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.
What is your view on the importance of climate change?
the climate constantly fluctuates over a timeframe not compatible with humans or other life forms.
No science has been shown to reflect the economic and regulatory efforts to date and the impact on slowing a natural event indistinguished from human caused syngerism.
No relationship between money spent and achieved goals vs timeline.
The problem is the nebulous results money and over zealous regulations will accomplish.
Deniers support sound environmental respect not some money making scheme where you essentially pay for magazines you never receive.
Deniers have provided no obstruction to regulations imposed and tax money conscripted.
Universities live off government grants and have lost their independence and trust because of that dependency.
A huge red flag is when warmers claim the science is settled and argument is not tolerated as evidenced by firings for expressing a different opinion. When someone attacks you for challenging a scientific interpretation their intentions are to be considered nefarious.
Handing money to the UN is a lost cause no matter the cause.
To the question: "You indicated that the predicted tropospheric hot spot has not been observed. Is this discrepancy primarily due to inaccuracies in the observations or in the models?"
Are we done linking actual scientific papers and now it is time to move on to known propagandists?
Roy Spencer is also a creationist that doesn't believe in evolution. Do you also think evolution is a conspiracy? Just trying to figure out how far down the rabbit hole you are.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 11-17-2016 at 10:17 AM..
It is extremely urgent that it be addressed but the anti-science nitwits don't get how it should not be politicized and instead addressed and taken seriously by all mankind. But then it occurs to me that as humans, if we have failed in getting everyone on board, it means that there is a substantial portion of humans (mostly un the USA) that are not intelligent enough to get it and if that is the case...screw the human race and we don't deserve or quality to inhabit the Earth anymore. No great loss to this planet when the parasitic species is no more.
We can't control the climate but we can change it. And humans won't be the first organism to do it. Get this -- nearly all of the oxygen we breathe today came from climate change caused by algae. Billions of years ago the atmosphere had very little oxygen in it; simple algae-like creatures bloomed in the oceans, giving off oxygen as waste. Accumulated over millions of years the oxygen content rose to 21% where it is today.
Humans are burning 1,100 barrels of oil per second. You can't give off that much CO2 and not change the atmosphere, and when the atmosphere changes, the weather has to change with it.
Zero. I don't think it's really anthropogenic. Politics has largely supplanted science on this issue. You can't deny AGW without jeopardizing your career if you're a scientist.
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.
