Certain emissions pollute, certain pollution kills. However not all emissions pollute, not all pollution kills. When you are suggesting that CO2 is an emission that pollutes and that it leads to the planet not being livable for mankind and that it will make the water, air, soil, and temperature kill you, that is hyperbole. Fear mongering like that is one of the worst forms of hyperbole IMO.
These threads fire me up at times, but depress me most of the time. The naysayers have won, so it is hardly worth arguing with them. We live in a political climate where it will realistically take another several presidential terms before anything meaningful is done on climate change. By then, it will be too late (and it is likely too late now). Congratulations Cons, you did it. You won the big one.
the US is is reducing emission while China is increasing them. I think we can all see where the problem is.
The IPCC quantifies the anthropogenic share of current climate change since 1950 on a descriptive basis. Their consensus is that "most" global warming since that time (within a high degree of certainty) is due to human related causes. You could say their statement is a fact. The IPCC projects severe threats to human civilization, but that is not the equivalent of saying that it is a fact that humans will be severely crippled by climate change. Do you really think shaming people will make anyone change their opinions? That is clearly not stated as the first "myth". No one can read minds.
You don't have to read minds. You just have to read what's written and not stick to what's in your mind.
What you are failing to realize is that their predictions have been missed because the UNDERESTIMATED the results and levels of climate change. You don't really have much to stand on. You came in here claiming to introduce facts which were then shown to be myths, and with that blown out of the water, you haven't offered up anything else to support your side.
I know it can be viewed as just sheep followers... but when you have the US military, big corporation worldwide and financial biggies start considering and planning for GW, you think they are on to something. Scientists can't be trusted by some, but hopefully security and money do talk to these folks.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm The climate myth... What the science says...
So the 0.3% that humans contribute will cause the planet to fall out of "balance" and destroy life on the planet? The same "balance" that has led to both ice ages and periods where the earth was much warmer than it is now? LOL always struggling to view humans as more significant than they really are. If you want to have a conservation or pollution debate, I'd be all for that, but the man made global warming debate is nonsense, just a way to ensure that the streak of consecutive months of above average climate science spending continues.
Science is not nonsense. It is data driven, verifiable and evolve to a more accurate view as knowledge is obtained over time. Personal beliefs is quite easily nonsense, not data driven, beliefs and emotion driven and may or may not evolve to a more accurate view dependent on if real knowledge can be increase.
What u posted above was not science. The data it mentions isn't even meaningful to the position it is trying to defend.
Again you are speaking about "science" as if it is some kind of deity, there is a whole lot of nonsense in science, the reason why no good scientist makes absolute statements is because only time tells what scientific pursuits end up having a nugget of truth and what scientific pursuit was just nonsense. Oftentimes scientists spend their entire lives working on something that is later discovered to be complete nonsense. My problem with the man made global warming crowd is that it is comprised of emotion driven "true believers" and the cynics that are using them to further their goals. No one wanted to fund climate science until the fear mongering started....and it hasn't stopped since.
