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.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this Earth and has been at higher levels than it is now many times and for very long periods since the Earth was formed.
It has also not been clearly established that the Earth warms as a result of increased carbon dioxide.
Correlation is not causation. In other words, if the planet had been proven to have warmed in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels, it would not automatically follow that the increased carbon dioxide levels were the cause of that.
But the inconvenient truth here is that not even a correlation has been proven by these "scientists". The Earth has not warmed as predicted by these people. In fact, it appears that global temperatures have been lower than expected even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase.
Clearly, this is a matter of trust and faith for many of the believers in this politically derived secular progressive religion. Perhaps it would be best for everyone if all of you who fall into that category would just come clean about that.
When you get a Ph.D in Climate Science, let us know. Otherwise, what are your credentials for finding "all" of the analysis of climate science to be "flawed, biased, and based on artificially changed data"?
In today's bizarro world, a Ph.D in climate science actually discounts you as an authority on climate science. It means you were a victim of the indoctrination and brainwashing that inevitably accompanies the spending of any significant amount of time at 90% of all universities. It means you were a part of the "publish or perish" brain cleansing system. It means you were ensconced in the leftist-collectivist milieu that pervades most universities, and for at least 8 years if not longer. It means you are highly likely to be an advocate for a position, and not a scientist at all in the traditional sense of someone seeking truth.
Someone who holds a Ph.D in climate science is, regrettably in today's educational climate, the LAST person I am going to believe on the subject of climate science.
Excellent idea. This is how we adapt. And if we are forced to move all coastal cities inland due to rising sea levels, it will mean billions of jobs and the creation of untold trillions of wealth. Let's stop auto-armageddonism. Climate change can be an amazingly good thing. With agriculture spreading towards the poles in previously hostile areas. Including tundra even.
It can't be changed, it won't be changed. We need to change. And we will.
And elimination of freedom can never be an option. It is better for human life to end permanently than for us to put each other in chains to stay alive.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this Earth and has been at higher levels than it is now many times and for very long periods since the Earth was formed.
CO2 can be a pollutant and poison if there is too much of it. Vitamin A is a nutrient when consumed in the right amounts; take too much of it and it will kill you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
It has also not been clearly established that the Earth warms as a result of increased carbon dioxide.
Your statement is directly contradicted by thousands of peer-reviewed academic journals with carefully reviewed and tested datasets. I have an open mind and will agree with your point of view if you can provide links to peer-reviewed studies in respected journals that back your assertion.
Your statement is also contradicted by simple and repeatable lab experiments. CO2 can be shown to be opaque to infrared blackbody radiation but transparent to visible and UV sunlight. Therefore, as CO2 goes up due to human activity, the planet _must_ warm. Observations are confirming the physics.
CO2 can be a pollutant and poison if there is too much of it. Vitamin A is a nutrient when consumed in the right amounts; take too much of it and it will kill you.
Your statement is directly contradicted by thousands of peer-reviewed academic journals with carefully reviewed and tested datasets. I have an open mind and will agree with your point of view if you can provide links to peer-reviewed studies in respected journals that back your assertion.
Your statement is also contradicted by simple and repeatable lab experiments. CO2 can be shown to be opaque to infrared blackbody radiation but transparent to visible and UV sunlight. Therefore, as CO2 goes up due to human activity, the planet _must_ warm. Observations are confirming the physics.
We have already established that "peer review" is worthless when all the peers are programmed to reject any data that creates dissonance with their prior convictions. There is not a climate scientist alive who is a supporter of individual rights and Capitalism. When all the "peers" have the same basic set of statist-collectivist beliefs, their "review" is worthless.
In chemistry, in medicine, in biology, in physics, we see that the professionals display a mix of political viewpoints. Similar to the general population. If I present you with a random chemist or engineer, you will not be able to predict his politics. If I pick a random climate scientist? Nearly a 100% chance that he is a leftist-statist-collectivist. Nearly 0% chance that he is a capitalist or an objectivist or even a libertarian.
Climate scientists cannot be relied upon to offer an opinion on the climate that is unrelated to their political beliefs. And I think it's even worse than that. I think that people who choose to go into climate science already lean hard left and have a collectivist agenda going in. So their entire "education" is nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
Someone who holds a Ph.D in climate science is, regrettably in today's educational climate, the LAST person I am going to be I believe in what the NOAAlieve on the subject of climate science.
So who do you believe on the subject of climate science?
The NOAA use data from these sources =
Quote:
The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.
What data sources do you use to refute their claims?
More signs of global warming. I expect the same nonsense, inanities, and vacuous comments from the Global Warming denialists. The rising worldwide temperatures are what are predicted from anthropological climate change. The science is settled on this matter.
The purpose of this thread is to point out the trends. If you care about future generations, you will want action taken immediately. If not, I suppose they can just burn.
Not denying global warming. denying the government scam as to cause, forecast and claim it can mitigate or reverse the natural cycle of a dynamic earth only if given enough tax money.
Tremble that temperature is rising, admit there is no viable solution. Omit individual responsibility from the solution.
Admit that fear mongering is a critical part in selling the government's scam to claim more tax money.
Not denying global warming. denying the government scam as to cause, forecast and claim it can mitigate or reverse the natural cycle of a dynamic earth only if given enough tax money.
Tremble that temperature is rising, admit there is no viable solution. Omit individual responsibility from the solution.
Admit that fear mongering is a critical part in selling the government's scam to claim more tax money.
How much tax are you paying to support this supposed government scam?
Excellent idea. This is how we adapt. And if we are forced to move all coastal cities inland due to rising sea levels, it will mean billions of jobs and the creation of untold trillions of wealth. Let's stop auto-armageddonism. Climate change can be an amazingly good thing. With agriculture spreading towards the poles in previously hostile areas. Including tundra even.
It can't be changed, it won't be changed. We need to change. And we will.
And elimination of freedom can never be an option. It is better for human life to end permanently than for us to put each other in chains to stay alive.
Actually "retreat", as it is known in the scientific literature, is a less expensive investment than protection in some cases. This is because it occurs gradually over time and, because of this, assets are worth less due to depreciating the existing capital (infrastructure and buildings) and also because the weight of discounting over time reduces the value of the new investments.
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.
