What we know is that human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are ridiculously insignificant compared to natural emissions, and they aren't even the most powerful greenhouse gasses. Now I get the desire to think that the human contribution is significant because that would mean humans were significant, but it just isn't the case. Just over 5% of greenhouse gasses are caused by humans......that is if you are ignoring the 95% of the entire greenhouse effect that is caused by water vapor, by far the greatest factor in the process. When you factor in the most powerful and important greenhouse gas, humans cause less than 3 tenths of a percent....yet somehow we want to think that small fraction is what is causing the whole thing to happen or that decreasing that small fraction to an even smaller fraction will stop it..... Could the small amount that humans add to the process cause some additional warming? Sure, maybe a bit, but not a significant amount. When the earth is in the warm cycle, it's going to get warmer, when the earth is in the cold cycle, it's going to get colder and there's nothing we can do about it. The man made global warming BS is simply another vain attempt by humans to convince themselves that they are more significant than they are. I have no doubt that with time, it will be debunked entirely.
This was an outstanding link and I repped you for it. I've spent a lot of the day reading it and then doing following up research. I'm not ashamed to admit that my opinions on global warming have been changed. I also want to point out that this quote is awesome:
The problem with that analogy is that there is no knife to point to....making that statement the non sequitur. At best we can point to a blackhead on the cheek.
Human contribution, whether or not significant, is something climate scientists are trying to figure out. They so far said it is. It's not based on a desire for human to be significant. Science, if you don't know, especially in cosmology, said that human are 10 to the billion power of 10 insignificant.
Lol who said it was truth? It is called a discussion/argument towards the people who listened to an Al Gore tape and call it truth. There is no truth on either side smart guy. So the Global Warming fan guys believe the models spit truth? Rigghhttttt. I love how you nit pick a small quote out of entire post of facts and dispute it. You have input on the topic yet you have no idea what a paleoclimatic record is? Wow. let me guess, you have no idea what Paleoclimatology is either do you?
Lol nice edit of your original post! You still haven't made a single point in your post, which just shows you know nothing of the topic. Why don't you try to rebut the claim if you are calling it false?
Question for those who don't believe in man-caused climate change: the proposed remedy is to reduce the mass of pollutants dispersed into the world by man made sources - do you oppose this action or endorse it? Why?
CO2 is not a pollutant. The cost of reducing this non-pollutant is exhorbitant. Taking into effect the cost of reducing 'pollution' -- i.e. the increased cost of energy -- is very important. It is also overlooked in your question. Everyone is for reducing pollution -- until they have to pay for it. Would you be willing to pay 3x your power bill in your quest to fight global warming? Very few would. That's the practical choice that is lost on the idealists.
I had no idea! kthxbai Edit: When you go back to edit your post to reflect something you thought you said but didn't, that is pretty sad. Which was my point to your continuous nonsense you keep posting.
Why would you post something that you don't believe is factual? Read your post again, there are no facts in it. Paleoclimatology is a word made up to describe the act of making up highly inaccurate data about the climate in a time so far from your reach of perception that none of it can possibly have any real meaning. In a word bull****.
Define pollutant. H2S and methane are both pollutants. I propose that everyone refrain from farting on Tuesdays.
Edits are only timestamped if they are done after a certain amount of time. See, I posted this and then edited in this sentence. Here's a third edit. And a fourth A 5th? No timestamp still? #6 generate a timestamp? When will I generate a time stamp? How about now? Now? SO, survey says? Original post at 3:58. It took more than 8 edits and four minutes before it would time stamp.
^^ Must spread rep, blah blah Why would one side of the political spectrum say stuff opposite of the other side? You can have your opinion if you have scientific theories to back it up. When you base your opinion off of an Al Gore video then that person is just stupid. There are no facts when determining Global Warming if you want to get technical about it. You can't base the entire history of earth off of "150 years or so of accurate temperature readings" (compliments of your post # 214). If Paleoclimatology is a made up word, is Paleontology made up too? How about Paleoanthropology? Or for heaven sakes, what about Biology? Is that made up also??
The choice is whether you want a livable planet for mankind where the water, air, soil, and temperature doesn't kill you. That's not idealism, that's a practical reality. You'd like to wait until it's actually killing everyone to say we have a problem much like a man walking into the path of a train. No danger evident until he actually gets run over.
^^^ Do you think the chance of higher temperatures will kill you? Are you aware of just how modest of an increase in temperature that IPCC is projecting? Disregard for the time being that all of their predictions to date have been dramatically missed. Your post is pure hyperbole.
