Question for believers in man made climate change

[Wyatt earp]

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

They just wanted to build a billion dollar pipe line just to stick it the face?


Say what we are not liberals and play that flaunting , in spite game.


.

English please.

I don't speak your English of ghetto rap

Oh sorry, I didn’t know you were mentally ill

And I didn't know you were a fag, so now do you have any retorts to my posts or just off topic insults mental midget?

 

[alang1216]

It happens every time. When confronted with the truth, the libs always disappear from the thread.

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

My breathing is part of the Carbon Cycle, mining coal is an addition to it.

Even if we were completely innocent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we will suffer the consequences just the same.

 

[Reasonable]

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?

Trump is already letting polluters run wild and he’s the anti science president.
He’s the worst thing to happen to this country since..... ever.

 

[alang1216]

Please fill in the blanks:

If we do nothing about climate change, _____________ will happen.

The solution to prevent _______________ from happening is ________________.

Thank you.

If we do nothing about climate change, global climate change will happen.

The solution to prevent human disasters from happening is not fully understood but limiting CO2 emissions is an obvious start and further research may identify additional mechanisms.

You're welcome.

 

[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.

More poppycock.

Stop exhaling CO2 and then tell me how much Poppycock it is after 10 minutes of holding your breath.

 

[bripat9643]

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

When the earth had 20 times what it has now, life thrived.

You mean 800 million years ago when the Sun was 30% COOLER!?



LOLOLOLOL

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

WTF?

The sun was the same temperature?

Why do you find that shocking?

 

[The Original Tree]

It happens every time. When confronted with the truth, the libs always disappear from the thread.

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

My breathing is part of the Carbon Cycle, mining coal is an addition to it.

Even if we were completely innocent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we will suffer the consequences just the same.

There are no consequences. Only in your imagination. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere will do is help plants to produce more oxygen and for crops to produce more fruits and vegetables.

Carbon has zero effect on the temperature of Earth. It's just a half baked theory based on bad data in computer models. It cannot even be tested.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Please fill in the blanks:

If we do nothing about climate change, _____________ will happen.

The solution to prevent _______________ from happening is ________________.

Thank you.

If we do nothing about climate change, global climate change will happen.

The solution to prevent human disasters from happening is not fully understood but limiting CO2 emissions is an obvious start and further research may identify additional mechanisms.

You're welcome.

Hundreds of thousands of people in third world countries are dying per year due to smoke inhalation, because they don't have fossil fuels, the European banks refuse to lend them money to build power plants.


Germany electrical rates are two to three times higher then ours because they are trying to rely on green energy..


Why do you hate poor people?


.

 

[alang1216]

It happens every time. When confronted with the truth, the libs always disappear from the thread.

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

My breathing is part of the Carbon Cycle, mining coal is an addition to it.

Even if we were completely innocent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we will suffer the consequences just the same.

There are no consequences. Only in your imagination. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere will do is help plants to produce more oxygen and for crops to produce more.

Carbon has zero effect on the temperature of Earth. It's just a half baked theory based on bad data in computer models. It cannot even be tested.

Really? I this a faith-based or an evidence-based assertion?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Trump is already letting polluters run wild and he’s the anti science president.
He’s the worst thing to happen to this country since..... ever.

Prove it, Trump rolls back Obama's anti business regulations and you call him anti science?

There was no science involved with Obama's regulations by the EPA it was knee jerk reactions

If it was up to Obama gas would be at $10 bucks a gallon but fracking stopped him in his tracks.

 

[Thinker101]

It happens every time. When confronted with the truth, the libs always disappear from the thread.

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

My breathing is part of the Carbon Cycle, mining coal is an addition to it.

Even if we were completely innocent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we will suffer the consequences just the same.

There are no consequences. Only in your imagination. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere will do is help plants to produce more oxygen and for crops to produce more.

Carbon has zero effect on the temperature of Earth. It's just a half baked theory based on bad data in computer models. It cannot even be tested.

Really? I this a faith-based or an evidence-based assertion?

Well, considering plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen, I'm guessing you can answer your own question.

 

[alang1216]

Hundreds of thousands of people in third world countries are dying per year due to smoke inhalation, because they don't have fossil fuels, the European banks refuse to lend them money to build power plants.

I have nothing against either power plants or poor people but I do think we need to factor in the cost of climate change. If solar or nuclear combined with efficiency is the answer we all benefit in the long term.

 

[CryptoNinja]

Please fill in the blanks:

If we do nothing about climate change, _____________ will happen.

The solution to prevent _______________ from happening is ________________.

Thank you.

If we do nothing about climate change, global climate change will happen.

The solution to prevent human disasters from happening is not fully understood but limiting CO2 emissions is an obvious start and further research may identify additional mechanisms.

You're welcome.

Hundreds of thousands of people in third world countries are dying per year due to smoke inhalation, because they don't have fossil fuels, the European banks refuse to lend them money to build power plants.


Germany electrical rates are two to three times higher then ours because they are trying to rely on green energy..


Why do you hate poor people?


.

These are all lies.

Germany's rates are just fine. And they can produce 100% of their power from renewables, they are now working on the pumped-storage.

 

[bripat9643]

When the earth had 20 times what it has now, life thrived.

