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.
AGCC is nothing less than a politicians wet dream to tax air.
. . .
There is no "consensus" on what is the "desired" climate, nor the means to achieve it.
The compute models predict nonsense.
All the dire predictions of 1990s, and 2000s, did not occur.
. . .
But no one dare blaspheme in the Church of the Warming Planet, lest they lose their funding.
The chart I posted earlier (link below) doesn't show that. It shows a decline in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910. Then it reverses, and in a start-stop fashion temperatures climb upward in a strong trend that correlates to increasing CO2.
If one takes a pot of cool water and puts it on a stove, it takes time for the water to show the effects of heating. The Earth has considerable thermal inertia. The effects of 405 ppm CO2 in the air now won't be felt for years down the road. As CO2 continues to rise the climate effects will accumulate and build in a delayed reaction. It won't be pretty.
This event happened in recent recorded history and it happened in the absence of any significant changes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If warming coupled with an increase in CO2 prove that CO2 is responsible for the warming, then the cooling that occurred during the Little Ice Age must have been caused by a significant reduction of atmospheric CO2.
Since we already know that CO2 levels were essentially flat as the Earth warmed and cooled in recent centuries, your theory fails even a cursory examination.
This event happened in recent recorded history and it happened in the absence of any significant changes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If warming coupled with an increase in CO2 prove that CO2 is responsible for the warming, then the cooling that occurred during the Little Ice Age must have been caused by a significant reduction of atmospheric CO2.
Since we already know that CO2 levels were essentially flat as the Earth warmed and cooled in recent centuries, your theory fails even a cursory examination.
Bottom line is: none of you alarmists know anything about this subject, you just keep throwing these 'studies' and 'papers', by 'renowned scientists' at us. I might start to listen if one of these egg-heads ever spent their own money coming up with this stuff.....I think they are in it for the money, although I have no doubt they actually believe what come up with (after they manipulate the facts). Any one of us, given enough money, could have a study by a famous scientist, come up with almost any conclusion we wanted at the beginning....
From The National Review: "In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda".
Scientists studying prehistoric climate change show that natural forces caused the climate to shift very slowly. When humans started burning fossil fuels 100 years ago and at ever-increasing rates today, the rate of climate change is now 170 times faster than before.
The objective and scientific case for human-caused climate change continues to become more and more rock solid.
Bottom line is: none of you alarmists know anything about this subject, you just keep throwing these 'studies' and 'papers', by 'renowned scientists' at us. I might start to listen if one of these egg-heads ever spent their own money coming up with this stuff.....I think they are in it for the money, although I have no doubt they actually believe what come up with (after they manipulate the facts). Any one of us, given enough money, could have a study by a famous scientist, come up with almost any conclusion we wanted at the beginning....
From The National Review: "In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda".
That's the biggest issue. These scientists are given grants to study the impact of humans on the climate and if they say there is no impact the funds dry up and they are out of work.
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.
