And the solution to all this, it seems, is CO2 restrictions. Nasa will put out article after article about how CO2 is on the rise but will only display the data that is convenient to them. When looking across a much larger timeline, it's shown that CO2 levels and emissions were much, much higher than what we have now.
The second link in this passage above doesn't even have a vertical axis.
a) is it actually bad?
Yes, it's likely to be bad. What we have is good, we would be stupid to fuck around with our climate hoping it won't be bad. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
b) is it natural or man-made?
Until there is firm evidence that it's mostly caused by humans, we shouldn't be spending any money on it.
It's man made, the evidence is as firm as we could ever hope for. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
c) what is it going to cost and for how much change?
The cost is insignificant relative to the risks. You show no sources for your cost claims, like most of your lies.
Really, you've just got to follow the money.
Yes, that would be enough. The combined fossil fuel and agriculture industries that stand to lose from greenhouse gas reductions are THE money. Propaganda designed to protect their enormous profits is what's behind your post, and why so many people on here have been brainwashed to reject settled science.
Edit:
It's false, we knew it was false before, and now that it's 20 years later, and none of that shit is happening, we know it's shit now.
Link to your examples regarding "none of that shit is happening". As I said above, source your claims.
You completely ignored almost all my arguments.
Regarding CO2 levels. Here is yet another source: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml is the university of San Diego liberal enough for you?
How does this new information change your perspective on the issue? Or ar you a zealot that will blindly follow what they've been told. No different than communists who believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat right up to the time that they're executed with a bullet to the back of the head.
I'm not going to let it slide. You bought up the graph. How does this information change your perspective?
Yes, it's likely to be bad. What we have is good, we would be stupid to fuck around with our climate hoping it won't be bad.
You've provided a source for your claim but it is, frankly, horrible. The article is just ripped from an amateur wordpress blog... the author of which is a journalist with no relevant education or credentials. I could have written it.
Again, think about it critically and logically. Has the earth been changing over the past thousand or even million years (before modern technology or even humans)? Why was that change OK, but this is not? Why wasn't that previous climate "good", but our current climate is? In fact, according to you, out current climate is better than future climate, and we should do everything in our power to stop, halt or reverse any changes.
If it's man made, then how climate change happen in the past without humans?
As for cost. I can't find anything by searching "economic cost of climate change policy". But use your head mate. Look at the difference in GDP and economic growth Trump made with a simple cut to the corporate tax rate. The more expensive it is to make shit, via higher costs and taxes including "carbon" taxes, the more likely you are to lose an industry to other countries that will let you operate in their country for cheaper.
It's false, we knew it was false before, and now that it's 20 years later, and none of that shit is happening, we know it's shit now.
Again, either admit you're lying or provide some links to back yourself up.
Your graph was dodgy, so I criticized it. The horizontal axis also looked like a dog chewed it up and shat it out.
Despite your shitty references, I'm quite aware that the earth has been hotter than it is now, and that CO2 levels have been higher.
Civilization was not around then. We have amassed our present numbers under stable climatic conditions, and changing them back to some pre-historic hot-house earth at an unprecedented speed is going to fuck us over, and fuck over the other inhabitants of the earth.
If it's man made, then how climate change happen in the past without humans?
I don't think you're this stupid. I think you're a shill who thinks I'm that stupid.
It's false, we knew it was false before, and now that it's 20 years later, and none of that shit is happening, we know it's shit now.
Sources shill.
You keep referencing my original statement and demanding sources, despite the fact that I've already provided numerous sources. Again, here is my source: https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case
The predictions that lay the foundation for the entire global warming / climate change farce have not come true, therefore they are false.
From my source:
>Figure 3: Hansen's predictions to the US Congress in 1988 [1] compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites [2].
>Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.
[1]: Hansen et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 93, no. D8 (August 20, 1988), fig. 3a, p. 9,347 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
[2]: The earth’s temperature shown here is as measured by the NASA satellites that have been measuring the earth’s temperature since 1979, managed at the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH). Satellites measure the temperature 24/7 over broad swathes of land and ocean, across the whole world except the poles. While satellites had some initial calibration problems, those have long since been fully fixed to everyone’s satisfaction. Satellites are mankind’s most reliable, extensive, and unbiased method for measuring the earth’s air temperature temperatures since 1979. This is an impeccable source of data, and you can download the data yourself from vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (save it as .txt file then open it in Microsoft Excel; the numbers in the “Globe” column are the changes in MSU Global Monthly Mean Lower Troposphere Temperatures in °C).
[3]: IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990, page xxii in the Policymakers Summary, Figure 8 and surrounding text, for the business-as-usual scenario (which is what in fact occurred, there being no significant controls or decrease in the rate of increase of emissions to date). “Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C).”
But we all know that simply yelling:
SOOUUURRRCCCEEE
Is just another tactic used by actual shills such as yourself. No different to screaming racism. Do you really need to a source to prove that the scientists got it so wrong that they had to change the entire fucking name from Global Warming to Climate Change?
(post is archived)