LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Manning, agree totally.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Climate always changes and always will. It is cyclical and always will be. Man can't change it. CO2 increases, follow climate warming, and do not cause it. That alone blows away all the Bull Schitte of the man made C*****e C****e believers. We are much closer to a new cooling cycle then burning up.

Grandpa Rick

Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses. No reputable scientist, as far as I know, disputes their effect. The world's population has probably tripled in my lifetime. Imagine the increase in CO2 from smokestacks and. chimneys, the increase in methane from belching cows raised for meat and milk. Etc. Now look at the famous "hockey stick " graph showing the correlation of rising greenhouse emissions and temperature. Look at rising sea levels, more and stronger hurricaines,, more frequent forrest fires, data from ice cores showing increases in atmospheric carbon coinciding with all this.

Then consider if, maybe, perhaps, we ought to take a closer look at what we can do to lower carbon emissions. And as a byproduct save some petroleum, of which at least 50% is not used as fuel.

Bevvy

guzzimaestro

I guess I'll need the cliff notes version. Can't open

guzzimaestro

Are you perhaps AOC's grandpa..?

Bevvy

The media portrays climate scientists as having delivered a final verdict on g****l w*****g.

They haven't.

There remain some holdouts who say this consensus is little more than conformity to a politically correct idea.
Perhaps even more surprising is that a few of these global-warming skeptics are actually respected!

No matter where you stand on this debate, you should know who the major skeptics are and what they think.

Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -
- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important.
His big beef is that c*****e c****e orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data
isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.

Bevvy

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to
the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming,
he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will
be negligible.

Australian professor Ian Plimer is the author of Heaven + Earth, a book that purports to debunk all of
the major g****l w*****g "myths."

Here's the blurb for his book, laying out his general beliefs:

The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability.
Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun,
the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their
mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually
change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is
rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. C*****e c****e politics is
religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations
in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of c*****e c****e, dogma dominates,
sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate
tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate
change. Don’t wait up.

guzzimaestro

Yes, the "hockey stick" theory mentioned by another poster here has been discredited years ago. I agree that man has been contributing to g****l w*****g but the percentages involved are small. No doubt this would be backed up by the skeptics you mention on your link

Grandpa Rick

I have a smart, beautiful granddaughter but she's not AOC.
.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

With all due respect, Rick, I have been following the science of man made c*****e c****e for over 40 years. There is NOT conclusive science supporting MMCC, and there is a LOT of science that says man has almost nothing to do with c*****e c****e. We do need to keep our planet clean with common sense conservation and recycling systems, but beyond that, it really is a h**x.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

When one considers the United States has exceeded every EPA goal, it is not our issue. When you and your ilk are ready to talk about China’s continuing expansion of coal fired plants, you will have validity. When you and your ilk decide to talk about India, you will have validity. Basically, you and your ilk want the citizens of the United States to decimate our country for a G*******t cabal who does not hold other countries to the same mandates. It is highly probable you, with your attitude, would be very welcome in Germany and/or France. Both of the aforementioned countries followed you and your ilks green policies and are now beholden to Russia for fuel as their g***n e****y systems fail to provide needed energy.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Agreed, but there are steps leading to the end game and the "man-caused" climate h**x is one of many.

Grandpa Rick

I'm willing to reconsider but I need a good reason to do so. Do you dispute any of the factual statements I made? If not, what is lacking by way of proof?

By the way, do you realize that you and I may be setting an OPP record for civilized debate of an issue?

I foolishly posted the above before I saw the earlier rebuttal posts. I hope my embarrassment will teach others to "look before you post".
Having said that, and notwithstanding those posts, I believe I'm correct in saying that the overwhelming majority (a year or so ago I saw the figure of 97%) of climate scientists believe the post industrial revolution temperature increase is largely man made. If natural change is in progress mankind is enhancing it. But with our growing knowledge and experience with energy from sources other than f****l f**ls we don't have to. And we'd keep the environment cleaner too. If we can go to the moon we can solve this problem.too.

Grandpa Rick

I did not blame anyone or any country.. you can have your diatribe; just don't make me your excuse for it.