You mean 800 million years ago when the Sun was 30% COOLER!?

LOLOLOLOL

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

We aren't talking about 1 billion years ago. CO2 was at 2000 ppm 150 million years ago - 5 times what it is now. I also question your claim that it was 30% dimmer 1 billion years ago. That would mean the sun was dark 3.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.5 billion years old, so I find that difficult to believe. Life on earth is about 4 billion years old, and that requires liquid water. So the sun produced enough energy 4.0 billion years ago to keep the temperature of the earth about the same as it is now.

I can't find a chart of the irradiance of the sun over geologic time, so I am unable to verify your claims. Unless you provide such a chart, I can safely assume they are false

 

[CryptoNinja]

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

My breathing is part of the Carbon Cycle, mining coal is an addition to it.

Even if we were completely innocent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we will suffer the consequences just the same.

There are no consequences. Only in your imagination. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere will do is help plants to produce more oxygen and for crops to produce more.

Carbon has zero effect on the temperature of Earth. It's just a half baked theory based on bad data in computer models. It cannot even be tested.

Really? I this a faith-based or an evidence-based assertion?

Well, considering plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen, I'm guessing you can answer your own question.

Considering CO2 warms the planet, do you believe your own science?

 

[bripat9643]

Please fill in the blanks:

If we do nothing about climate change, _____________ will happen.

The solution to prevent _______________ from happening is ________________.

Thank you.

If we do nothing about climate change, global climate change will happen.

The solution to prevent human disasters from happening is not fully understood but limiting CO2 emissions is an obvious start and further research may identify additional mechanisms.

You're welcome.

Hundreds of thousands of people in third world countries are dying per year due to smoke inhalation, because they don't have fossil fuels, the European banks refuse to lend them money to build power plants.


Germany electrical rates are two to three times higher then ours because they are trying to rely on green energy..


Why do you hate poor people?


.

These are all lies.

Germany's rates are just fine. And they can produce 100% of their power from renewables, they are now working on the pumped-storage.

Power bills in Germany are 3 times what they are in the US. How is that "fine?"

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hundreds of thousands of people in third world countries are dying per year due to smoke inhalation, because they don't have fossil fuels, the European banks refuse to lend them money to build power plants.

I have nothing against either power plants or poor people but I do think we need to factor in the cost of climate change. If solar or nuclear combined with efficiency is the answer we all benefit in the long term.

That's what Trump is doing.

Why do you want to put the world in a depression with junk science...we just don't know how much man is contributing and how much is natural variation, we don't have enough real data..

 

[alang1216]

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

You exhale and release CO2 fool and not all of it is coming from the northern hemisphere didn't you get the memo it's also coming from the southnern hemisphere...from deforestation.

My breathing is part of the Carbon Cycle, mining coal is an addition to it.

Even if we were completely innocent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere we will suffer the consequences just the same.

There are no consequences. Only in your imagination. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere will do is help plants to produce more oxygen and for crops to produce more.

Carbon has zero effect on the temperature of Earth. It's just a half baked theory based on bad data in computer models. It cannot even be tested.

Really? I this a faith-based or an evidence-based assertion?

Well, considering plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen, I'm guessing you can answer your own question.

Photosynthesis is part of the Carbon Cycle and won't add any additional CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[RealDave]

We can limit the rise if we act as a planet like in the Paris Agreement.

So, if America pays for everything and starts fucking over Americans, making all of our lives much more expensive, and China and India do nothing, all will be fine?

Wow, there is not end top your ignorance.

All Paris Accord signers listed their own goals.

The industrialized developed nations donate money to help the developing nations get the greenest generation facilities.

I know you dumbasses will whine & cry but we should admit that we are where we are with carbon concentrations due to these developed industrialized nations spewing all kinds of shit without any regard. And it's stupid to work to reduce ours if some country in Africa builds really dirty coal plants. So it only makes sense to help them build the greenest plants available.

43 countries have pledged money for that fund. \ Not just he US as you lied about.

Obama had pledged 3 billion. A lot less than your hero's stupid wall & do a hell of a lot more people here in the US & around the globe.

But hey, that's your children & grandchildren's future & we know how much you hate them.

 

[CryptoNinja]

You mean 800 million years ago when the Sun was 30% COOLER!?

LOLOLOLOL

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

We aren't talking about 1 billion years ago. CO2 was at 4000 ppm 150 million years ago - 10 times what it is now. I also question your claim that it was 30% dimmer 1 billion years ago. That would mean the sun was dark 3.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.5 billion years old, so I find that difficult to believe. Life on earth is about 4 billion years old, and that requires liquid water. So the sun produced enough energy 4.0 billion years ago to keep the temperature of the earth about the same as it is now.

I can't find a chart of the irradiance of the sun over geologic time, so I am unable to verify your claims. Unless you provide such a chart, I can safely assume they are false

150 million year ago the Sun was about ~20%-15% cooler than it is today.

So what's your point?

250ppm CO2 = about 4watts/m^2.

20% of 1360watts/m^2 is 272watts/m^2 offset.

So that'd require 50x Co2 alone to offset the temperature lost by the Sun.

Not able to answer the discrepancy is why there is a "faint young sun paradox".

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia