Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[frigidweirdo]

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise.

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution.

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more?

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

holy crap say it aint so

--LOL

what are those flateartherwarmists going to do now

--LOL

You understand that we can only predict the future right? Models are made with the data that exists, and people try to say what might happen. But it's what it is. It's not what WILL happen. But what could happen.

However making educated guesses is far better than saying "well, we can't predict the future so let's not bother." We still have weather forecasts, we don't say we can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, so let's not bother, do we?

the models have not been accurate as of yet

the predictions made even more hilarious

Really? They said we'd get warmer, we're getting warmer.

What they said was to expect ACCELERATED warming in the range of 4 to 8degC per century. Our average rate of warming over the last 30 years has been about 1.5degC per century and DROPPING every year since 2000.

No acceleration means a general failure of the FULL theory of GWarming..

Okay, so they've predicted warming. Is this warming not happening?

I mean, if we're in a position of natural global cooling of say -6C and we see a man made warming of +8C, then we get a warming of +2C, are they wrong for claiming a man made warming of +8C????

 

[frigidweirdo]

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.

The bees situation is looking more and more like a man-caused accident. And it if it's the improper use of pesticides -- it WOULD be reversible.

Potentially, unless the bees were to die out first.

But then with climate change you're dealing with something far larger that would potentially not be reversible.

 

[Kosh]

Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

holy crap say it aint so

--LOL

what are those flateartherwarmists going to do now

--LOL

You understand that we can only predict the future right? Models are made with the data that exists, and people try to say what might happen. But it's what it is. It's not what WILL happen. But what could happen.

However making educated guesses is far better than saying "well, we can't predict the future so let's not bother." We still have weather forecasts, we don't say we can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, so let's not bother, do we?

the models have not been accurate as of yet

the predictions made even more hilarious

Really? They said we'd get warmer, we're getting warmer.

What they said was to expect ACCELERATED warming in the range of 4 to 8degC per century. Our average rate of warming over the last 30 years has been about 1.5degC per century and DROPPING every year since 2000.

No acceleration means a general failure of the FULL theory of GWarming..

Okay, so they've predicted warming. Is this warming not happening?

I mean, if we're in a position of natural global cooling of say -6C and we see a man made warming of +8C, then we get a warming of +2C, are they wrong for claiming a man made warming of +8C????

Another AGW cult member who does not understand anything!

 

[Kosh]

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise.

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution.

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more?

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.

More AGW religious dogma..

But then again the magnetic field of the planet has more to with climate than the CO2 myth..

CO2 does not drove climate and it never has..

 

[jc456]

Actually, many currently believe the earth is about to enter a cooling cycle. But regardless, Global Warming/Global Cooling? We'll survive... Or we won't.

No not really. Most believe we have just started the interglacial period which will last for thousands of years.

Adapt or die.

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

Until it starts killing too many people, then....

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

well I'm not the one predicting any threatening anything. Why is it you can't back your claim? so where is your evidence I should fear? Can you show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is? Can you?

 

[jc456]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

Now you must show how much man has contributed. You must show how and where the contributions came from and how it has affected the atmosphere.

Please show your work to include the math, methodology, and data..

I think you just went off your meds again or they are wearing off and you are late for the next dose

My work? Dante has never claimed to be a scientist and Dante has never argued the science of climate change with anyone, let alone a non scientist kook like you

NASA NOAA and other agencies are doing work on things. I trust them over you. I guess that makes me a dupe and a part of a conspiracy

ok, then show their work. You know the evidence that moved you into a fearful corner that you feel you can't get out of. Post it!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just like any other profession. You will find raving fanatics with agendas in the sciences. And when you feed them a steady diet of Govt grants or appoint them to head your science agencies -- they will pervert their profession to get to their goals.

The problem isn't the entire community. The problem is the UN version of "science" and about a couple dozen other "fanatics" who manage to feed the angles and the propaganda to the media...

Your claim is that the fanatics have been appointed to head the government agencies? You keep on going on about the UN. Thy do NOT set the agenda for US science policy or research. They are NOT in control of appointing heads of US agencies.

You tie your conspiracy together with the silly string of government grants -- $$$$If any of what you claim were true there would have been an uproar from within the scientific community and there was not and has not been one. The uproars has come from POLITICIANS funded through donations and people funded through GRANTS by Big Oil and others

Wow.. Conspiracy shill and left wit retard..
CAGW has been the poster child of the left wing control mongers for 50 years now. There is NOTHING scientific about it an your head being up your ass makes you a useful idiot.

The empirical evidence does not support any angle of the UN or EPS AGW cult beliefs..

Let me guess, you believe that all upward adjustments of the historical record in the recent past are justified and that cooling the early 1900's to take away the heat of the 1930's is goof too...

 

[jc456]

Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

you know those two pieces are contradicting correct?

 

[jon_berzerk]

No not really. Most believe we have just started the interglacial period which will last for thousands of years.

Adapt or die.

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

Until it starts killing too many people, then....

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

well I'm not the one predicting any threatening anything. Why is it you can't back your claim? so where is your evidence I should fear? Can you show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is? Can you?

they say it is faith based

you just have to believe

 

[frigidweirdo]

No not really. Most believe we have just started the interglacial period which will last for thousands of years.

Adapt or die.

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

Until it starts killing too many people, then....

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

well I'm not the one predicting any threatening anything. Why is it you can't back your claim? so where is your evidence I should fear? Can you show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is? Can you?

Well this is the thing. I can back up my claims. I can't back them up with what will happen in the future, again, this is impossible, however I can use evidence of what has happened in the past to show what could happen in the future. However whenever you do this then people tell you that this doesn't work because it's not what will happen.

