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.
If you’re so sure that AGW is a hoax, then why not make a bet that the period from 2020 to 2030 will be cooler than the period from 2010 to 2020? If AGW is a hoax, then the observed warming is just part of a natural cycle and we are overdue for a cooling trend back toward the mean. Surely the odds are in your favor?
that's not the hoax......
....this is the hoax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22
What gets me......if you believe CO2 causes global warming
...why do they all....flat out refuse....to blame China
Why is it always "WE" have to do something...."WE" have to have windmills..."WE" have to get rid of gasoline
"WE" have not increased our CO2 emissions in the past 50 years...."WE" have not contributed anything toward global warming in the past 50 years
"WE" all know why...."WE" are the idiots....and "CHINA" will tell the whole world to go pound sand
...exactly what China has been doing all along
Lots of sheeple who are towing[sic] their party lines or have some sort of existential dogg[sic] in the fight
Can you name names? Or give an example?
Quote:
I’ve actually talked with very pragmatic specialists on the inside, and it is CRYSTAL clear that climate change is happening and it’s being caused by humans 100%.
Hmm, I see. Thanks for the example. It's an excellent one!
What was wrong with my arguments? I’ll repeat them again:
CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared. If you don’t believe me, ask a physics professor.
CO2 is produced when fossil fuels are burned. If you don’t believe me, ask a chemist.
Therefore, burning fossil fuels puts CO2 in the atmosphere.
Therefore, the atmosphere will get warmer as more heat from the earth is absorbed.
Where’s the flaw in the argument?
Well, I don’t hold a degree in journalism so I am just a bible thumping gun toting Trumper, but let me raise my racist hand for a few questions I have about climate change that I think are legitimate :
1. How much co2 is necessary to affect climate?
2. Are humans the only things that create co2 on earth?
3. Are there any organic life forms that can remove co2 from the atmosphere?
4. If we planted more of these life forms would that help reverse the climate?
5. Is halting all manufacturing in the developed world the only way to affect the climate positively?
6. Has the climate changed before the Industrial Revolution?
7. In the push to move to all things electric to save the climate, does any consideration need to be taken for the environmental impacts of lithium mining, and ultimately the disposal of used massive batteries?
And finally…
8. If a country starts with a C or an I, should they be held severely accountable for their part in climate change, or should it just be ignored because it’s easier or just considered taboo (like saying you don’t think AOC is smart)
Well, I don’t hold a degree in journalism so I am just a bible thumping gun toting Trumper, but let me raise my racist hand for a few questions I have about climate change that I think are legitimate :
1. How much co2 is necessary to affect climate?
2. Are humans the only things that create co2 on earth?
3. Are there any organic life forms that can remove co2 from the atmosphere?
4. If we planted more of these life forms would that help reverse the climate?
5. Is halting all manufacturing in the developed world the only way to affect the climate positively?
6. Has the climate changed before the Industrial Revolution?
7. In the push to move to all things electric to save the climate, does any consideration need to be taken for the environmental impacts of lithium mining, and ultimately the disposal of used massive batteries?
And finally…
8. If a country starts with a C or an I, should they be held severely accountable for their part in climate change, or should it just be ignored because it’s easier or just considered taboo (like saying you don’t think AOC is smart)
1. At the beginning of the industrial revolution the atmospheric CO2 levels were 280ppm. Today that concentration is 420ppm. So that's quite a lot for 150 years. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, more than 2,000 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide have been added to the atmosphere by human activities. That's 1.4 metric tonnes of carbon per person per year at the current rate.
2. Volcanoes and decaying organic matter.
3. Trees. Big trees. Those things that we are cutting down. Other plant life too course. Plant life not only consumes CO2 but also absorbs heat. Trees have the greatest cooling effect because of their size. Much of that cooling is due to water evaporation.
4. Something like a few trillion trees need to be planted to reduce and stabilize atmospheric CO2.
6. Oh yes, many times and sometimes way more dramatically. What's different this time is the rate of change.
7. Yes, electric is wonderful. All it takes are a good number of new coal fired power plants to produce the electricity. ICE's are more fuel efficient than coal fired plants. OK, so there are alternatives like hydro, wind, solar and nuclear power.
The US has reduced it's CO2 emissions over the years by a significant amount through technological developments.
New Zealand is planning on cutting it's carbon foot print too. That will have a HUGE impact on global CO2 levels. So much so that we don't need to worry about China and India at all. New Zealand has also introduced CRT and gender diverse studies in it's schools. Yes, we've gone crazy woke too! We are still deforesting our land though. (Sarcasm).
In 50 years of trying, STILL no proof that man's activities have any effect on the climate changes we're seeing
What constitutes absolute proof, of anything, can always be debated. But can't we agree that man's activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that, based on our best current understanding, this will impact our climate to some degree, possibly in the extreme? Shouldn't we try to limit our exposure to this risk as much as possible? How did the notion that we should ignore this, or any, problem until there is absolute proof it will be disastrous become the "conservative" view?
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.
