropogenic factors, AND the science is NOT even nearly settled.. That's why this circus train has stalled out.. Too many people REALIZE the amount of distortion and propaganda that has substituted for the actual science..

It's "time-out" to stop the PANIC and let the science take it's course...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.

They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.

Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.

You need to repent for your carbon sins.

Only YOU can please Gaia - go zero emission Comrade...

If EVERY Gaia worshiping leftist completely stopped creating carbon, the world would heal. Do your part.

 

[flacaltenn]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "GodFather of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

 

[flacaltenn]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

Want to see AOC's head explode??? Go give her the actual working plan to "Save the World" without bundling her greenie stuff with govt takeover of more than half of the economy....

 

[Kilroy2]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "GodFather of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

What is flaky about wind and sun,there plenty of it and as technology becomes better over time as most things do then flaky is a term that you use

Saying that you can solve the CO2 problem with nuclear power well you can solve it by limited the cause of the CO2 problem

The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

 

[flacaltenn]

What is flaky about wind and sun,there plenty of it and as technology becomes better over time as most things do then flaky is a term that you use

These are both mature technologies.. NOTHING is really fix the problem that the sun is only high enough for about 8 hours in a day.. Or that the wind REGULARLY takes a couple days off...

For every GWatt of solar/wind you build out -- you need REDUNDANT RELIABLE power for when these sources flake out and aren't there.. So you're building and paying for DUPLICATE generation..

You didn't think solar was good at night, in snowstorms, or when it's cloudy -- DID YA???