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.
I don't know if it's man made or not and most people that say they know are depending on some source that leans one way or the other. So I would say that most people can't know the answer unless they are able to understand the motivation behind whatever source. For example, AOC's own campaign manager admitted that climate change is not the motivation behind the Green New Deal and that the real reason is to take control of the economy.
We pay 1000's of scientists in the US to provide answers to questions like this, so go to them. It is their job. There are numerous resources that summarizes their results other than the media and you can go to those. I recommend the UN IPCC report. It was authored by 100's of scientists from all across the globe so it not a Democrat (or Republican) publication. It (and other reports) is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
We pay 1000's of scientists in the US to provide answers to questions like this, so go to them. It is their job. There are numerous resources that summarizes their results other than the media and you can go to those. I recommend the UN IPCC report. It was authored by 100's of scientists from all across the globe so it not a Democrat (or Republican) publication. It (and other reports) is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Possibly but what happens to their funding if it's proven to not be man made?
Possibly but what happens to their funding if it's proven to not be man made?
Funding is not tied to results. A researcher will identify a problem that needs to be looked into and will request money to do that. Once the money is handed over there is no linkage between the money and the results, at least not with government funding agencies like NSF (National Science Foundation) and NASA.
If climate change never materializes, researchers who have been studying it will find other problems that need to be solved and request funding for those. The funding agency, like NSF, will give the researcher the money if he/she thinks it is a good problem to work on. If climate change has been "solved" because it does not exist, NSF will stop giving money out for researchers in that area and will direct it to other areas. People gravitate to whatever is the most interesting area to work in, not what they perceive to be the best result.
I used to be a researcher so have gone through funding with both the NSF and NASA.
Mammals did just fine in the past with CO2 levels 5X what they are now.
Publisher: Hello, this is Smith Books, how can I help you?
Me: I'd like a refund on my geology books.
Publisher: Oh, is there something wrong with them?
Me: Yes. They refer to various mass extinction events when CO2 levels were high.
Publisher: Why do you think that is wrong?
Me: "Hawkeye" on an anonymous internet forum says so.
Publisher: Ummm....
On earth. Every action has a reaction, of course it’s a part not all. BTW keep firing Nukes into the earth... one day momma earth going to throw that shyte back with force. Who pushed the button ? Man
I recommend the UN IPCC report. It was authored by 100's of scientists from all across the globe
IPCC 3rd assessment report direct quote... " "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible."
Publisher: Hello, this is Smith Books, how can I help you?
Me: I'd like a refund on my geology books.
Publisher: Oh, is there something wrong with them?
Me: Yes. They refer to various mass extinction events when CO2 levels were high.
Publisher: Why do you think that is wrong?
Me: "Hawkeye" on an anonymous internet forum says so.
Publisher: Ummm....
Typical liberal response. Can’t refute the argument, stoop to insults.
Just like the whole human race would perish IF (IF) we are hit by a killer asteroid. Or...............we would all die if 1,000 Godzillas were released to destroy the planet!
Mammals did just fine in the past with CO2 levels 5X what they are now. It is sheer idiocy to presume that somehow CO2 and its interaction with IR energy is different now than it was in the past.
The AGW crowd is completely ignorant of the fossil record, past CO2 levels, and corresponding temps. That is why they have fallen for this hoax. Some fool was presuming that Greenland would "sink", while its average elevation is 5,00ft (nearly a mile) and its peak at 12,000. Of course, if Greenland sunk, nearly the entire continental US (with the exception of a few peaks) would be under water. What is the highest peak in the continental US? Mt. Whitney or something, which is around 14,500. For that matter, MOST of the world would be under water.
Keep in mind that there are fossilized tropical plants and animals above the arctic circle which date from nearly the same continental positions. So the world was once warm enough that it was tropical above the artic circle and life went on just fine.
It is simply amazing how gullible the AGW crowd is.
Brb, gonna run with this. Ill come let you know what I find.
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.
