Question for believers in man made climate change

[Redfish]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I think the goal is to reduce pollution and keep a cleaner environment. The man made climate change narrative gives an importance and urgency to their argument. It is too bad that the conversation always becomes a debate about that point when, as you said, I think most people would support fighting pollution, which is the ultimate goal.

My question to you is why do you try so hard to fight the narrative of man made climate change. There seems to be a lot of scientific data supporting it to some degree and very few debunking it, yet you choose to take the side of the very few... Is that ideological or are you a climate scientist who has been convinced by conducting your own tests?

because its a false narrative aimed not at reducing pollution but at controlling the activities that are permitted of human beings.

 

[RealDave]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it has been at that same level for millions of years. That has been proven scientifically. YOUR science is bullshit aimed at controlling what YOU can and cannot do.

The amount of CO2 has increased. Quit lying & being such a fucking moron.

I don't know but I think any sane person would think that you can help reduce the CO2 concentrations by putting less into the atmosphere so the planet can get caught up removing it from the atmosphere.

'How fucking dumb can you get to say that man spewing this shit into the atmosphere for over 100 years added nothing. Just how God damn stupid are you?

NO, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased. It has been .039% for millions of years and remains at that level today. Look it up, then you can ask your question to yourself, "just how God damn stupid are you?"

 

[RealDave]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

Firstly, climate denial is a serious issue only in the US, so when you say 60 percent of humans. You mean only Republicans,who aren't even 60 percent of the US.
Secondly. If I accept your premise, then I have to ask why would you reject clean air and water because you don't agree on climate change? Something that is being done by your party as we speak. Coal polutes the air it creates smog yet you accept Trump promoting it. Why if you are for clean air?

see, you still don't get it. I fully support and demand that we stop polluting air and water. You don't need to make climate claims in order to get the vast majority of humans to support those efforts.

You & your denier buddies claim CO2 is not a pollutant.

Why should we lie because your ilk is stupid?

 

[Slade3200]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I think the goal is to reduce pollution and keep a cleaner environment. The man made climate change narrative gives an importance and urgency to their argument. It is too bad that the conversation always becomes a debate about that point when, as you said, I think most people would support fighting pollution, which is the ultimate goal.

My question to you is why do you try so hard to fight the narrative of man made climate change. There seems to be a lot of scientific data supporting it to some degree and very few debunking it, yet you choose to take the side of the very few... Is that ideological or are you a climate scientist who has been convinced by conducting your own tests?

because its a false narrative aimed not at reducing pollution but at controlling the activities that are permitted of human beings.

Again, what makes you believe it is a false narrative. Did you conduct experiments? Analyze scientific data? Or are you listening to the narrative of a political party who opposes regulation and environmental efforts?

Also, isn't controlling human activities that are harmful to the environment how we fight pollution?

 

[LaDexter]

Our climate is based on animals & the gas released.

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?


If you cannot correctly answer that question, you know precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change...

 

[bripat9643]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

There's nothing sensible about reducing our carbon output? It will cost $trillions, and CO2 is actually beneficial. Why would we even want to reduce it?

 

[Redfish]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

What you do with almost each post is make yourself look nuttier and nuttier. We are not producing carbon. Carbon is a non metallic element found in the earths crust. Please though don't stop. We need as many people as possible to see why we must never elect another left tard ever again.

Sorry, but when you burn coal, you release the CARBON into the atmosphere.

My God you people are dumber than Trump.

when cows fart they release methane gas into the atmosphere. Ban cows, NOW!! Can you imagine the damage done by dinosaur farts?

you are really too ignorant to participate intelligently in this discussion. all you contribute is failed talking points.

Our climate is based on animals & the gas released.

I contribute by pointing out how stupid your posts are.

wrong, the climate of earth is controlled by the sun. not camp fires or coal burning electric plants, or cow farts.

 

[LaDexter]

Why would we even want to reduce it?

Because, according to the UnFUDGED data from the two and only two measures of the atmosphere...


Key claim against global warming evaporates


"While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."




Nothing was wrong with the data, other than it showed precisely why we don't need to reduce CO2, because it doesn't warm anything....

The data from the satellites and balloons was highly correlated, both showing below normal atmospheric temps when Bill Clinton called 1998 the "warmest year ever...."

These "climate scientists" are not scientists, as they do not practice science. They fudge, they lie, and they steal our money... and they support the DEMOCRATS.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but what I believe and what my goals are tend to not be reliant on each other.

I believe mankind is affecting the climate because I was once a denier based on the garbage from people like Al Gore.

But then when working on my masters I used climate change data sets for a project and ran them all through SPSS, and much to my surprise the data is rather strongly that out of all the possible variable, mankind and CO2 levels have the most impact. It really was not even close. Hell i would have loved to have such a definitive answer when I did my thesis project.

After that class I started to read actual scientific journals on the topic vice getting my view on it from the media or politicians.

I personally think we have gone past the tipping point and vice trying to stop anything we need to prepare for the changes.

