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.
And just to add who's side of the argument are you trying to make by pointing out carbon taxes are going to cost the fossil fuel industry and subsequently the consumer an enormous amount of money?
I might be able to believe that if you had sought to clarify what you meant the next post but you didn't. It was many posts later after painting yourself into a corner that you tried to use that excuse.
I don't remember being painted into any corners. All I remember about that post is KuChief's obsessing with people running away from him and some other user demanding resumes from everyone.
A few years later, the chemical company DuPont decided to voluntarily reduce CFC usage.
nice try, but the real reason dupont stopped production and use of CFC12, R12 for the uneducated, is not because of the montreal protocols, which dont affect us anyway because we didnt ratify them, but rather because at the time dupont was the ONLY producer of CFC12 in the US because they owned the patents, and they were running out. so they developed R134a, and lobbied the government to make the production of R12 in this country illegal. the motive in this case was money plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Nice work...From your first link...
But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
All your links are to denialist opinion pieces.....Maybe it's just me, but I'll take the word of scientists that are actually publishing on the subject over denialist bloggers every time.
you keep talking about this 97% of climate scientists, but the reality is that the only scientists polled work for the IPCC, and 97% of those scientists are who said the current round of climate change is man made. what they are trying to do is extrapolate that polling data to all climate scientists around the world, and you cant do that. you need a larger pool of non IPCC climate scientists to poll before one can make those kinds of claims. so the polling data is flawed badly.
Well, you used to know it. Then I showed you that your tabloid article was a lie and now you know better. You can't use ignorance as an excuse any more, so that makes you a liar. And we all know it.
I'm a liar i guess i'm not the only one.
Hansen published a National Academy of Sciences paper, in 2000, which stated that the warming since 1960 was due to CFCs.
A paper published in 2013 by Canadian scientists agreed, and both agreed that warming probably slow or stop by about a decade ago.
Borehole and ice core data indicate warming began 500 years ago, before man had any influence at all. Hansen now refutes his own published papers, and, AGAIN, says that global warming is due to CO2.
14C and 10Be indicate that GW is related to solar cycles, warming and cooling tracking concentrations of these species made from cosmic rays, which enhance cloud formation, cooling the Earth. Certain scientists put this process on a quantitative footing recently.
In the past 15 years, even Hansen's former Goddard Space Institute published data showing the globe has not warmed, but cooled slightly (in agreement with the Hadley Centre in England). Both, however, choose to dismiss or ignore their own data since it does not agree with their total faith in GW.
This past year saw the most LOW temperature records in 20 years, and more low than high temperature records. That is characteristic of "cooling", not warming.
Hansen's prediction is not working well, again and again, except for Gore and others profiting from Hansen's warnings, who are getting richer, again and again.
Hansen's GW assertion has all the earmarks of "pathological" science.
It's cute the way you keep asking me to pretend yours is an informed opinion, and worth listening to. Now go read your little tabloid. Be sure to whine about Al Gore a lot.
So a bunch of scientists and politicians with financial and professional interests in AWG being true claim that AWG is settled science. I'm very surprised that people with connections to green energy startups and scientists whose funding depends on proving AGW claim it's true, and they certainly aren't lying about it and manipulating data to protect their interests.
A professor or scientist is just as capable of being a con man as anyone else.
You know, in the 60s already our federal government was very concerned about global warming because of the way it was impacting the people and the land in Canada's far north. Sure it's debateable what the causes for it are but to deny it's getting warmer is just stupid ignorance on the first degree. Those who deny it are not worth having a conversation with. It's like debating with a person who claims it does not snow any more while you are standing in a snow drift 5 feet deep. I have zero respect for anything that person has to say because they are delusional idiots.
I have more faith in my tabloid than your Climate expert Al Gore.
Of course you do. You're still dead wrong, though.
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.