3 ms·

>Humans produce immense amounts of CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet. It's as simple as that. CO2 is a green house gas - good

>Humans produce immense amounts of CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet. It's as simple as that. CO2 is a green house gas - good job mr. high-school physicist - now show me the temperature projections along with human CO2 production graphs and estimated impacts and error margins and past model prediction performances vs measured data. You know the actual things that matter for policy implications. See that's where things go beyond high school.

acqq 11y ago
There they are, they are agreed by the scientists of the whole world, so again no need to worry about the e-mails of one country's organization: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against.
- moonchrome 11y ago
  >There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against. Wait - but you didn't verify it your self ? After all : >You don't have to be a rocket scientist to repeat most of the basic calculations which give similar results. Or does it all boil down to trust and your original argument is nonsense.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Why does it matter what I have personally done or not done? Science works. E-mails are irrelevant. That's what we're discussing. If you claim that science doesn't work, you can prove that, but you have to know the science, or nobody will believe your claim. The major problem you'd have in order to prove that the current findings are wrong is that even the simplest formulas are against you. So you'd have to accept 99% of the existing results at the end and then to discover something completely new that amazingly nobody discovered up to now but that makes bigger influence on the results than everything known up to now. Good luck with that, as the data already add up now, as you can see in these graphs on the Bloomberg.

acqq 11y ago

There they are, they are agreed by the scientists of the whole world, so again no need to worry about the e-mails of one country's organization: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against.

moonchrome 11y ago
>There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against. Wait - but you didn't verify it your self ? After all : >You don't have to be a rocket scientist to repeat most of the basic calculations which give similar results. Or does it all boil down to trust and your original argument is nonsense.
- acqq 11y ago
  Why does it matter what I have personally done or not done? Science works. E-mails are irrelevant. That's what we're discussing. If you claim that science doesn't work, you can prove that, but you have to know the science, or nobody will believe your claim. The major problem you'd have in order to prove that the current findings are wrong is that even the simplest formulas are against you. So you'd have to accept 99% of the existing results at the end and then to discover something completely new that amazingly nobody discovered up to now but that makes bigger influence on the results than everything known up to now. Good luck with that, as the data already add up now, as you can see in these graphs on the Bloomberg.