4 ms·

> CO2 is not strictly human emissions and to imply so is so dishonest is ridiculous. That was never implied. In fact, they made a point of comparing human driv

by tocf 11y ago

> CO2 is not strictly human emissions and to imply so is so dishonest is ridiculous. That was never implied. In fact, they made a point of comparing human driven emissions (which includes things like transportation and agriculture) to natural sources (eg volcanoes). > the primary co2 process is ocean to atmosphere exchange, the earth to atmosphere, and then to mammals respiratory activity Well, you're missing some stuff in there. Like plants n stuff. > finally since their numbers only are observable to 1880, how accurate can we assume them to be? This chart has data back to 1880. Ice core samples, tree rings, whole hosts of other parts of science go back much farther than 1880. All of it seems to corroborate each other. > If were are extrapolating we could do it further back than 1880 to periods where man was present in significant numbers and thew world was warmer > Take numbers out of context, put in easily to dismiss arguments along side, and it appears to make your point beyond reproach Hm, sort of like simplifying the CO2 cycle to a few words, missing a bunch of it, and then somehow pretending to think that that explains things much better than hundreds of scientists who have given us the science that shows that this is mainly due to human causes. Head up to the Arctic. Talk to people whose families have lived there forever and see for yourself. I think that's the only way to convince people like yourself.

Shivetya 11y ago
yet today we also have articles noting that "natural cooling" of the sun will not be sufficient to offset other sources of warming, the same sun this article here dismisses as having any real influence. this is the problem with the current climate science industry and don't mistake for a moment, this is an industry with great profits at stake for both government researchers and private industries. They never have a consistent message. We had dire declarations since the turn of the century and many lined up behind those. This particular article is a gross simplification that attempts to dismiss common arguments against by associating them with frivolous arguments. It seeks to minimize without informing. Its pretty but not accurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who all apparently have different views on what contributes, how much it does, and so on. So yeah the climate is changing, but it has been doing so forever and there have been historically proven changes greater that what we are seeing now and with man here as well. Simply put, we don't know all the variables and those who declare we do are more ignorant than those who deny any effect.
- loganu 11y ago
  "...don't mistake for a moment, this is an industry with great profits at stake for both government researchers and private industries." Do you really think that there is a wide-reaching global conspiracy for environmentalists, researchers, and scientists to propagate a myth solely for their own well-being and job security? That no one would blow the whistle? "Simply put, we don't know all the variables and those who declare we do are more ignorant than those who deny any effect." Who has said "we know all the variables"? The current scientific consensus is: A) the climate is changing (you and everyone agrees) B) We're the most likely cause (most denialists and the IPCC conensus agree) ... and C) we have reason to believe that carbon dioxide / greenhouse gases are the leading contributor. "There are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who all apparently have different views on what contributes, how much it does, and so on." Wikipedia lists 27 scientists that have published studies claiming natural causes for climate change. (A very quick search shows that at least 2 of them were paid/funded by the Heartland Institute) A couple dozen others fall into "the concerns are overstated" or "we don't know the causes." On the other hand, the 2007 IPCC report had 619 contributors lending their support. A small amount of scientists working on different theories, or being paid to discredit others shouldn't negate a global scientific consensus.

by tocf 11y ago

Shivetya 11y ago

yet today we also have articles noting that "natural cooling" of the sun will not be sufficient to offset other sources of warming, the same sun this article here dismisses as having any real influence. this is the problem with the current climate science industry and don't mistake for a moment, this is an industry with great profits at stake for both government researchers and private industries. They never have a consistent message. We had dire declarations since the turn of the century and many lined up behind those. This particular article is a gross simplification that attempts to dismiss common arguments against by associating them with frivolous arguments. It seeks to minimize without informing. Its pretty but not accurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who all apparently have different views on what contributes, how much it does, and so on. So yeah the climate is changing, but it has been doing so forever and there have been historically proven changes greater that what we are seeing now and with man here as well. Simply put, we don't know all the variables and those who declare we do are more ignorant than those who deny any effect.

loganu 11y ago
"...don't mistake for a moment, this is an industry with great profits at stake for both government researchers and private industries." Do you really think that there is a wide-reaching global conspiracy for environmentalists, researchers, and scientists to propagate a myth solely for their own well-being and job security? That no one would blow the whistle? "Simply put, we don't know all the variables and those who declare we do are more ignorant than those who deny any effect." Who has said "we know all the variables"? The current scientific consensus is: A) the climate is changing (you and everyone agrees) B) We're the most likely cause (most denialists and the IPCC conensus agree) ... and C) we have reason to believe that carbon dioxide / greenhouse gases are the leading contributor. "There are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who all apparently have different views on what contributes, how much it does, and so on." Wikipedia lists 27 scientists that have published studies claiming natural causes for climate change. (A very quick search shows that at least 2 of them were paid/funded by the Heartland Institute) A couple dozen others fall into "the concerns are overstated" or "we don't know the causes." On the other hand, the 2007 IPCC report had 619 contributors lending their support. A small amount of scientists working on different theories, or being paid to discredit others shouldn't negate a global scientific consensus.