- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Um, sawyer, we don't have control over the sun or volcanoes or orbital mechanics. We don't have any influence over those. We do have influence on our greenhouse gas emissions. That's what AGW is about: minimizing human influence and letting nature take its course. Hope this helps.
Feel free to start lobbying for taxes on solar output, though, since you're so concerned with laws regarding the other variables. I'm sure the sun will get around to paying up eventually. :lamo
edit: and note the use of the word minimizing. Not eliminating. It's impossible to have zero impact, because we exist and would like to continue doing so.
As I said, AGW is all about our C02 output, everything else is considered "natural".
Try to keep up, it has not warmed in relation to C02 and in fact has barely warmed at all in 15 years and hurricanes are fewer not more numerous. You guys are so brain washed it is pathetic.
Moderator's Warning: |
It amazes me that anyone believes a single thing published by David Rose, aka Laurie Mylroie's BFF.
anyway...
Sorry, Arctic sea ice isn’t really ‘recovering’
Who cares about the messenger, do you really think 1 year is a climate trend?
No, but the minds of an overwhelming majority of scientists outweigh whatever you may think.
Like the myth that cigarettes are bad for your health
Who ever said that one storm was a climate trend?
Have you been asleep at the news for the past decade of storms?
See, I provided links regarding my posts.
You, as always, provide absolutely nothing.
Don't tell me to "go **** myself". It's not enlightening. It's not smart. I didn't deserve it. You look stupid.
15 years is also not long enough to say anything about climate.
Frankly, I think the scientists have a lot more proving to do, but you are so desperate to cling to the idea that it's a myth. Since you're a fan of such short time frames, today was a full 2 degrees warmer than yesterday.
The hypothesis is that over time, rising levels of CO2 contribute to higher temperatures. Not that there's a direct and immediate causal link. Your misunderstanding of what the theory actually is probably leads you to think it couldn't possibly be true.
What everybody doesn't say is that planting more trees would help get rid of CO2. They breathe that **** in and breathe out oxygen ( in a way). Planting more trees would certainly be pleasant, don't you think?
Do you think anyone is claiming CO2 is the only variable?
Maybe I can clarify AGW for you, sawyer, because you have just displayed a fundamental misconception. It wouldn't be accurate to describe the premise of AGW as saying CO2 is "the primary driver of climate."
Rather, it is one of several major factors, and over the last century or so it is the factor that has driven the greatest change in temperature. But only over that period, and other factors have still been important to the final outcome.
Does that help?
Wait, you think this hasn't been explained or experimented on?
The reason I'm skeptical is because of data. You simply can't tell about climate based on 100 years of reliable weather observations. We could have been living in a cold spell, or a warm spell. The last mini-ice age ended just before the Industrial Revolution. Things were getting a little warmer naturally anyway.
But climate is a long term thing. It could be getting warmer as a natural cycle. Or it could be CO2, the science certainly looks like it's a possibility. Setting up a test would be almost impossible because of all the variables involved in it. Like Einstein's theory being proved by observing the eclipse, you need long term natural cycles that we just don't know enough about to say one way or the other.
Except this isn't the only thing they're doing. Nobody is just looking at temperature charts and declaring they know the answer. Those natural forcings? Enormous effort has been put into measuring and understanding them.
Um, sawyer, we don't have control over the sun or volcanoes or orbital mechanics. We don't have any influence over those. We do have influence on our greenhouse gas emissions. That's what AGW is about: minimizing human influence and letting nature take its course. Hope this helps.
Feel free to start lobbying for taxes on solar output, though, since you're so concerned with laws regarding the other variables. I'm sure the sun will get around to paying up eventually. :lamo
edit: and note the use of the word minimizing. Not eliminating. It's impossible to have zero impact, because we exist and would like to continue doing so.
Is there anything man could do that would be unnatural?
And now they're being encouraged to ...
a) drop the recent period of cooling from the looming UN report ...
b) change the measurement period so it doesn't look so bad for the alarmists ...
c) explain where all that heat is going.
I tells ya ... they are not a happy bunch right now, those career alarmists.
Why are you using an abnormally hot year as your base? Temperatures over the past 100 years have steadily risen by Co2. Furthermore, ocean temperatures have risen quite a bit too.
The notion that the Earth isn't warming is rejected by basic measurements.
Also, you've been reported.
Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:
Manipulate the data to make themselves look better, in spite of the known facts? Yeah, that's a recipe for success if I ever heard one, since it seems that was what caused the problems in the first place! However, I have no doubt that the plan will continue to be... "Full steam ahead on the agenda!," because there's money to be made by a few billionaires.
And now they're being encouraged to ...
a) drop the recent period of cooling from the looming UN report ...
b) change the measurement period so it doesn't look so bad for the alarmists ...
c) explain where all that heat is going.
I tells ya ... they are not a happy bunch right now, those career alarmists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?