What follows is just part of one thread of some 2000 comments (and counting) following an article about the Sierra Club and a congressional hearing: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/09/the-sierra-club-responded-to-getting-schooled-by-ted-cruz-on-global-warming-and-theyre-still-wrong/#comment-2305007926
So your logic here is that 100 years of unreliable and obfuscated climate data supersedes 4.5 billion years of opposite extremes climate changes??
You do know that the Sahara desert at one point was a tropical forest don’t you?
You do know that we have found evidence of CO2 particles counts in excess of 5000 ppm during the history of the planet?
And you do know what our current CO2 particle counts are?
Yes, I know that the Sahara was once a tropical forest. It could be again, perhaps not in my lifetime, but in my children’s.
I did not know that CO2 counts had ever been as high as 5000ppm. Do you happen to know what the climate was like then, and what if any living creatures were to be found? I do know that humans were not around.
I read somewhere that the current count was over 400; NOAA puts it at just under, but rising.
So I have a question for you. Do you know why Bill McKibben’s organization is called 350.org?
I do not know who Bill McKibben is
I can only assume the 350 is his magical particle count number.
Checked the website, obviously an ACC activist website.
BTW lady, I’ve studied all the science supporting CC, you’re not going to surprise me with anything
Co2 particle counts are not at 400 ppm, they’ve been steady at around 340-360 ppm
5000 ppm particle count during Jurassic periods when PLANT life thrived..
Any depletion of CO2 will eventually affect plant life, as I’m sure you know CO2 helps photosynthesis essential to plant life and oxygen we breath.
less CO2, fewer plants, less oxygen.
Rise in CO2 is a byproduct of climate warming not the other way around.. this was presented evidence that has now been erased by the climate change alarmist. this was found during analysis of ice cores, after the ice age as the earth started to warm up the rise in CO2 levels started to follow not the other way around. I’m sure you know how many factories and cars we had in those days
BTW explain to me how CO2 actually creates climate change.. I’m dying to know your take on it
“BTW lady, I’ve studied all the science supporting CC, you’re not going to surprise me with anything”
Well it seems I just did. You cannot have studied that much climate change science if you do not know that 350ppm is the figure put forward by James Hansen in 1988 as the upper limit for carbon in the atmosphere that is compatible with life as we know it. He also said that if we – that is the human race – do not stop burning fossil fuels by the year 2030, large parts of the earth will become uninhabitable.
Sure, the plants will thrive. It’s just humans who won’t do so well.
I did not make up the 400ppm figure. That came from NOAA. And that is what they do. They take measurements. The last year when CO2 in the atmosphere was below 350 was 1987.
As you asked, I will give you my take on how CO2 creates climate change. You could also spend 15 minutes watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?… for a clear concise explanation by David Roberts.
It’s really all about water. Carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, if you will, trapping heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space. That’s a good thing. But the blanket is becoming thicker and more heat is being trapped.
So far the rise in temperature has been very slight, but it is enough that the atmosphere can now hold a lot more water vapor. Warmer seas mean more evaporation and all this moisture just sits there, and sits there. This explains why, as the scientists like to put it, there are longer and longer intervals between rain events. Eventually there is a cold front or something which causes the water vapor to condense and we get rain – lots and lot and lots of rain. And that explains the increasing drought-flood cycles that we are seeing.
The warming has affected many other systems besides just water, but it is the disruption of water cycles that most affects the climate.
So what you’re saying is that you want to sustain human life by altering normal climate cycles that under normal circumstances has not sustain human life throughout the entire existence of this planet?
You do know lady that human life has existed for less than .0001% of the planets existence, but you claim that you want maintain the current status quo n climate which history has proven will change with human intervention or without. We will eventually be wiped out as a species! Not a matter of if but when.
Drought have been part of the earth for billions of years.
Food production is now sustaining 7.5 billion people more than ever before and there no sign of slowing down..
In my part of the world we’ve had plenty of rain and BTW chew on this before you bring up hurricanes and tornadoes.
Why does CO2 trap heat lady?
Well, I’m not sure that you do see.
Yes, I want to sustain human life for as long as possible. You are right that we will eventually be wiped out. Do we really need to accelerate the process?
