Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

[Tsing Tao]

But it makes it a lot more interesting. Especially when one shoots his dick off. Although that's pretty funny, come to think of it.

I guess it makes it a lot more interesting to those folks like yourself that have a fetish for the topic. For me, guns really aren't all that "oooh and ahhh". But hey, we all have to have a fascination, I guess.

Regarding the shooting one's penis off, did that happen recently somewhere? Or are you just flexing your sense of humor again?

 

[Lucrum]

There are plenty of entertaining things to read about gun owners in the news....

Many of whom are "trained" law enforcement officers. A uniform and badge doesn't guarantee firearms competence anymore than the lack of such guarantees the opposite.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/am-Qdx6vky0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I could go on and on and on with examples. But then you wouldn't watch them anyway now would you.

 

[fhl]

According to a peer reviewed paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, lying about the climate to promote the climate change agenda is good. It helps the cause.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/20...ng-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/

It doesn't matter whether it global warming, health care, guns, whatever, lying is the left's m.o.

What is the point of listening to anything they have to say?

 

[futurecurrents]

According to a peer reviewed paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, lying about the climate to promote the climate change agenda is good. It helps the cause.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/20...ng-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/

It doesn't matter whether it global warming, health care, guns, whatever, lying is the left's m.o.

What is the point of listening to anything they have to say?

Who has to say? The scientists? Are you saying there is no point in listening to the scientists?

So what in my previous outline of the science on this thread is a lie. How could something so obvious and simple be a lie. Do you know what a GHG is? What are you fucking stupid? (Rhetorical question of course you are, you are a righty).

 

[futurecurrents]

So really, all these other arguments of jem and others are just sideshows to the essential science that I have already presented. Those insurmountable facts and obvious common sense science are all one needs to be convinced. This is why the consensus among the scientists is nearly complete. It is not a difficult thing at the basic level.

 

[wildchild]

I think we should start a thread that shows some of the evidence and science of man made global warming. There is a huge amount. I'll just start with this statement from the American Geophysical Union.

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

Every prediction you global warming pranksters have made has been totally wrong. Why would this claim be any different?

If this is really such an issue for you, then lead by example and stop polluting. It makes your argument look stupid, when you expect everyone else to change their ways, but you keep on doing things that are pumping out the CO2. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

 

[futurecurrents]

Every prediction you global warming pranksters have made has been totally wrong. Why would this claim be any different?

If this is really such an issue for you, then lead by example and stop polluting. It makes your argument look stupid, when you expect everyone else to change their ways, but you keep on doing things that are pumping out the CO2. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

So which of the following is wrong? Don't get distracted. This is simple logic. The following is all one needs to know to accept man made global warming as fact. If you need further clarification of these things let me know.



We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40%.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do.

 

[dbphoenix]

If this is really such an issue for you, then lead by example and stop polluting. It makes your argument look stupid, when you expect everyone else to change their ways, but you keep on doing things that are pumping out the CO2. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

And to a large extent you are right. However, when politicians are bought and paid for by the monied interests which fight the EPA every step of the way, just about all the individual can do is make every effort to keep the issue on the front burner. China is, after all, communistic, and even they can't control it.

 

[jem]

you have to put it in context.
as you add co2 is warming impact decreases exponentially (I have presented the papers showing this is based on IPCC models)
as you add co2 it also increases cooling in the upper atmosphere (see the NASA study always quote)
as you add co2 you may also increase cooling because it impacts water vapor (see recent papers on the subject which state co2 impacts water vapor)
co2 trails warming it does not lead it. (virtually no scientist denies this - see the humlum papers and others)
co2 trails cooling it does not lead it. (virtually no scientist denies this-- ibid)

I have presented links for every statement above.


in short we don't know the net impact of adding man made co2.
therefore we have no science showing that adding man co2 causes warming.

So which of the following is wrong? Don't get distracted. This is simple logic. The following is all one needs to know to accept man made global warming as fact. If you need further clarification of these things let me know.



We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40%.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do.

 

[futurecurrents]

We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40%.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do.

We know CO2 warms the atmosphere of earth. Of course rising CO2 levels will cause increased warming. No scientist of any good repute disputes this or that CO2 leads temps higher as concentration increases. This is common sense.