Using Cali as an example. Their water supply system is designed around a climate that no longer exist. They have not adapted to the changes and that is why you are seeing dams fail and other flooding issues.

The Great Plains are seeing an increased reliance on irrigation for crop production, putting a strain on the natural water supply.

I find that ignorance annoys me so I will on occasion try and explain these things to the deniers, but in the end the outcome is the same as when I try with the flat earth society people.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[LaDexter]

None of these left wing liars can answer the FIRST question of Earth climate change...


WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other.....????


Jeopardy! music still playing until one left wing sub human science invalid parrot attempts to answer that question....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

There's nothing sensible about reducing our carbon output? It will cost $trillions, and CO2 is actually beneficial. Why would we even want to reduce it?

Water is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

Salt is beneficial, too much of it will kill you.

A lot of things are beneficial in the proper quantities


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[LaDexter]

Truth is beneficial.

Fudging data, fraud, lying, and stealing are not.

Answer the question or STFU


WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

 

[LaDexter]

and then he STFU.... because he knows precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change....

 

[CryptoNinja]

Truth is beneficial.

Fudging data, fraud, lying, and stealing are not.

Answer the question or STFU


WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

LOL because one pole has a continent and the other has an ocean.

Are you a high school science teacher?

 

[LaDexter]

OK....

90% of Earth ice on LAND MASS Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on LAND MASS Greenland


97% of Earth ice on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole... and land MOVES....

So what really causes the Earth's climate to change?

How much land is by the poles... during Jurassic, there were two polar OCEANS.... WARM EARTH parameter....



Here's a good clue. Earth is like a room with two air conditioning units, Arctic and Antarctic, each with settings 0-off and 10=maxCOOL.

Right now, the Arctic AC is set at 1 and the Antarctic AC is set at 9. The Antarctic circle is on average 50F cooler than the Arctic, and it puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs the Arctic, some 46 times the H2o the Mississippi puts in the Gulf...

 

[CryptoNinja]

OK....

90% of Earth ice on LAND MASS Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on LAND MASS Greenland


97% of Earth ice on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole... and land MOVES....

So what really causes the Earth's climate to change?

How much land is by the poles... during Jurassic, there were two polar OCEANS.... WARM EARTH parameter....



Here's a good clue. Earth is like a room with two air conditioning units, Arctic and Antarctic, each with settings 0-off and 10=maxCOOL.

Right now, the Arctic AC is set at 1 and the Antarctic AC is set at 9. The Antarctic circle is on average 50F cooler than the Arctic, and it puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs the Arctic, some 46 times the H2o the Mississippi puts in the Gulf...

The flaw with your statement is the fact that 54 million years ago was when the Earth was the hottest and by then Antarctica had moved mostly over the south Pole.

 

[LaDexter]

54 million years ago was when the Earth was the hottest

And your documentation is???


LOL!!!!!


Let's start with ICE AGE. What is an ICE AGE? What causes an ICE AGE? Are ICE AGES planetary or CONTINENT SPECIFIC?

Is ANTARCTICA an ICE AGE right now???


and I do not think Antarctica was on the South Pole 54 million years ago... I think it was still attached to South America and quite a ways from it... and here is the evidence of that....

List of Australian and Antarctic dinosaurs - Wikipedia

 

[The Original Tree]

Carbon has no IR Transitive Properties.

Also, the amount of Carbon on Earth is static.

Carbon is just recycled on Earth.

We are a carbon based planet with carbon based life forms.

The Left's war against Carbon is actually a War Against Life.

We cannot exist without carbon. The very air The Left Exhales is Carbon.

Our entire modern world cannot exist without carbon.

The Loony Left can't pollute our airwaves, message boards and children's minds without carbon.

We cannot have oxygen, water, plant life without carbon.

 

[CryptoNinja]

54 million years ago was when the Earth was the hottest

And your documentation is???


LOL!!!!!


Let's start with ICE AGE. What is an ICE AGE? What causes an ICE AGE? Are ICE AGES planetary or CONTINENT SPECIFIC?

Is ANTARCTICA an ICE AGE right now???


and I do not think Antarctica was on the South Pole 54 million years ago... I think it was still attached to South America and quite a ways from it... and here is the evidence of that....

List of Australian and Antarctic dinosaurs - Wikipedia

My documentation? Hothouse Earth from 54 Million years ago is a well documented fact, and by that time the magnetic south Pole was already demonstrably over Antarctica.

https://www.coolantarctica.com/Anta...dwana080Ma_hg-Hannes-Grobe-AWI-CC3-Att-Un.jpg

 

[LaDexter]

Proof #2 that Co2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change, and that ICE AGES are CONTINENT SPECIFIC.


One million years ago, NA was frozen down to Indiana, and Greenland was completely green...

Today, NA has thawed, and Greenland has froze, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving that CO2 had NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER EVENT....


Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."



and this is what NA looked like 1 million years ago....