You keep quoting events from prior geological ages. So what? How does what happened in the age of the dinosaurs have anything to do with life on earth today. I do hope that you realize Jurassic Park (and its many sequels) is fiction.
I have no idea where you live, but I am happy for you that you get plenty of rain. Large areas of the earth do not.
My point about Jurassic period and such is to prove to you that our planet has gone thru thousands of changes climatic wise even before human existed. The notion that a few meager humans are going to destroy the planet because of a few extra PPM of CO2 is ridiculous.
The forces of nature alone can squash us like the bugs that we are.
The planet alone produces far more CO2 than humans do.
I know you’ve been told that CO2 insulating characteristics are warming up the atmosphere more than normal.
Argon is X 3 more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2 is, and has far more insulating characteristics than CO2.. If you have double pane windows lady, guess what? they’re filled with Argon not CO2.
But why does the government, the IPCC, and the UN don’t worry about argon??
Because they cannot tax it since humans don’t produce any, the earth produces it naturally.
I can go on for days lady to prove to you that your climate change belief is nothing more than a cult based on computers model predictions that never materialize. they keep plugging and changing the data in order to conform to their prediction and it keeps backfiring on them as the opposite of what they predict happens.. Learn the history of the inception of the scam, it has evolved and morph including the name just to fool their followers..
It’s all a means to tax wealthy countries and redistribute to the poor ones as well as economic regression and population control.
Al Gore the father of AGM ACC after losing his bid for president went on a world wide tour with his IPCC video full of lies predicting the oceans would rise by 7′ and our cost lines would be under water and million would die of starvation and famine. by 2015 and so did other CC scientist..
here’s his hypocrisy: not long after he was going around prophesying that our coast lines would be under water, he goes and buys million dollar real estate by the beach???
Guess what lady…. DIDN’T HAPPEN
Have a great week lady, and I hope you remove your blinders and stop drinking the cool aid.
Also study the laws, let write that again “LAWS” of thermal dynamics and entropy, it destroys climate change science hypothesis.
Explain to me how this taxing the wealthy countries works?
You seriously don’t know??
It’s called cap and trade lady!
Tax the biggest CO2 polluters in the world or pretty much tax the air we breath. tax energy companies that produce our energy, tax or over regulate coal plants.. All that taxation gets passed on to us
You need to read UN session and speakers to find out how many countries claim we owed them money due to climate change..
But they don’t make the same claim from China who happens to be the biggest polluter. How convenient huh?
Joe, I am trying to follow your arguments, I really am. i can see that you have read a lot, but it is all swirling around in your head in a rather confused way. You are on top of some facts, but not others, especially not cause and effect.
Let’s start with the idea that i actually know a lot more than you give me credit for, and look at your points one by one.
Cap and trade is not a tax; it is an incentive to reduce production of and dependence on fossil fuels. It has not been very successful because of the trade part which allows the biggest polluters to buy credits from more responsible companies or countries.
My opinion is that a carbon tax would be much more effective, but so far energy companies have blocked that route. They do not pay a tax on the pollution they cause. They do not even pay much tax on their profits, and that is a cost that gets passed on to us.
While not referring solely to energy companies: Citizens for Tax Justice just reported that Fortune 500 companies are holding over $2.1 trillion in accumulated profits offshore for tax purposes, with estimated taxes due of over $600 billion. If the government just collected some of that, we would be much better off.
I know that there are a number of countries that are claiming reparations for the damage that the US has done to the climate, and the effects that has had on them. This is a hard one to deal with as you do not think that man has had much to do with changes in sea level (and so on) that threaten to swamp some island nations. The maximum elevation of some of these countries is about ten feet. The slightest rise in sea level affects large swathes of their land. Not surprisingly they are looking for someone to blame; we all would.
Which brings us to China. Yes, it is currently the largest producer of greenhouse gases is you look at annual figures. But, and there are two buts, China is making huge efforts to reduce those emissions. They produce most of the solar panels, they use hydro power and they are building wind farms wherever there is space.
