Did you seriously just use an Audi commercial as proof that the "green police" want to get you?
No... I was using it to demonstrate what counts as 'jokes' these days... though, I wouldn't be surprised if there was the creation of some sort of 'eco-cops' sometime in the future, it's not some sort of concern for me...
You talk later about not looking at the big picture. Yes, plants can handle more CO2, but a higher temperature is harmful to them.
Well, realistically, there are all sorts of plants that are suited for all sorts of different climates... like you don't see palm trees in Canada, as an example. I was mostly just saying that in greenhouses it's not uncommon to pump in extra CO2 so that plants can grow more efficiently.
OH GOD, DO TWO THINGS AT THE SAME TIME? UNPOSSIBLE!
Well, if you go the route of CO2 elimination, then you're talking about shutting down industrialized nations, which in turn would limit the production of the other toxins (short of some drastic innovations)... whereas, targeting the specific TOXIC issues might be detrimental to certain industries that cannot find CLEAN ways to run their business, it would NOT be so detrimental to the economy.
Those particulates are things we've already been reducing, because they're the chemicals that are more directly harmful like you mentioned above. That issue isn't "solved," but we've cut back already. CO2's warming influence is beating out the particulates.
Right, that's because there are environmental standards... not so much in places like China and Cambodia where most of our industry now resides. Beyond that, you're talking like we can actually trust what's been reported for climate temperatures for the past 20 or so years... unfortunately the fraudsters are still in control of the science.
Yes, but on the other hand, water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well. Clouds will absorb outgoing infrared radiation. Clouds can provide either a warming or cooling influence, depending on the situation.
Agreed... it's not as simple as 'clouds = cooling'... but everything else being equal if the world is 50% cloud cover the overall climate will be somewhat warmer then if there's 80% cloud cover (the numbers are arbitrary).
Volcanoes are a cooling influence. Yes, a massive eruption can outdo our CO2 emissions, but those particulates you mentioned cause a net cooling in the case of a volcano. Scientists track that, what gives you the idea we don't understand the influence. They also track the sun's output, and have been doing so for a long time. They also track the milankovitch cycles, those changes in orbital factors that cause the "long" cycles. They also track El Nino/La nina. Put it all together, and you're left with the current warming trend being caused primarily by CO2. The sun just hit a record low, yet temperatures rose. El Nino is just a heat storage mechanism, it will influence temperatures short term but can't cause a 50-year warming trend. Orbital mechanics and continental configuration do not change significantly on a 100-year timeframe.
The temperatures ROSE after the solar energy dropped off because they stopped taking measurements from the higher altitude stations, installing more stations near artificial heat sources, etc... I'm sorry, but the climate has been SLIGHTLY cooling for a number of years now. That's the problem when you take the words of sources that get caught in scientific fraud.
Just because you personally don't understand the cycles doesn't mean nobody has looked into it. I especially like when people bring up the sun's influence on temperature, as if nobody had bothered to check and see if that's the cause of the current warming.
Of course they did... and when it didn't give the answers they wanted... these "scientists" simply lied about it.
This is just plain retarded. They have billions and billions of barrels of oil left to sell to us. Higher gas prices will push alternative fuels to be developed and implemented faster. You think they want to throw that all away so they can make a tiny return on investment in between the sale and tax time? What makes you think they'd be able to write off these taxes?
Ok, here's the common misconception about oil price... the 'supply' is NOT the 'global supply'... it is the 'reserves of refined supply'... but since the oil companies also own the refineries they control the supply and so ultimately demand the price they want. It's called an oil CARTEL for a reason.
They would not be 'throwing it away'... they just get to charge an 'environmental premium'. As for 'tiny return'... you've gotta be kidding... these major oil companies have TEAMS of book keepers looking for EVERY possible loophole and manipulation possible to pay the LEAST amount of taxes possible. You'd be amazed at what you can write off through creative justifications.
This is just wrong. You're still bringing this up, it's hilarious. You do not at all understand the scope of the CRU's work. They didn't make the instrumental record. They played around with trees.
Right, and they committed scientific fraud on such a massive scale that it boggles the mind. Further, I have also demonstrated how almost 90% of the recording stations (in america alone) are unacceptably close to artificial heat sources... and even the change of paint from a whitewash to a latex paint added to the increase... then the changes of locations from high altitude (cooler) stations to concentrations on lower (warmer) regions... Then there was the climate model software which once the source code became available showed just how they would manipulate data to get the desired outcome.
Multiple independent investigations found no evidence of tampering.
Yes, and if Al Capone had his choice of a jury he wouldn't have been convicted either.
More idiocy. You denialists really are desperate.
I agree, this is asinine on it's face... That wasn't the point though... the point was to demonstrate what lengths the propaganda arm of the enviro-fascist movement is going to go in order to get what they want... in the words of Holdren : "the deindustrialization of the united states" as well as demonstrated with this commercial with it's message of 'go green or DIE.'
Now, OF COURSE this is not the mentality of MOST people... most people are good people and legitimately want to do good and actually care about the earth. The scientists on some level are likely in the same category... BUT, there IS a faction politically, scientifically, etc... WHO DO view this 'environmentalist' movement as a means of control... control over industry, control over manufacturing, and ultimately control over life itself.
Whether the climate gets warmer or cooler, it's always in flux... and life will always adjust. Realistically speaking, there are more benefits to a hotter climate the a cold climate, longer growing seasons, larger areas open to agriculture, etc... So, EVEN IF you're right and we're heating the planet... it's not going to cause catastrophe rather it would likely be beneficial on the whole.