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.
In order to extract massive revenues from carbon taxes. Those revenues will fund international do-good projects such as transferring moneys to the likes of Kabila, Mugabe and Assad to help their people cope with "climate change." The money will cool off nicely in Switzerland's numbered bank accounts.
I still haven't received an intelligent response to the question of stratospheric cooling coinciding with lower tropospheric warming and the role refrigerants released into the atmosphere may play in increasing the amount of UV rays reaching the Earth's surface.
I guess there's no money to be made going after chemicals that have already been banned by the Montreal Protocol.
And then there's the greatest greenhouse gas of them all, H2O!
"What is your actual evidence of anthropological global warming?"
Well, it's February 25 at 2:19 am and the heat isn't running. It is currently 64 F and the historical average is 24 F. Today it was over 70, about 20 degrees above average for a high. I'm in the mountains, there's no snow or ice, and the magnolia & dogwood trees are blossoming everywhere.
Now, you might reply "that's a stupid answer" but nobody can convince me this is normal.
If you want actual statistics, the average temperature across the Earth's surface last year was 58.69 degrees which is 1.69 degrees above average, a record breaking margin, according to NOAA.
I don't know what more proof climate change deniers want. There is a lot of "evidence" so apparently that isn't enough. I mean, let's see.
tens of thousands of scientists - yes, it is very real
Donald J. Trump - no, it's a hoax
"The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real."
You just proved the point of my original post. You believe in AGW because you were told to think that way. Number one, you repeated the lie that traveled around the world (that 97% of 'scientists' agree that humans are causing the planet to warm up) and therefore you believe it. Again 66% have no opinion.
Number two you say that you believe it's getting warmer, but you failed to explain why you think it's humans causing it versus it just being planet earth going through a phase on its own.
So yet another thread that it was warm before in Greenland and a study on sun spots proves that the overwhelming evidence from scientists around the globe indicates that there is no AGW. This is what passes as a serious debate.
Your facts are wrong. Two thirds of scientists have NO OPINION as to whether humans are causing significant warming. Again, as I said in my original post, it's a logical fallacy to cite opinions instead of data in the first place. You just keep proving my original post. The data does not support anthropological global warming -- not the last 100 years and certainly not the last 11,000 years or last 420,000 years.
Why did temperatures decline after the post war economic boom when CO2 emissions were accelerating? This is a major problem for the AGW crowd.
I still haven't received an intelligent response to the question of stratospheric cooling coinciding with lower tropospheric warming and the role refrigerants released into the atmosphere may play in increasing the amount of UV rays reaching the Earth's surface.
I guess there's no money to be made going after chemicals that have already been banned by the Montreal Protocol.
And then there's the greatest greenhouse gas of them all, H2O!
100% FACT there. The truth is 95% of all greenhouse GAS warming is due to... that's right, H2O.
So your entire argument to discounting man made climate change for the last 100 years is your claim that a hiatus for a few years is unexplained. Just curious which years specifically so there can be a real discussion.
What records are you using to establish this claim? Satellite records? They don't go back that far. Are you using the surface station data? Which stations, which record sets, and is the data modified or raw? How did they modify EXACTLY?
You also do realize that there is no such thing as a global temperature gauge? The best they can do is guess the temperature between hundreds of miles between the areas where there are no stations. This is why the claim of a global rise of such is laughable as it falls within the margin of error of their assessments.
Begs the question: what shall we do to reduce our H2O footprints?
In my best progressive mocking voice...
A H2O TAX!!! We need a tax whenever someone uses water, expels water, drills for water, waters their yard, waters their crops, it rains on their yard or crops OR when it doesn't rain on their yard or crops because THAT will stop the global warming created by atmospheric H2O!!!
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.