The other but is that the United States is the hands-down winner in the contest for who has produced the most pollution. Remember that we started a lot earlier than China did. (A little very simplistic math: say the US has been producing 100 tons of carbon dioxide a year for the past 50 years, that is 5000 tons. Along comes China and produces 250 for 10 years. That’s 2500 tons. Not even close)
It is not at all unreasonable for other countries to blame the United States for the situation that they find themselves in. To me the obvious course of action would be to show that we are trying really hard to reduce the level of the pollution we are causing. Show a willingness to correct wrongs of the past.
Unfortunately, the majority of the commenters to this thread seem to think that that would be showing weakness or something.
Think about it. If someone criticizes, shouldn’t you ask why? Shouldn’t you look at your behavior to see if perhaps, just perhaps your behavior is to blame.
I hate to break it to you but you’re preaching dogma.
If I was to tell you that we all need to believe in God and pay our tithing because it will make for a better world, you and most seculars would laugh.
That’s exactly what you’re preaching!!
I will side with you that we should all be conscious of our environment and we should all practice being better stewards of our planet.. But what we don’t need is a false God benevolent government entity telling me that if I do not act a certain way the world will come to an end and therefore I must be taxed to be punished..
ACC is nothing but conjecture, no theory there not even a hypothesis.. You never heard any of the lead scientist call it the “CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY” have you?? Because it’s not a theory is pure CONJECTURE!!
Did you know that it Russian communist who invented the concept of using science to control the population?
Did you know that Man named Edward Berneys pioneered the concept of using advertising and media to also control the masses.
In this country our constitutions protects us from government and religion collusion in order to create a controlling theocracy similar to the original Roman Catholic church or even Islam, however, a new way was discovered by governments to circumvent our constitution to control the masses and it’s faux science and the media the new God and dogma of our times..
Elizabeth, you sound like a nice sensible woman and somewhat open minded. Kudos to you if you feel you should do more to take care of our planet.. As a Christian myself and a scout leader I believe as you do. I just don’t believe this ACC pack of lies being fed to me by the UN, IPCC, Al Gore, Academia, higher education, progressive democrat hippie crowd is nothing more than DOGMA with no factual basis but doctored computer models and predictions that keep and keep failing.. reason why is because these predictions are not based on fact or true knowledge but lies and deceit. is a money making scheme.. Go ask Al Gore how rich he is since he started promoting the scam??
Remember this Elizabeth!! No one can predict climate, we can’t even predict day to day weather.
I find it interesting that you accuse me of preaching dogma, and then proudly let it be known that you are a Christian, a belief system for which there is not
“not a shred of a scrap of a
scintilla of evidence to support” it.
I do not “believe” in ACC. Based on widely reported statistics, measurements and observations made over the years since the start of the Industrial Revolution, I have noticed a long-term upward trend in temperatures, which is almost perfectly correlated with increases in greenhouses gases (not just CO2). That has led me to conclude that there is a connection. I also conclude that, if nothing changes, both GHGs and Temperature will continue to rise.
One little comment on failed predictions. Remember the hole in the ozone layer and the predictions of all the awful things that would happen if NOTHING WAS DONE to control pollution. By and large, the awful things failed to materialize because enough people took the scientific evidence seriously and DID SOMETHING, like banning CFCs. In a very real sense, the more failed predictions, the better for us.
If you have not had the opportunity to read the scientific reports (or intelligent summaries of them), I can see why you do not accept ACC. But how you can believe that it is one vast conspiracy headed by the UN and Al Gore is beyond me. Talk about lack of evidence! But as you pointed out, evidence is not required for belief to take hold.
Al Gore is not in the business of promoting ACC to make money. He was always quite rich, and he became very rich by investing in a little company called Apple.
And lastly (because I really have other things I could be doing to save the world), meteorologists are getting quite good at predicting the weather. Have you never heard a warning that severe weather is expected between 7 and 10pm and had the rain come down in sheets at 8:30? They are quite good at predicting when a hurricane will make landfall. The recent flooding in South Carolina was clearly predicted, but no one took any notice.
The climate is another matter because it is much longer term. Climate predictions are not based on doctored computer models but on careful observation of trends. Conditions are constantly changing, and the scientists are constantly making adjustments and giving updates to the figures that the computers generate. And, no, they are not getting rich either.