No, Ice core data shows us that if C02 was such a factor we should be several degrees above where we are. Surprise, C02 doesn't cause a concurant rise in temperature. But hey, haters going to hate. I'm not a pro and I can even devise this statement.
I see. The difference in your statement and mine is that mine was formed with facts and evidence behind it. I didn't just "devise" mine.
Did you really think you could get that "
Ice core data shows us that if C02 was such a factor we should be several degrees above where we are" shit past us? LULZ...
By any logic based on C02, within the next 500 years or so we are past the point of no return and the ice caps will melt and cover more than half of all the continental USA. Just saying, there is no point to fight about it because we are fucked none the less based on current C02 data. Unless they are wrong.
OR... We could stop emitting so much CO2 and the feedback loop won't have any more fuel?
Nevermind, it's far better to give up now and accept whatever's coming... You're right.
Who controls education? Who controls scientists? Who controls media? Who controls oil companies? Who controls banks? How can we trust anything the scientists say?
So every climatologist, all hundreds or thousands of them now, from all over the planet, are corrupt and in a conspiracy together?
Highly illogical.
This is the last time I'm going to mention this point... Because it brings me down a few IQ points to think about this sad theory you seem to share with 1/4 of the planet...
If there were such a conspiracy, then
no one must want to help save the world enough to do something about global warming.
Think about that. You obviously know that there are tons of liberals & college-educated people who truly care about the threat of global warming, so if your conspiracy were to exist, then these young climate-concerned scientists-in-training wanting to save the world would get to their new office/lab at some point, get ready to start working, and then BOOM... Be told that they must ignore all the evidence that they collect in the field and follow the conspiracy.
Then what? They hold a gun to all of these new recruits to keep them in line? Kidnap their children? What? These new guys really care about the issue, remember? You can't hide a conspiracy like that! We're talking about hundreds of labs across the world... Many dozens of universities, for decades now!
That's sheer lunacy. Please abandon this silly train of thought at once.
How can you brush off ClimateGate?
Extremely easily.
The scientists you trust so much got caught fabricating the data.
No, they did not. You have only been told that they have. There have been at least 7 (that I know of) INDEPENDANT studies showing no wrong doing, as the sources above showed you.
Your argument lacks an explanation about how co2 makes earth become warmer. I understand one half of the feedback loop, but how does co2 contribute to the warming?
That's a well-understood fact, not just a theory. In short, Moar CO2 = More heat retained on Earth. It's kinda like wearing another sweater.
Stuff is never hard science. You claim that its not even about air temperature. If its not about air temperature, why talk about air temperature all the time.
Stuff IS hard science... Sounds like you've been listening to the wrong scientists.
It is about the MEAN temperature, not air temperature. And Most of the heat in that mean temperature is stored in the ocean:
Why are the pro global warming people always lamenting about "air temperature".
I have yet to hear any such lament... Then again I only listen to credible sources on this issue.
97 out of 100 climatologists believing in something doesnt make it right. People are always wrong about stuff til they discover the truth.
97 out of 100 should be treated as correct until proven otherwise.
If 97 out of 100 doctors told you that your liver was going to rupture if you drink just one more beer, I bet you wouldn't chance it. AGW Deniers are chancing it... And the outcome is
far worse than a ruptured liver.
The way you express yourself carries an arrogant undertone that makes people in general hard to allow themselves to be convinced by what you say. If you want to change something, you might want to try changing that first.
Noted. But look around; all of the AGW believers here besides myself & Moxie (who has the patience of a god) are far more rude and condescending than I am in these responses. Why do you think that is?
Youll never make me care about the whole issue, but im honestly interested in understanding why I might be wrong. You could try to do that by providing a paper that takes a global warming is real position without trying to convince readers by saying things like "most reasonable scientists are convinced that this is the case so please, for the love of god, shut the fuck up and believe in it".
The website I've been linking from a lot is:
Skeptical Science. Not only can you find a multitude of papers there from real climatologists, but you will also find that the website itself is dynamically structured to lead beginners, intermediates, and advanced readers through the entire body of evidence on AGW. It's a far better source of information for your need than a simple paper that would of course be focused on something like how Peruvian peat moss evidence backs up AGW temperature models 5,000 years ago. It aggregates all of those papers together... But sources all of its' claims.
I hope that OP drives a hybrid, doesn't leave comp on over night, walks or bikes everywhere, doesn't buy from companies that suck when it comes to energy, doesn't fly on planes, house is completely off the grid and solar paneled out, donates all his extra money to the cause, et fucking c.
Why?
Because you can't imagine someone caring about carbon emmissions without being a total hippy? :rainfro:
Now the shitty truth: nothing is going to change, certainly not in our lifetime, so while I give you props for pushing something you believe in, it ain't gonna do shit you are just wasting the precious time you have on this earth.
I don't pretend to think I can change anything without putting some serious resources into a spam campaign, which I don't have time or will to do.
But I do have time to slap a few WF people across the face with these unbridled facts simply because I cringe to see such a smart group of fellow entrepreneurs fall for the same type of propaganda that keeps the petrodollar afloat. You guys are too smart for this.
Are you familiar with Google AdWords?
Um, no. Why don't you tell us more kind sir?
Assuming ouraccurate temperature data goes back about 160 years.
The earth is 3.5 billion years old.
We have accurate temperature data for 0.00057% of the Earth's lifespan.
So you're not willing to accept the historical temp data found by other means? Wow, with that attitude we wouldn't know very much at all about this planet, would we?
Anyway, as has been stated elsewhere the time periods before humanities' rise are totally irrelevant to the purposes of talking about AGW. We don't care if the earth is "only" baked at temperatures that the Velocoraptor found comfy; that's still too hot for us to survive in.