Whether I can or can't show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is, depends on whether I use this for MY argument or not. If you use it for your argument then that's great.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not if you CLAIM you can calculate the process and produce a model that accurately predicts the process.
We do that all the time. That's how you accurately guide a spacecraft to land on Mars. Or design an aerodynamics package for a race car. That's what the GW meisters CLAIM they have developed by their relatively crude understanding of the Earth's climate system. And instead of making progress in understanding all of the nuisances, we've squandered time and money by focusing only on the effects of man's emissions. We STILL really don't understand the cyclical nature or variabilities in the Sun's primary role or the way that heat is distributed in the oceans and the atmosphere.

If someone produces a model and predicts the future of climate change, you know it's a prediction right? If you pretend it's anything else other than that, then it's your problem for not seeing what is blatantly obvious. Most of the time it isn't the scientists who are making these claims, it's the media. The Scientists say "our model shows this" then the media says "Scientists say this will happen". You see? And it's your fault if you believe the media.

Do we need to understand the natural cycle here? What happens happens. We can't control it, we can merely reduce its impact on us. We also do research those things you're talking about. However the media likes to big up the man made stuff. I'd say probably justifiably. This is the thing we don't know if we can survive. We've survived various cycles of the Earth's climate.

Your predictions have all failed by a factor of ten..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

you know those two pieces are contradicting correct?

What? Are you insane?

Do you know what the words "impact" and "control" are? If you don't, I suggest you look them up because they're NOT contradictory. And NO, I'm not going to teach you basic fucking English.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not if you CLAIM you can calculate the process and produce a model that accurately predicts the process.
We do that all the time. That's how you accurately guide a spacecraft to land on Mars. Or design an aerodynamics package for a race car. That's what the GW meisters CLAIM they have developed by their relatively crude understanding of the Earth's climate system. And instead of making progress in understanding all of the nuisances, we've squandered time and money by focusing only on the effects of man's emissions. We STILL really don't understand the cyclical nature or variabilities in the Sun's primary role or the way that heat is distributed in the oceans and the atmosphere.

If someone produces a model and predicts the future of climate change, you know it's a prediction right? If you pretend it's anything else other than that, then it's your problem for not seeing what is blatantly obvious. Most of the time it isn't the scientists who are making these claims, it's the media. The Scientists say "our model shows this" then the media says "Scientists say this will happen". You see? And it's your fault if you believe the media.

Do we need to understand the natural cycle here? What happens happens. We can't control it, we can merely reduce its impact on us. We also do research those things you're talking about. However the media likes to big up the man made stuff. I'd say probably justifiably. This is the thing we don't know if we can survive. We've survived various cycles of the Earth's climate.

Your predictions have all failed by a factor of ten..

My predictions. What are my predictions. And can you show me how, exactly, they have failed and how they have failed by a factor of ten. Because I'm smelling so much bull right now....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise.

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution.

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more?

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.

The earth has had millions of years at well above 7,000ppm and the average for the long term is 1,575ppm. Your fear is misplaced as the earths temp has never runaway.

 

[BlindBoo]

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise.

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution.

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more?

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.

More AGW religious dogma..

But then again the magnetic field of the planet has more to with climate than the CO2 myth..

CO2 does not drove climate and it never has..

Please name the scientist or the study that claimed CO2 drives the climate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise.

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution.

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more?

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.

The earth has had millions of years at well above 7,000ppm and the average for the long term is 1,575ppm. Your fear is misplaced as the earths temp has never runaway.
View attachment 52680

Yeah, it had millions of years.... how many of those millions of years had human beings driving around in their cars.... er... none. Could it be possible that it was okay for dinosaurs, but would kill of human beings? This is the point here.

I'm fine with humans being wiped off the planet, probably for the best. Are you?

 

[jc456]

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

Until it starts killing too many people, then....

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

well I'm not the one predicting any threatening anything. Why is it you can't back your claim? so where is your evidence I should fear? Can you show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is? Can you?

Well this is the thing. I can back up my claims. I can't back them up with what will happen in the future, again, this is impossible, however I can use evidence of what has happened in the past to show what could happen in the future. However whenever you do this then people tell you that this doesn't work because it's not what will happen.

Whether I can or can't show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is, depends on whether I use this for MY argument or not. If you use it for your argument then that's great.

well you see, if you had evidence of how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 was, and predicted that in the future there will be an added 20 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, then one could conclude how much of change would be coming due to that additional CO2. But see, you can't, neither can any warmer scientist to date except Herr Koch in 1901 who showed adding additional CO2 did very little if anything to temperatures.

And the mere fact that manual adjustments are being made by unreliable individuals who receive funding for specific results and to ensure modeling predictions from the past can now be proven based on said adjustments, well is insincere to say the least. So, you can believe whatever you want, but don't ask for green energy dollars from my tax money or penalty money from coal plants supplying me heat in the winter.

Stay away from the money and you can believe whatever it is you wish.

Us on my side will know it is full of shite.

 

[jc456]

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

you know those two pieces are contradicting correct?

What? Are you insane?

Do you know what the words "impact" and "control" are? If you don't, I suggest you look them up because they're NOT contradictory. And NO, I'm not going to teach you basic fucking English.

it's now obvious you don't.

 

[jc456]

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise.

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution.

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more?

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.

The earth has had millions of years at well above 7,000ppm and the average for the long term is 1,575ppm. Your fear is misplaced as the earths temp has never runaway.
View attachment 52680

Yeah, it had millions of years.... how many of those millions of years had human beings driving around in their cars.... er... none. Could it be possible that it was okay for dinosaurs, but would kill of human beings? This is the point here.

I'm fine with humans being wiped off the planet, probably for the best. Are you?

oh my gawd. seriously?

Well I supposed since you don't know the difference between 'impact' and 'control' in the sentence you constructed, I can see how you get here. Just wow!!!