Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35
Tich tich........You did NOT even glance at the Evidence as presented by NASA which is supported by the majority of world scientists.
So who should we believe, you who will not accept anything not supported by your personal belief or the opinions of the world's best scientists?? I will post it once more so that you can analyse the data.
You will notice the graph presented has been gathered from hundreds of thousand of years, not just a few decades.
Taxslave, your idea of natural fluctuation is way, way off base. A decade or two or even a couple of hundred years but 7000 years is a bit over the top wouldn't you say??
EagleSmack.....It won't take bank transfers or money, but food. Between excessive rainfalls in minutes, weeks of drought, in previous ferotile areas, and the insistence on child=bearing being a sacred duty of all women, no matter on whether there is space or resources to support more humans, I imagine changing the number of humans might be a start, considering we cannot feed what we have in the way of world population already.
MHZ....Good grief, do you recommend moving the whole earth population by season to the most comfortable place. That sure would break the IMF wouldn't sit?? At least Eaglesmack need not worry about all those bucks going to abroad. LOL.
Don't you think that if you're going to talk about science you should know something about it other than "somebody whose word I respect said,"?
We all now know that NOAA fudged the climate change data by not making sufficient corrections for the majority of their data coming from areas of very high and rapid urban growth. The data from satellites since 1979 show no such temperature growth.
If you are lied to and you do not have sufficient training to be skeptical you simply believe it.
The 97% Consensus is a good example:
From NOAA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
Imagine what strength is given to the hypothesis of global warming to have the approval of the AMA?
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...m-agw-debunked (external - login to view)
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...king-the-books (external - login to view)
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...e-of-un-report (external - login to view)
The actual science behind CO2 is so rediculous that no real scientist could ever come to the conclusion that one molecule out of every 2500 would change the heat transfer in the open atmosphere. 2/3rds of the heat transfer in the Troposphere is due to conduction/convection which means that CO2 does the same thing as every other type of gas in the atmosphere. And the percentage of CO2 compared to H2O in the atmosphere is 1,000 times less and the heat capacity of water is something on the order of a 1,000 times higher. Furthermore CO2 has extremely narrow and limited bands of energy in which it can absorb energy. And these bands are in the area of emission from both the Sun and the Earth that contain very little energy.
The very idea that CO2 has any effects is laughable on the surface and even more comic upon closer inspection.