Georgia House leaders unveil transportation funding bill (Atlanta: rental car, rentals)

[kferq]

Originally Posted by MattCW

HEY! Look at that! A natural cyclical trend! Not only that, but your source even admits to use two different data sources, where you can see exactly where the second one "takes over." Maybe you should learn about science and scientific processes before you start trying to use them to prove a point.

Ok, you asked for it. You are an expert in science? Good. You have some work to do to convince us that climate change is not real.

Peer reviewed literature is the gold standard of science. A single article does not stand alone. Here is your problem. The scientists have published many articles and the scientific consensus is that Over 97% of the published literature supports that climate change is occurring due to rising CO2 levels. > 90 % of these show that human activity caused the change in CO2. This is the scientific consensus. In science, you must prove that the consensus is wrong. we do not have to prove that climate change is real: you have to prove that it is not.

Here are the articles published on the etiology of climate change since 2011:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...11&as_ylo=2011

Now go through each one, read them carefully, show us what is wrong with each article specifically using arguments of scientific evidence. If you do not do that then we will believe the scientific experts and not you.

Good luck.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Good summary, cw.

Personally I think climate change presents plenty of outstanding opportunities for the smart businessman. Regardless of whether folks have some sort of ideological objection to science, change is happening and they might as well cash in.

I knew I should have gotten into the A/C business early

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by MattCW

HEY! Look at that! A natural cyclical trend! Not only that, but your source even admits to use two different data sources, where you can see exactly where the second one "takes over." Maybe you should learn about science and scientific processes before you start trying to use them to prove a point.

Did you miss the part where the chart shoots up like a rocket at the very end?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

I knew I should have gotten into the A/C business early

You and me both! That was a huge enabler for growth in this part of the country.

[J2201987]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Yea that makes sense if you're stupid enough believe that a 35% increase in atmosphereic CO2 increases will mean nothing, simply because most of the atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogren.

Yes, a 35% increase in CO2 which occupies 0.04% of molecular atmospheric space brings that to a grand total of........0.05%?

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

After Oxygen, Nitrogren, and Argon, CO2 is the largest trace gas and greenhouse gas. The latter of which directly absorbs and transmits radiation from the sun and causes greenhouse warming.

But the Ozone layer (O3) absorbs and transmits more solar radiation than CO2, so should we also be propagandized about too much Ozone as well?

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

There is a direct correlation to how much the earth warms and cools and the amount of these gases in the atmosphere, so if we increase the gases... it gets warmer... if we decrease them... it gets cooler.

Fluctuation of climates, weather, and the fluctuation of gases in the air are all part of the Earth's natural processes. This blue marble we are occupying has been beaten down by fiery meteors, horrific volcanic explosions, and warmed up from a major freeze about 10 millennia ago. If gets warmer, so what? If it gets cooler, so what?

I think people vastly underestimate how this planet is capable of equalizing and balancing itself out regardless of how much they *think* humans are powerful enough to change anything.




Oh look, the temperature went up one degree Celsius over the past century. Dear God, we're all gonna die!!!!!

[arjay57]

Did anyone happen to see these comments by the US Secretary of Transportation? Maybe that means change is coming.

"The federal government spends as much money on highway construction in six weeks as it has put into urban transit in the last six years. Unless we intend to pave the entire surface of the country, we have to stop this trend."

[kferq]

Originally Posted by J2201987

Yes, a 35% increase in CO2 which occupies 0.04% of molecular atmospheric space brings that to a grand total of........0.05%?


Fluctuation of climates, weather, and the fluctuation of gases in the air are all part of the Earth's natural processes. This blue marble we are occupying has been beaten down by fiery meteors, horrific volcanic explosions, and warmed up from a major freeze about 10 millennia ago. If gets warmer, so what? If it gets cooler, so what?

I think people vastly underestimate how this planet is capable of equalizing and balancing itself out regardless of how much they *think* humans are powerful enough to change anything.





Oh look, the temperature went up one degree Celsius over the past century. Dear God, we're all gonna die!!!!!

Another would be scientist. In science witty arguments mean nothing when you are dead wrong. Read it and weep:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...11&as_ylo=2011

Yes, that change in Co2 is enough to cause cause major climate change with flooding, mass extinction, crop failures and other problems. Yes, you are dead wrong. End of story unless you can go through each article and show that each of these articles, reviewed by experts in the field contains serious errors. If you can't do that, then you are wrong.

Your last argument is the same one that the vaccine deniers in California are using. The planet and its natural balance will protect us. How is it working out for them? It is not stopping measles and it won't stop climate change.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by J2201987

Yes, a 35% increase in CO2 which occupies 0.04% of molecular atmospheric space brings that to a grand total of........0.05%?



But the Ozone layer (O3) absorbs and transmits more solar radiation than CO2, so should we also be propagandized about too much Ozone as well?



Fluctuation of climates, weather, and the fluctuation of gases in the air are all part of the Earth's natural processes. This blue marble we are occupying has been beaten down by fiery meteors, horrific volcanic explosions, and warmed up from a major freeze about 10 millennia ago. If gets warmer, so what? If it gets cooler, so what?

I think people vastly underestimate how this planet is capable of equalizing and balancing itself out regardless of how much they *think* humans are powerful enough to change anything.




Oh look, the temperature went up one degree Celsius over the past century. Dear God, we're all gonna die!!!!!

The fact that is it a grand total of 0.04% of all atmospheric mass means very little to what it does to the climate. The other 99.5% just takes up space, mass and has very little to no effect on the temperature on earth at all.

This doesn't help your argument and it makes you sound very poorly educated to be quite frank.

Let me put this into a simple man's comparison. If I give you a glass that is 99.5% water and 0.05% poison, would you still drink it?

The vast vast vast majority of what is in that glass is just water, afterall. Of course, that 0.05% can still kill you, it still has an effect, it just surrounded by alot of mass of another substance. Comparatively, our entire atmoshpere is HUGE space full of a great deal of mass.


Yes, we should watch ozone and other atmospheric gases, like Nitrous Oxide, Methane, CFCs, etc... They all have the same problem when put into the atmosphere in artificial ways beyond a natural occurrence. Some absorb transmit heat from solar radiation more or less than others.

But largely we look at CO2 more often, because it is in the atmosphere at a much higher concentration than O3 and other greenhouse gases and we have seen it increase in a large way from human actions.



Lastly, it is not a natural process if we do something to boost levels well beyond what would occur in nature. A natural change has not occured. A very fast, geologically speaking, short-term spike in an aggressive upward direction has occurred to CO2 levels int he atmosphere. It has made the earth warmer and has had an affect on climate and weather system that affects various ecosystems throughout the world.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Did anyone happen to see these comments by the US Secretary of Transportation? Maybe that means change is coming.

I wouldn't bet on it. Not with with Republican control of both parts of Congress controlling the purse strings.

It is very possible we might hear rhetoric on both sides pick up, because of the divided in government.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

I wouldn't bet on it. Not with with Republican control of both parts of Congress controlling the purse strings.

It is very possible we might hear rhetoric on both sides pick up, because of the divided in government.

I was actually making a silly joke, cw.

Those comments were from Secretary of Transportation John Volpe in 1969.

In other words, government officials have been talking about the overbuilding of highways and shifting more money to transit for nearly 50 years now. We can see how that has worked out...

And Volpe was a Republican.