Correct... very close to 100% of peer reviewed articles have not found that man made co2 is causing warming.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
"Ozone-forming chemicals produced in eastern China have been drifting across the Pacific to the western United States, according to a new study. The pollution has combined with ozone released by natural processes to cancel out many of the gains from stricter pollution controls enacted in the United States since 2005, according to a new study..."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/chinese-pollution-is-coming-to-america.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/chinese-pollution-is-coming-to-america.html
that may well be a legitimate issue. We need to focus on real pollution. As far as our science really knows. CO2 is plant food and not pollution.
We should cease spending trillions on co2 speculation and spend some of that money on eliminating real pollution and radiation coming from the east to San Diego. ( a little nimby nervous humor)
We should cease spending trillions on co2 speculation and spend some of that money on eliminating real pollution and radiation coming from the east to San Diego. ( a little nimby nervous humor)
Just how many times are you going to post the same stuff over & over again.
Did you ever think of posting something new? You know like an article authored in the past month.
no one trusts the opinions or organizations that can be bought.
and when a real survey is done almost no one says that man made co2 caused all the warming.
read the surveys...
then ask yourself why you can't find a list of scientists who state man made co2 is causing warming right now.
where is your list of scientists with real science? not the un's ipcc. yeah I am going to believe the UN truthful.
and when a real survey is done almost no one says that man made co2 caused all the warming.
read the surveys...
then ask yourself why you can't find a list of scientists who state man made co2 is causing warming right now.
where is your list of scientists with real science? not the un's ipcc. yeah I am going to believe the UN truthful.
The Washington Post’s Matea Gold recently interviewed Charles Koch. When she asked if he was worried about climate change, Koch replied,
Well, I mean I believe it’s been warming some. There’s a big debate on that, because it depends on whether you use satellite measurements, balloon, or you use ground ones that have been adjusted. But there has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that.
This response isn’t entirely accurate. For example, data from satellites, balloons (both of which are also ‘adjusted’), and thermometers on the ground (including their raw, unadjusted data) all show a clear long-term global warming trend at or near the Earth’s surface. But at least Koch acknowledged that the planet has been warming and carbon pollution has contributed to it. In fact, humans are responsible for all of the global warming we’ve seen since 1950.
Despite not being 100% accurate, at least Koch is beyond Stages 1 and 2 of climatedenial (denying the problem exists or that we’re the cause). That’s better than some Republican presidential candidates like Ted Cruz and possibly even Jeb Bush, although most other politicians have moved beyond the first stages of climate denial, apparently viewing them as a political liability.
Koch’s Stage 3 and 4 Climate Denial
Unfortunately, Charles Koch exhibited Stage 3 (deny it’s a problem) and Stage 4 (deny we can solve it) climate denial in some of his other interview comments, saying,
They have these models that show [warming], but the models don’t work.
Given the recent study finding that climate models are even more accurate than we thought, and we already knew they’ve been quite accurate, Koch’s “models don’t work” statement was poorly timed and simply untrue. He also claimed,
But they say it’s going to be catastrophic. There is no evidence to that.
Setting impossible expectations is one of the five telltale techniques of climate denial. Do we not have to worry about the consequences of climate change until they become catastrophic? And what if the consequences are just really, really bad? There is certainly plenty of evidence for that; whether or not those potential consequences are deemed “catastrophic” is a judgment call. Is it a “catastrophe” if half of global species go extinct, for example? There’s evidence we’re headed in that direction. I discussed some potentialclimate impacts in the following Denial101x lecture.
All this means is that Koch can be bought.
; )