-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
- Thread starter Aus22
- Start date
Werbung:
I asked for facts, not theory.
Real science in other words.
Co2 increasedan for 20 years yet the UN doctored Temps did not rise. Why ?
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
And yet you respond with unsupported *********, and ignore real science.
You could probably research it and find scientific answers if you cared, which we know you don't preferring the ********* fed to you by such experts as Rush Limbaugh, or even Trump. If you did care you would easily find scientific explanations from scientists:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Why don't YOU provide FACTS?
Why don't you show that there is no possible way that Climate change is real and that excess CO2 provoked by human use of fossile fuel has no influence on climate and pollution?
Go for it. . .I'm pretty sure you can find SOME support in the 3% of scientists who deny Climate change!
Climate change is real, it changes all the time and has for as long as there has been atmosphere. But there is no proof that CO2 can do what's claimed.
And the.97% thing was debunked long ago.
Dodtowner you do not provide the names of scientists that support your claim. Opermind has . Several sites like Skeptical Science and Scientific America have debunked the claim by Judith Curey and David R ose that there is still a pause. Temps are increasing now the pause is over.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...warming-temperature-pause-still-going-strong/
Perhaps this will help you understand the nature of pause vs warming.
In short the pause is supported by satellite temperature readings that have not been manipulated vs land (and sea surface) temp readings that have been constantly being manipulated in an effort to dramatist the purported effect.
For man to have an effect, co2 has to be blamed. That's why it's very significant to ask for verifiable, repeatable scientific experimentation that demonstrates that CO2 will do what it's claimed to do. Palerider has asked other posters for such evidence and gotten none. It's not the fault of those fine posters as Palerider already knew there was no proof.
Perhaps this will help you understand the nature of pause vs warming.
In short the pause is supported by satellite temperature readings that have not been manipulated vs land (and sea surface) temp readings that have been constantly being manipulated in an effort to dramatist the purported effect.
For man to have an effect, co2 has to be blamed. That's why it's very significant to ask for verifiable, repeatable scientific experimentation that demonstrates that CO2 will do what it's claimed to do. Palerider has asked other posters for such evidence and gotten none. It's not the fault of those fine posters as Palerider already knew there was no proof.
Last edited:
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Palerider also doesn't believe that there is a drought until virtually every native animal, and plant, in an area is dead. Your problem is that you will not see a problem until it is too late to fix it. And not all land temperature readings have been manipulated. But hey, as usual it is not the facts you are looking for:
https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
And even satellite data shows an increase in global temperatures:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-surface-and-satellite-temperature-records-compare
Last edited:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Again. . .you keep on repeating the same denial crap from a very small minority. What about providing PROOF that the huge CO2 increase has no part in climate change. Yes, climate has changed many times in millions of years. . .but the speed of this change and the fact that NOW is what we are concerned about because the world is over-populated and any small change in sea level and warming/cooling on life will have much more dramatic result on OUR LIVES, than it did on the lives of dinosaurs and primitive mankind!
Why continue to push what we KNOW causes more CO2 emissions (i.e., fossile fuel, greenhouse gas from life stocks, etc. . .) instead of working toward healthier means of production (both to meet our energy needs AND to meet our food needs)?
And, yes, live stock is having a much greater effect on the environment today than it did even 50 years ago!
Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock can be cut by 30%, says ...
https://www.theguardian.com › World › Development › Greenhouse gas emissions
Sep 26, 2013 - Greenhouse gas emissions associated with livestock add up to 7.1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, the FAO says
So. . .IF you knew that there is a 97% chance that, by visiting San Francisco in the next 2 weeks, you would experience the "big one," would you still decide to fly there and take your chance? or would you decide to postpone your trip or go to a different destination?
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
I don't believe the world is overpopulated, just mismanaged with the ownership of usable land held by the few.
When it becomes more profitable for them then they will change.
It is the confinement of livestock that creates the problem. There once were millions of buffalo, now there are millions of cattle. There is approximately two billion acres of arable land globally that is not being used for farming practices for various reasons, mostly dictatorial governments.
There is no chance co2 will cause the planet harm. There is no science to prove it can. We do know co2 has increased over the past 20 years but undoctored satellite Temps have remained constant.
We do know sanfran lies on a fault line but science has not determined how to predict it's actions so I would not be concerned.
Do you not find it odd that there is no science to prove co2 is terrible and that every "scientist" involved with the alarmist has been walking it back ?
Openmind
Well-Known Member
So. . .you should have no problem showing factual sources stating that the huge increase in CO2 is not harmful to life on this earth and is not influencing climate change, right? Why does it take you so long to provide those sources?
By the way, I know plenty about the San Andreas fault. I was living 4 miles from the epicentre of the 1989 "big one."
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Is it just me, or is it just that Dog refuses to read the sources I provide thus he remains ignorant of the reality that satellite data has closely mimicked that of ground data?
Really? Simply because they cannot predict it then one should not be concerned even though they know at some time it will shatter?
What an intelligent person should find odd is that you keep citing this ********* and never providing any source for it. Of course, you never have been very good at actually knowing what the hell you are talking about.
Sorry Walter, but it is hard to believe that this amount of stupidity can actually exist without an AI adapter to keep it breathing.
Huge increase, Temps the same. Already did this. So show me proof co2 does what they claim.
Werbung:
Dogtowner continues to make statements as facts when they are in dispute by scientist. He seems to be following Dr Judit Curry who views have been condemned by most scientists. HE deny the problem exist, deny we're the cause and deny we can solve it.. He is a lukewarmer relying on models presented by he Skeptics He rejects the evidence supporting the worst case or even the most likely case. The role of CO2 is debated but no reliable scientists has said t has no effect on global warming. They have both increased. How much one cause the other is debatable but not that they are related.
Similar threads
