I’m going to hazard a guess you’re not actually interested in the science.
Actually in the other thread others did answer that, the levels you proposed were ok for plants in a greenhouse, but not good for humans or the environment we have to live in also. The conclusion here are is that others feed you that misleading info for the usual reason: to convince many that there is no problem.
Yes I am interested1 Are you going to tell me that the sun is hotter now and that extra carbon was needed to keep the temps up. That doesn’t even close to add up as carbon is a very weak greenhouse and not that plentiful. There seems to be some other temperature control features present we either don’t understand or someone is not talking about.
No, I’m not going to tell you anything because nothing I could possibly say would change your mind.
As a conservative and still Republican scientist said, concentrating on the less probable items does not remove the most likely results.
Can you at least tell us where you got that? For someone that is not a scientist, that is a very misleading bit of information. It is important to know the source of that piece of misinformation that is part of the quilt of denialism.
I don’t argue the planet is warming from CO2, I would argue that science does not know how much. My point is really more about the need to build an equation that encompasses the entire scope of CO2. It gets into the biosphere heavily. In 10 years of less I believe science could produce a very useful equation. And in the meantime I favor development of clean energy and conservation, but not to the point that it greatly disrupts economies or the quality of life.
Of course some things will change but not anywhere near severe enough to warrant what is being asked of us. And the idea that our very existence is threatened is ridiculous. We were in more danger of famine from low preindustrial carbon levels than we are from too high of levels from fossil fuels.
And that is another boilerplate denialist point. Already replied to many times in the past. The reality is that many other mechanisms about why the earth is warming were proposed, and the calculations that contrarians used to predict less warming or that cooling was coming failed to pan out.
More ridiculous is to make a point like that when no one did say that, not even the article I linked to.
Yeah, you’re really interested in the science. When presented with the scientific findings you immediately reject them based on your expertise as a consumer and voter.
BTW, that is not what I asked there, out with the source you got about nature not being affected already by climate change, otherwise the conclusion is that you are happy with the ones giving you bullshit.
John Kerry said it on National TV. He is not the right man for this job.
I really see climate science as a potential reset button for humanity in a very positive way if we don’t kill it by hating on each other. The potential for fields of study not only at the atmospheric level but also in oceanography, biology, geology, and even sociology and many more I have never heard of. A lot this could be done at the hobby level and as discoveries were made it would move into the scientific level. I believe there are more potential jobs than people to fill them. It would offer opportunities to indigenous peoples as well as many people who have just not really found their way in life. I hope we don’t pass on a great opportunity.
Uh, he is more on the side of protecting what we have; surviving, but with less fauna and extreme weather that damages civilization, is not a good position to defend as you are doing here. BTW, since no one here said that, nor the article, one has to suspect that you are just stalling.
So, care to tell us where you got the stupid thing about no harmful effects seen by nature because of global warming, or you pulled that out of your ass?
“Yes, they’re all fools, gentlemen… But the question remains, 'What KIND of fools are they?” - Gary Larson
What are you wasting your time with this idiot? You know he’s an idiot and he’ll always be an idiot.
Those are good questions, you have to be very specific in your searches. For example the other day I was looking up how the extra carbon has affected algae and plankton levels. It gave a favorable report with a slight retort that there is alot we don’t know and there could be some bad things happen down the line that we don’t know about. If you ask it how it has affected forests and farms, it is all favorable intertwined with a few local disasters from too much nitrogen things like that. So flora and fauna are much more likely to flourish in the higher levels.
Narrator: He had not.
Like I said, at least I want to know what kind of fool.
Is he like the ones that think that they did proper research, or the ones that think that they are figuring it out on their own? When in reality they are even ignoring the past research or replies already made decades ago to their concerns that are not really new or being left behind already.
The point here is that this fool might as well ignore that the only way to change a consensus is to point at evidence that will make it so some day. Pointing at “optimal CO2” levels was demonstrated already to be a “not even wrong” item, since it was something that mostly greenhouse people do worry about; still, it is clear that people that increase CO2 in the greenhouses are not willing to live or sleep inside those places.
For me this is not wasting time, I learn new things and teach others about it, that an ignorant fool will ignore it is not very important.
That still shows how useless you are, again, care to tell us where you got the stupid thing about no harmful effects seen by nature because of global warming?
This game of yours is very silly, it is really not hard to search and post a link for the papers or articles that told you that.
BTW, if you had read the article I linked to:
According to one study, spring, summer, fall and winter in the temperate zones are all arriving on average 1.7 days earlier than they did before 1950. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that average temperatures in the U.S. have increased 0.14˚F per decade, and worldwide, the decade from 2001 to 2010 was the warmest on record since measurements began. The changing climate with its more extreme weather is already affecting many plant and animal species and disrupting ecosystem functioning.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that 20 to 30 percent of assessed plants and animals could be at risk of extinction if average global temperatures reach the projected levels by 2100. Evolution would have to occur 10,000 times faster than it typically does in order for most species to adapt and avoid extinction.