Why we should listen to the 97%

[bripat9643]

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Begging the question.

Begging the question, what can science do to understand the issue, define solutions, and advise policy makers.

One thing it can do is quit making up the data and lying to the public

 

[PMZ]

Begging the question.

Begging the question, what can science do to understand the issue, define solutions, and advise policy makers.

One thing it can do is quit making up the data and lying to the public

Typical conservative reaction to inconvenient truth.

 

[JoeNormal]

No. It's not harmful to breath it. The fact of it is harmful to mankind however.

Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. It's not harmful to breath it. The fact of it is harmful to mankind however.

Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

I heard the planet was unihabitable during the Carboniferous Period.
If you need more info, ask PMZ.

 

[Abraham3]

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

From the fellow who thinks math is too hard for liberals...

 

[Abraham3]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

From the fellow who thinks math is too hard for liberals...

I guess that's why a liberal hasn't explained the magic of 280 ppm yet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

 

[Snookie]

Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

That is true.

How do I know?

Because Jebus told me so.

 

[westwall]

Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

You know, that's almost funny coming from you. the lefty enviro-whacko's insist that we reduce our standard of living to a "sustainable" level. They ignore the fact that sustainable societies all failed when they were the unfortunate victims of a natural disaster. For true civilization you require excess. The more excess you have the better the standard of living and the more civilization you get.

You see dear silly person when you are eking out your "sustainable" lifestyle you have no time for civilization... There is simply too much work involved in basic survival. Meanwhile, that which truly CAN wipe out our civilization (if not our very planet), namely an asteroid strike is ignored by you clowns...

 

[westwall]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

Of course they do. Their livelihood and prestige rest upon that premise. Follow the money is a mantra that works very well. Put another way, how many academics do you know who were able to amass a personal net worth of over 20 million dollars like Mann?

 

[Snookie]

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

You know, that's almost funny coming from you. the lefty enviro-whacko's insist that we reduce our standard of living to a "sustainable" level. They ignore the fact that sustainable societies all failed when they were the unfortunate victims of a natural disaster. For true civilization you require excess. The more excess you have the better the standard of living and the more civilization you get.

You see dear silly person when you are eking out your "sustainable" lifestyle you have no time for civilization... There is simply too much work involved in basic survival. Meanwhile, that which truly CAN wipe out our civilization (if not our very planet), namely an asteroid strike is ignored by you clowns...

I think I'll just wait until after the asteriod strikes before I offer debate on that matter.

 

[bripat9643]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

Especially for hospitals and to keep our food refrigerated!

 

[westwall]

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

You know, that's almost funny coming from you. the lefty enviro-whacko's insist that we reduce our standard of living to a "sustainable" level. They ignore the fact that sustainable societies all failed when they were the unfortunate victims of a natural disaster. For true civilization you require excess. The more excess you have the better the standard of living and the more civilization you get.

You see dear silly person when you are eking out your "sustainable" lifestyle you have no time for civilization... There is simply too much work involved in basic survival. Meanwhile, that which truly CAN wipe out our civilization (if not our very planet), namely an asteroid strike is ignored by you clowns...

I think I'll just wait until after the asteriod strikes before I offer debate on that matter.

Here's the shot across the bow.... And here too is a link to NASA, they seem to take it very seriously for some reason....The second link is to their risk assessment page which fortunately is pretty mild. However, just look at the number of NEO's we KNOW about and then consider the ones we don't know about and won't due to lack of money...




SENTRY - An Automatic Near-Earth Asteroid Collision Monitoring System

Current Impact Risks

 

[freedombecki]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

There's a term for that in the electric field, Toddsterpatriot. It says "Will not phase."

 

[Abraham3]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

Of course they do. Their livelihood and prestige rest upon that premise. Follow the money is a mantra that works very well. Put another way, how many academics do you know who were able to amass a personal net worth of over 20 million dollars like Mann?

Why is it you completely reject the idea of "follow the money" when someone starts talking about the money of the fossil fuel industry? They have, literally, trillions at stake here. But according to you they are blithe, innocent bystanders, watching it all go down with an innocent gawk.

 

[Abraham3]

Here's the shot across the bow.... And here too is a link to NASA, they seem to take it very seriously for some reason....The second link is to their risk assessment page which fortunately is pretty mild. However, just look at the number of NEO's we KNOW about and then consider the ones we don't know about and won't due to lack of money...


Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes) - YouTube

SENTRY - An Automatic Near-Earth Asteroid Collision Monitoring System

Current Impact Risks

I have to wonder about your general thought processes when you find asteroids a more serious risk than global warming.

But guess what? I think they're BOTH risks. They just have different odds of taking place.

 

[Abraham3]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

There's a term for that in the electric field, Toddsterpatriot. It says "Will not phase."

It won't be cheap, Becki, when sea level is up a meter or two, will it. What do you think it means to the sea level issue that almost all the solar energy, being trapped and growing at even greater rates than it ever has, is going into the ocean? The bulk of ocean rise for the last century has been due to thermal expansion. That is going to remain the case until the warmed ocean water gets really going on the other process it is primarily responsible for: melting the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves releasing the ice sheets for more and more rapid flow into the briny deep.

Say goodbye to the world's estuaries, beaches, coastal structures. Wait till you see what the world's hurricanes and typhoons can do when each one gets an extra meter of storm surge.

But I'm not worried. I know I can always come here and find a good quip or two. "Will not phase"! That's great. Really great. No, really.

BTW, your butterfly is gorgeous. My wife and I have had/grown/built/maintained a butterfly garden for about 20 years. We don't get that variety around here (South Florida). We get zebra longwings, gulf fritillaries, cloudless yellow sulphurs, monarchs, viceroys, eastern black swallowtails, occasional malachites and palmedes and spicebush swallowtails. I've got some photos if you'd like to see them.

 

[PMZ]

Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

Ask Mother Nature.