Just trying to help, you said you weren't sure, I asked about the origin of your uncertainty. Do I have to be clearer than that?
Oh, so no uncertainty that needs clearing up. Perhaps you would like to articulate your criticism more clearly for the rest of the class.
See post 353, 354 and 359.
"there are more factors that influence climate"
I named 3, you named water vapour.
Please post links to peer reviewed papers in renowned scientific journals that state water vapour is a factor in the earths climate.
IMF Survey : Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies
Fossil fuels are quite expensive, even if this is exaggerated 1000 times.
If we use just 1/1000th of the number named by the IMF ($5.300.000.000.000,00) for the transition to renewables a year, its going to be easy and much cheaper than using fossil fuels.
Your logic fails because fossil fuels are NOT cheap.
A blog from a weather forecaster, who claims to be an astrophysicist. Why would someone like that have a clue about climate? Piers Corbyn - SourceWatch
Why not ask the actual climate scientists?
It is hard to believe that this "discussion" is still going on. Well I guess there will always be those with a "scientific opinion" originating from a casual interest in science and a lot more interest in just having an opinion.
First the topic was kept away from the public when it was floated back in 1980. Then there was a Letter signed by less than 2,000 and it took another 25 years to get 20,000 signatures from the scientific community. Before the argument disputed that the climate was significantly and permanently changing. Now that even a Dodo can see it has changed the argument has shifted to question the causal relationship with the extraction of fossil fuels. Well, once the people who design your and my life run out of fossil fuels they may allow you to draw a conclusion (that is why hindsight is always 20/20).
I feel bad for those scientists who had to release samples of atmosphere millions of years old which had been captured in ice and date carbon against what is found in today's atmosphere to prove what an idiot can can see by comparing pictures of people riding horses 150 years ago and the pics of today's highway traffic. But yes let us ask them for more proof.
And, of course, by no means ask people in power to redirect 0.1% of the military spending on advancing the clean energy agenda, when they are still short of ruling a 100% of the planet no matter the climate everywhere.
And let us spend more time on discussing the ill effects of tobacco and by no means bring up millions of tons of other pollutants released into the air by the industry in any large industrialized city.
First the topic was kept away from the public when it was floated back in 1980. Then there was a Letter signed by less than 2,000 and it took another 25 years to get 20,000 signatures from the scientific community. Before the argument disputed that the climate was significantly and permanently changing. Now that even a Dodo can see it has changed the argument has shifted to question the causal relationship with the extraction of fossil fuels. Well, once the people who design your and my life run out of fossil fuels they may allow you to draw a conclusion (that is why hindsight is always 20/20).
I feel bad for those scientists who had to release samples of atmosphere millions of years old which had been captured in ice and date carbon against what is found in today's atmosphere to prove what an idiot can can see by comparing pictures of people riding horses 150 years ago and the pics of today's highway traffic. But yes let us ask them for more proof.
And, of course, by no means ask people in power to redirect 0.1% of the military spending on advancing the clean energy agenda, when they are still short of ruling a 100% of the planet no matter the climate everywhere.
And let us spend more time on discussing the ill effects of tobacco and by no means bring up millions of tons of other pollutants released into the air by the industry in any large industrialized city.
Last edited:
And here is another point to consider for those with spare brain time:
How thick is the useful atmosphere? You go what, 5,000 m up before starting to feel short of breath? and and in another thousand you start asking for bottles with oxygen. So now try to draw the planet Earth to scale and show the atmosphere. You think you could come up with a pencil thin enough?
When it dawns on you that we are like bacteria adapted to live in one peel of onion, you may start to appreciate the gravity of putting anything into the atmosphere, as well as the absurdness of arguing for nuclear weapons and such. You may find it more comforting though to leave your brain aside and turn on the TV, and think that you have a relevant opinion or a choice.
How thick is the useful atmosphere? You go what, 5,000 m up before starting to feel short of breath? and and in another thousand you start asking for bottles with oxygen. So now try to draw the planet Earth to scale and show the atmosphere. You think you could come up with a pencil thin enough?
When it dawns on you that we are like bacteria adapted to live in one peel of onion, you may start to appreciate the gravity of putting anything into the atmosphere, as well as the absurdness of arguing for nuclear weapons and such. You may find it more comforting though to leave your brain aside and turn on the TV, and think that you have a relevant opinion or a choice.
Koja, I like the way of expression you used.
I found a nice thread about this topic on another forum: Cows cause more pollution than automobiles - snopes.com
Here is one of the replies (post#10) from the user Mr. Billion:
I found a nice thread about this topic on another forum: Cows cause more pollution than automobiles - snopes.com
Here is one of the replies (post#10) from the user Mr. Billion:
Mr. Billion said:
Last edited:
Well, obviously the climate change conspiracy was planned for decades and the Carbon Cycle was planted in our biology textbooks decades ago to make CO2 source look significant.
I asked you to "Please quote like I quoted yours.". Why can't you quote my claim like I quoted your claim? 🙄
I'll let leadbelly explain the relevance of his anecdote first and then I'll articulate if needed. That is unless you are the spokesman for him.
Piers Corbyn is a well known snake oil pseudo-science type. I'm being polite...
Last edited:
Please quote original text when quoting somebody, not your chopped/edited version.
Those are techniques dishonest liars use when losing arguments.
Which is not a personal "ad hominem" attack, I don´t know you from Adam, but an observation on your "arguing" tactics.
Perhaps learning to understand the flow of the debate may help you to stay on topic.
Globe warms and cools as it has been since the birth. Argument has been what the main cause is and what humans can or cannot do about it.
I think you're referring to a common misconception that you can't KNOW anything without firsthand knowledge.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.