Climate Change Report

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I say we launch all nukes. For great justice.

---

It certainly would be an excellent way not to confront our actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Or that we've figured out a number of ways to damage the planet and you're putting your head in the sand.

---

I don't believe at any point that we've done any permanent damage to the planet at all. And as I mentioned way earlier, I am all for being a good steward of the planet, I just see no cause for new legislation or taxes based on a theory that shows no negative effect. More C02 is good for plants. Higher temperatures are good for plants. Not everything has to be, "The Day After Tomorrow."

Global Warming isn't the all or nothing proposition that Politicians make it out to be. Feel free to go back and look at all of the references and graphs I posted. Go to NOAA and play around with the timelines and data sets yourself. You can see that yes, humanity has caused an increase in Atmospheric C02. 80PPM since Industrialization began. That's 80 Parts Per Million in .039% of the Atmosphere. Seems far fetched that it's that big of a deal when C02 is kind of a required substance for plant life on the planet. But either way, play around with the data sets at NOAA. Look at 1900 - Present timelines in rural areas that are still rural and very urban areas that used to be rural. It's very telling that a conscious effort to remove the Urban Heat Island effect from data sets only goes to show you that the IPCC is just trying to maintain the MMGW narrative.

My head isn't in the sand. I just find the constant attempts of my Government to scare me very annoying and my carbon footprint is smaller than most people. And no, I get no subsidies from Big Oil or Industry. I like to think and research for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

I don't believe at any point that we've done any permanent damage to the planet at all. And as I mentioned way earlier, I am all for being a good steward of the planet, I just see no cause for new legislation or taxes based on a theory that shows no negative effect. More C02 is good for plants. Higher temperatures are good for plants. Not everything has to be, "The Day After Tomorrow."

Global Warming isn't the all or nothing proposition that Politicians make it out to be. Feel free to go back and look at all of the references and graphs I posted. Go to NOAA and play around with the timelines and data sets yourself. You can see that yes, humanity has caused an increase in Atmospheric C02. 80PPM since Industrialization began. That's 80 Parts Per Million in .039% of the Atmosphere. Seems far fetched that it's that big of a deal when C02 is kind of a required substance for plant life on the planet. But either way, play around with the data sets at NOAA. Look at 1900 - Present timelines in rural areas that are still rural and very urban areas that used to be rural. It's very telling that a conscious effort to remove the Urban Heat Island effect from data sets only goes to show you that the IPCC is just trying to maintain the MMGW narrative.

My head isn't in the sand. I just find the constant attempts of my Government to scare me very annoying and my carbon footprint is smaller than most people. And no, I get no subsidies from Big Oil or Industry. I like to think and research for myself.

---

Or you just don't want to think your actions have had an impact. It's more comfortable that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Or you just don't want to think your actions have had an impact. It's more comfortable that way.

---

Or you could just be a leftist parrot without the capability of independent thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It certainly would be an excellent way not to confront our actions.

---

Actually, a nuclear war would likely result in the healing of mother earth.

A massive war would kill off a majority of the population, reducing future co2 use. It would also cool the planet significantly for a prolonged period of time. Earth would have less people, and an easier time doing what it does best... adjusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

Or you could just be a leftist parrot without the capability of independent thought.

---

Really? Might you not have a foregone conclusion before you made any of yours? Ala the people who don't believe in evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whirlin

That's a cute way to not read. Keep practicing hard, and sooner or later you'll get the hang of it.

---

I read your post... and I pointed out the stupidity in it.

Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Really? Might you not have a foregone conclusion before you made any of yours? Ala the people who don't believe in evolution?

---

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, YOU ARE A FLAT EARTHER WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

I don't believe at any point that we've done any permanent damage to the planet at all. And as I mentioned way earlier, I am all for being a good steward of the planet, I just see no cause for new legislation or taxes based on a theory that shows no negative effect. More C02 is good for plants. Higher temperatures are good for plants. Not everything has to be, "The Day After Tomorrow."

Global Warming isn't the all or nothing proposition that Politicians make it out to be. Feel free to go back and look at all of the references and graphs I posted. Go to NOAA and play around with the timelines and data sets yourself. You can see that yes, humanity has caused an increase in Atmospheric C02. 80PPM since Industrialization began. That's 80 Parts Per Million in .039% of the Atmosphere. Seems far fetched that it's that big of a deal when C02 is kind of a required substance for plant life on the planet. But either way, play around with the data sets at NOAA. Look at 1900 - Present timelines in rural areas that are still rural and very urban areas that used to be rural. It's very telling that a conscious effort to remove the Urban Heat Island effect from data sets only goes to show you that the IPCC is just trying to maintain the MMGW narrative.

My head isn't in the sand. I just find the constant attempts of my Government to scare me very annoying and my carbon footprint is smaller than most people. And no, I get no subsidies from Big Oil or Industry. I like to think and research for myself.

---

There seems to be some misconception about the effects of global warming/climate change. The Earth is not in trouble. Life here will go on. Humans are in trouble. Slight changes in the environment can mean big changes for large populations. CO2 may be good for plants; changing the chemistry of the atmosphere is not good for mammals.

The references and grabs you posted are either incorrect, a small part of the bigger story or just blatantly misinterpreted to fit your belief system. Just read the link you posted about sea ice. You cherry picked one paragraph to support your ideas but half that article is explaining the phenomena and it's not a pretty picture. Heat islands weren't just ignored to make the math work. They were accounted for and they don't have an effect on total global warming since most of the earth is water and open land. The ocean increased .32 degrees fahrenheit. Do you have any idea how hard it is to warm that much water?

The ideas you presented are addressed in the NAS report. You should read it. At least it will give you information to try to refute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, YOU ARE A FLAT EARTHER WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!

---

In your case you're apparently just an ALLCAPSINGASSHOLE.

It's the same style argument "We can't be polluting because then I'd have to be unhappy about my actions!" "We can't be descended from monkeys because then my Jeebus story would fail!" Then find research.