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.
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
A mere 0.028% atmospheric CO2 (before the fossil fuel age) was the difference between a livable and non-livable frozen planet. Does that strike anyone in the GOP as significant to our survival and happiness? Do they still want to dismiss it as a "trace gas" just because it's a small percentage in layman's terms?
Much of science is not common knowledge aka common sense, especially when it comes to volume vs. potency. Few would have guessed that a bomb the size of a small car could destroy an area millions of times larger, but "elitist" scientists knew it long before Joe Six Pack had a clue. In fact, Joe Six Pack would never have figured it out. Same goes for the physical properties of CO2 (outside of beer foam). The average Joe never studied CO2 but now sees himself as an expert because Rush Limbaugh planted taxation/regulation theories that have no bearing on physics.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
Why would anyone cry "hoax" about global warming concerns, given those facts? Why isn't this worth worrying about? Life isn't fair. The planet has been (per the 3-bears story) "just right" for our survival but now we're pushing it into unknown territory. Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
I can't address your post on your terms, however, neither can the vast majority of voters.
When you inject politics into the discussion and make blanket statements about a huge raft of people you label conservative, you are just another HCGW shill. You can't pretend to own the correct scientific interpretation of the data and make an irrational statement about a collective group of people. Prejudice and science do not mix.
The earth has the capacity to reach equilibrium without man's help.
If not, we go away. Al the registered voters D or R can hop up and down and shout and the earths agenda does not even list our concern.
What do you propose 'we' do to save the earth. We, being 'all' the registered democrats in the USA because it is apparent that if 'all' registered republicans don't chant, 'we believe, we believe' you contend the earth will freeze????
There are other people on earth whose number is far greater than registered USA republican voters. Apparently they are irrelevant to your solution, whatever it is.
Conclusions arrived at via scientific method are only true for a moment. Scientific data may be interpreted incorrectly and when it becomes weaponized it is more of a cult. So it is not the science that is in question, it is the interpretation of the data that begs to be challenged and tempered in the fire of argument. Apparently the 'scientific' community is at odds. The grant sucking academics will fondle the government udder for more sustenence and do its bidding to keep the milk flowing.
Masinstream science believed bad odors caused disease., they also believed yellow fever was transmitted by filth and could not comprehend an insect vector was involved.
so OP you come up with a stupid premise, and try to inject politics into science, and then wonder why so many people are skeptics when it comes to so call climate change? you contend that 0% CO2 in the atmosphere would mean a snowball earth, are you suggesting then that any CO2 in the atmosphere would prevent a snowball earth? if that is the case then you would in fact be quite wrong, as the earth has been a snowball twice in the past, the last time was 600million years ago, and there was plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
None of them realize this, because it isn't true.
Quote:
A mere 0.028% atmospheric CO2 (before the fossil fuel age) was the difference between a livable and non-livable frozen planet. Does that strike anyone in the GOP as significant to our survival and happiness? Do they still want to dismiss it as a "trace gas" just because it's a small percentage in layman's terms?
I skimmed through your link and didn't see your claim there, so I performed a search on the page. It returned no instances of the figure .028 percent in the article.
Quote:
Much of science is not common knowledge aka common sense, especially when it comes to volume vs. potency. Few would have guessed that a bomb the size of a small car could destroy an area millions of times larger, but "elitist" scientists knew it long before Joe Six Pack had a clue. In fact, Joe Six Pack would never have figured it out. Same goes for the physical properties of CO2 (outside of beer foam). The average Joe never studied CO2 but now sees himself as an expert because Rush Limbaugh planted taxation/regulation theories that have no bearing on physics.
Someone who claims to be all about science shouldn't use strawman arguments like that one.
Quote:
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
Those who think critically can see that everything you say has Republicans and conservatives attached to it, thus reinforcing the argument that global warming is a partisan political matter rather than a scientific one.
Quote:
Why would anyone cry "hoax" about global warming concerns, given those facts? Why isn't this worth worrying about? Life isn't fair. The planet has been (per the 3-bears story) "just right" for our survival but now we're pushing it into unknown territory. Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
They would cry hoax because:
1. Claiming something is settled science is suspicious since a core foundation of science is precisely that nothing is settled.
2. The sorts of proposals to deal with global warming were already policies the left wing wanted before anybody ever heard of global warming. I have seen quotes from people such as Van Jones who openly said that it doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not because the policies addressing global warming are good for wealth redistribution and social justice.
3. Labeling people "deniers" is an obvious attempt to slander and marginalize those who do not believe in global warming. Claiming that something is scientific fact but then attempting to promote it through attaching pejorative labels to people who don't agree makes the science claims suspect.
4. The sheer vehemence of the global warming supporters is suspect in that it seems to an outsider to approach almost religious cult levels. Getting that emotionally invested in climate science is..well..weird.
5. From what I have seen, not a single one of the predictions made about global warming has turned out to be true.
6. The majority of global warming theories seem to be based not on any objective reality, but on computer models. And similar to #5 above, none of them that I have heard of have ended up being accurate. They are simply revised when they turn out to be wrong.
Quote:
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
No, we don't need to prove anything. We are not the ones putting forth a prediction of the end of the world. You are. That puts the burden of proof on you, not us. Someone who claims to be so scientific should understand how to assign the burden of proof.
when i was in grade school. we learned in science class that CO2 was needed for photosynthesis.
why are greenies against science and hate trees?
So the argument now appears to be if we do not suffer under draconian liberal progressive's greenhouse gas regulations, then it's because we secretly want the earth to be like the moon, bereft of all life, a frozen, lifeless rock in space.
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.
