• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

LOL! Where on Earth are you getting your information?

1 There's just a slight difference between 750 million and "trillions." Sure, some money is going to have to be spent on global warming. If we just ignore the situation, it will wind up costing a lot more.

2 Every scientific organization on Earth says the same thing.

3 When in doubt, when there is no logical response, simply insult.

4 Oh, I see I did get your ludicrous claim backwards. The claim is not that CO2 emissions 800 years ago resulted in global warming today, but that global warming 800 years ago are resulting in CO2 emissions today.

Then, your claim is that the increase in carbon dioxide today is due to a warming trend 800 years ago, is that really what you're attempting to claim?

Please cite the real scientific organization that supports that absurd claim.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's because none of them have a real basis for their absurd claims.
Click to expand...
We know our co2 contribution to the atmosphere because we have literally measured it. Humans have managed to develop about 50% of the world's land surface. I mean think about that, the earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years. In contrast, man has been around about 200,000 years, thus we despite only being around 0.04% of the time the earth has been around, we have already developed over half the land, so why is it so damn hard for them to believe that we have changed the atmosphere and thus climate as well?
 
You obviously didn't read the article. That $770 million request by Obama was in addition to the $2.5 billion the Democrat controlled Congress already passed that fiscal year. Between 2006, when Democrats first took control of Congress, and 2010, when Democrats lost control of Congress, Congress spent a total of $1.3 trillion on Africa to prevent them from industrializing and developing the same standard of living as the rest of the first world nations.

Dittohead not! said:
2 Every scientific organization on Earth says the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yet another leftist lie. Maybe if you repeat it often enough you will begin to believe it, but nobody else will.

Dittohead not! said:
3 When in doubt, when there is no logical response, simply insult.
Click to expand...
The leftist mantra. How do you like it? Karma is a bitch.

Go back and read the peer-reviewed studies that I previously posted and you completely ignored. They all say the same thing.
 
Yes, we have indeed measured it, and found it to be insignificant without any possibility of effecting the climate in any way.

According to the EPA all of humanity world-wide is contributing 36 billion metric tons of CO2. There is 3.05 trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, comprising 0.0415% of the total atmosphere. Which means all of humanity world-wide is contributing 1.18% of that 0.0415%, or a total of 0.0004898%. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is only responsible for less than 3% of the total radiative forcing. Of all the greenhouse gases water vapor is by far the biggest contributor (as high as 95%) responsible for keeping this planet warmer than it would be otherwise. Methane accounts for less than 1% only because there is so little of it in the atmosphere. Nitrous Oxide, Ozone, and flourocarbons combined make up the remaining radiative forcing.

So as far as the human world-wide CO2 contribution is concerned, it is less than 0.0354% of all the radiative forcing.
 
I think you need to read up on this one more:

Climate myths: Human CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions are too tiny to matter

It's true that natural sources are huge, but they are balanced by natural sinks - human contributions are tipping this balance
www.newscientist.com

RealClimate: The global CO2 rise: the facts, Exxon and the favorite denial tricks

RealClimate: The basic facts about the global increase of CO2 in our atmosphere are clear and established beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, I’ve recently seen some of the old myths peddled by “climate skeptics” pop up again. Are the forests responsible for the CO2 increase? Or volcanoes? Or...
www.realclimate.org
 
They don't want to believe it, so they don't.
 
1 OK, I can believe that Congress spent 2.5 billion to fight global warming. I do not, however, believe that they spent 1.3 trillion to prevent Africa from industrializing. Either you read that somewhere in some unreliable source, or you just made it up yourself.

2 It is a fact You will never find any scientific organization telling the wild tales you're spewing.

3 No, that's a good thing. That's how I can be sure you have no real arguments.

4. You have posted no peer reviewed studies. You have posted only nonsense.
 
Post #133 proves that you are a deliberate liar, as expected. So much for anything you have to say.
 
Glitch said:
Post #133 proves that you are a deliberate liar, as expected. So much for anything you have to say.
Click to expand...
I should just ignore you after having read such a post, but then, I did say you don't post peer reviewed studies. I should have qualified that by saying you don't post peer reviewed studies that in any way at all back up your own version of climate change, which is quite at odds with that of the world's scientific organizations.

So, to be fair, let's take one of those peer reviewed studies and see what it says:

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane correlate well with Antarctic air temperature....

Which is what the science of climatology says, but not what you've been saying at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…