Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-millions of gallons of gas/coal/oil burnt daily for heating millions of houses, in power generating stations, cars, planes, trucks,
-and all that CO2 produced
-and given all that deforestation, when forest are reduced to a third, of what they used to be in centuries
(may be you have learned at school that forest take CO2 from the air and produce oxigen?)
DOES NOT affect the climate?
We live in "The Age of (Willfully) Stupid" on the subject of AGW.
William Nicholson, writer of Shadowlands and Gladiator, said “I hate this film. I felt as if I was watching all my own excuses for not doing anything about climate change being stripped away from me.”
Save your snarky comments about how I must be the STUPID ONE, blah, blah, blah -- I've heard it all from deniers.
-millions of gallons of gas/coal/oil burnt daily for heating millions of houses, in power generating stations, cars, planes, trucks,
If you're trying to say the heat itself is a culprit think again. I forget what the exact numbers are but the amount of BTU's delivered to the earths surface by the sun in a few hours is equal to all the heat produced by man for all time.
The basic argument is not that the heat produced from burning carbon based fuels is heating the atmosphere but that the CO2 produced as a waste product is causing the atmosphere to retain more of the solar energy by reducing infra red reradiating back into space. I have yet to read any rational argument refuting this fundamental consideration. Additional measurements and my personal observation have shown me that my local and the planetary climate have been getting warmer.
BTW - IMHO The American South is already too hot for comfortable living during the summer.
I wouldn't agree with that conclusion at all. If it were going up or down the blue data would have significant curve to it compared to the mean especially considering it's 150 year time frame. It's quite obvious even by looking at it that's not the case and that is proven through the 20 separate data points with very little divergence.
Let me ask this question, is there anyone out there that agrees with Turboblocke? Anyone at all?
Really makes no difference, I know I'm right and I'm sure you know I'm right but are just trying to save face. CYA.
DK syndrome at it's most ob(li)vious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
