Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now how exactly does this benefit anyone? The primary opposition to climate change science is the oil, gas, and coal industries.
Every proposal to fight this cost more money than we are spending now. The primary beneficiaries of climate legislation are the industries that will come in to provide more expensive energy, banks and governments. Open your eyes man, if this could be solved with less money we wouldn't be having this discussion becsue they would be already doing it. You don't need legislation to provide cheaper energy, it sells itself.
We have polluted our earth to **** for centuries. We have made strides in the past few decades with the Montreal and Kyoto protocols. But I think we need to educate our youth to convey the message of sustainability.
CO2 is not pollution, at least in the common sense. If you want to call it pollutant then we classify water vapor as pollutant too.
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
Let's be specific, you realize Phil Jones escaped criminal prosecution only becsue of statute of limitations. Do you really want to bting up some of the quotes in those emails such as how they conspired to prevent the release of data for simple FOI requests? If you got nothing to hide then why are you hiding it? One of my favorites and to paraphrase where the one wonders where global warming is and then wishes it was happening to vindicate their theories.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers
first i am willing to bet that there are far more than 1500 climate researchers in the world, they only used less than 1400, and they extrapolate from there. second they are all IPCC scientists, which means they are biased to begin with.
Would I defend it? probably not, I could defend a 90% number pretty easily I suspect.
Lets think this through though. lets say global warming has a 50% chance of being true. And a 50% chance of being false. I disagree with that, but lets use that for discussion
If we do something we didnt need to, we waste some money
If we do something and we did need to, yay! we save the world
If we dont do anything, and we didnt need to, yay we saved money
if we dont do anything, and we should have, we're in deep deep doo doo.
Given that...what should we do?
Well, first let's define "deep deep doo doo"...
EXACTLY what are we talking about here? WHAT is this deep doo doo? WHAT are the dire consequences of this warming trend?
Will some of the land area become too dry for agriculture? will the land area that is now frozen thaw out and become agricultural land? Will the sea level REALLY rise? If so, EXACTLY how much?
Since CO2 is necessary for plant life, will the increased levels of that gas mean better crop yields? If so, how is that bad?
EXACTLY what are the dire consequences for humanity as a whole if the global mean temperature increases, let's say, 3 degrees?
Are suggesting the heat itself we produce is causing global?
Back to the topic CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases, nothing more and nothing less.
They are not the only greenhouse gases either. Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide just happen to be the two most dominate greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3), and Chlorofluorocarbons. That is correct, the very thing that protects us from UV and cosmic rays, Ozone, is also a greenhouse gas. It is also interesting to note that one greenhouse gas can destroy another greenhouse gas. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroy Ozone, which would be a bad thing for life in general. Thankfully, it is the very same UV radiation that would kill all life if there was no Ozone layer that also creates the Ozone layer. As long as the sun shines and there is molecular oxygen in our atmosphere, we will have Ozone.
Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide are the primary gases expelled by volcanic eruptions.
The only elements in our atmosphere that are not greenhouse gases are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon.
Love the denalists trying to teach other elementary-level atmospheric science in here. Fascinating to watch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
