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.
Anyone who takes this seriously is a nut. These guys can't even get their models to predict an accurate 3 day, who in their right minds trusts them with a 20 or more years out prediction? You'd have to be insane to trust them.
You realize theres a difference between climate and weathr right?
The same people that denied smoking was bad for you have now pivoted to climate change denial. So as the link between smoking and cancer is a "liberal conspricacy," so is climate change.
Anyone who takes this seriously is a nut. These guys can't even get their models to predict an accurate 3 day, who in their right minds trusts them with a 20 or more years out prediction? You'd have to be insane to trust them.
And the difference between short-term local weather fluctuations and long-term global climate patterns has been clearly explained so many times over the years, someone would have to be a complete moron to still now know the difference. So are you sure you really want to be the one to start questioning other people's ability to reason?
Maybe it is weather, but the hottest period In my part of the country was the early 1950s. They keep mentioning that all the records were set then for heat.
Maybe it is weather, but the hottest period In my part of the country was the early 1950s. They keep mentioning that all the records were set then for heat.
Wish I believed it was a hoax. Because I hate the heat..
But anyways, 3-2-1.. ARGUE..
Average global temperatures were was 10.4° F warmer than present during the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
I guess you wouldn't have survived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg
We've now had 400 months in a row of above average temperatures.
Are you suggesting Earth is only 400 months old?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg
I think climate change deniers have some hard wired aversion to long term thinking.
According to the chief architect of global warming:
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "[i]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
During the first 2 Billion years of Earth's existence, its atmosphere was CO2, Methane and Ammonia with no Oxygen, and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.
After that, over the course of the next 500 Million years as Oxygen slowly leached into the atmosphere filled with CO2 and Methane during the Great Oxygenation Event, there still was no runaway greenhouse effect.
To claim that a paltry amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans which is dwarfed by the vast quantities of CO2 in the past will cause a runaway greenhouse effect is not science, but then, "global warming" was never about science, it was about coercing social and economic change.
"Just trying to make sure your grand-kids don't grow up in a crummy world"..
Like it or not, we gotta sacrifice a bit. You tax dollars aren't gonna matter much if your wrong about this..
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.
