Originally posted by @sonhouse Ok, I'll take you on your word about that. Do you think we already have passed the tipping point, that is where the positive feedback of the greenhouse gasses, all of them together, goes past where even desperate measures won't stop the worse of the effects of climate change?
So what is your plan if you were say the head of the UN covering this topic? Or alternately do you think all we have to do is ignore the climate change and the planet will take care of all the problems with no help from humans?
Originally posted by @sonhouse So what is your plan if you were say the head of the UN covering this topic? Or alternately do you think all we have to do is ignore the climate change and the planet will take care of all the problems with no help from humans?
I proved that temps move independently of CO2 levels. You can't even prove methane warms the atmosphere less than CO2, meaning you can't possibly know how to solve your non existent problem, not that you even ever had a practical solution. You just want to tax everything since that was what you were brainwashed into thinking.
Originally posted by @metal-brain I proved that temps move independently of CO2 levels. You can't even prove methane warms the atmosphere less than CO2, meaning you can't possibly know how to solve your non existent problem, not that you even ever had a practical solution. You just want to tax everything since that was what you were brainwashed into thinking.
You have no evidence!
I never said tax anything. And it has been shown CH4 is dozens maybe 100X more active as GG and so is the main driver of short term (100 years or so) climate change since it has been shown to be about 15% of the level of CO2 so it is more effective than CO2 so lowering the amount of CH4, whether putting catheters on cow butts or whatever, when you deal with CH4 you help deal with climate change.
The elephant in the room is the arctic peat moss which releases massive amounts of CH4 if the temps up there get too warm.
Originally posted by @sonhouse I never said tax anything. And it has been shown CH4 is dozens maybe 100X more active as GG and so is the main driver of short term (100 years or so) climate change since it has been shown to be about 15% of the level of CO2 so it is more effective than CO2 so lowering the amount of CH4, whether putting catheters on cow butts or whatever, when you deal wit ...[text shortened]... s the arctic peat moss which releases massive amounts of CH4 if the temps up there get too warm.
Originally posted by @metal-brain You are nit picking. The difference in temps between 1900 and 1910 is significant. If you were to start at 1910 it would not seem so different of a ratio like you are making it out to be. I know you want to pick apart anything you can but you really are being hypocritical in not accepting the data presented just as you have accused me of in the past.
Nit picking is what we've all been doing for 27 pages of comments here. Nitpicking whether or not 25% (35%? 50%?) of well-published climate scientists was enough for a clear polling result, or a poll of society members (which probably contains a few non-climate experts but separates them out from the rest of the stats) was accurate. You're nitpicking each of DeepThought's multiple data sources (for different reasons), except the ones whose results align with your opinion. I guess those are not worth nitpicking? You seem to want to just believe every false (but confirmation biased) statement you read like: most of global warming in the 20th century happened in the first half.
Now you are adjusting the time course of data to start at 1910 instead of 1900 to fit the conclusion. On their website, they are far more adamant that global warming is GOOD than they are interested in figuring out causes of it.
The Pliocene (a 2.8 million year epoch) is not "proof" that CO2 doesn't cause warming. Given all we know about physics and climate, that's an odd conclusion to make from that data. There were no anthropogenic forcings at that time.
Originally posted by @wildgrass Nit picking is what we've all been doing for 27 pages of comments here. Nitpicking whether or not 25% (35%? 50%?) of well-published climate scientists was enough for a clear polling result, or a poll of society members (which probably contains a few non-climate experts but separates them out from the rest of the stats) was accurate. You're nitpicking eac ...[text shortened]... t's an odd conclusion to make from that data. There were no anthropogenic forcings at that time.
"Nit picking is what we've all been doing for 27 pages of comments here."
If you admit everybody is doing it then why are you accusing me of being the only unreasonable person here? Grow up!
A poll of society members has a lot more than a few non-climate scientists. It is not accurate at all. You are doing more than just nitpicking. You are misrepresenting the facts with exaggerations and half truths in a clear effort to mislead.
"Now you are adjusting the time course of data to start at 1910 instead of 1900 to fit the conclusion."
That is an outright LIE! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Originally posted by @metal-brain "Nit picking is what we've all been doing for 27 pages of comments here."
If you admit everybody is doing it then why are you accusing me of being the only unreasonable person here? Grow up!
A poll of society members has a lot more than a few non-climate scientists. It is not accurate at all. You are doing more than just nitpicking. You are misrep ...[text shortened]... d of 1900 to fit the conclusion."
That is an outright LIE! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Before calling someone a liar, read what you wrote.
05 Aug '18 15:00
Is This a Verifiable Claim?
Back to Top