So you understand their science, but not the methods for deriving surface temperature from oxygen emissions? So when you post stuff like this then;
Is it just because you like the headlines?
Make an effort to understand.
Climate change: Carbon dioxide emissions reach record high
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Is it just because you like the headlines?
Make an effort to understand.
Thanks, Tonington. One good reason for showing that is for Walter's benefit. The "stupid scientist" at UAH is Spencer, one of the few "sceptics" with a shred of credibility remaining who, while following the dictates of his Church and trying to refute AGW, maintains an observatory that is a major tracking site.
You mean scope? Of course not.
The population is still coming to grips with the fact that it exists in the first place.
Just look at petros' posts, lol
Either or. It has the same meaning... :roll:
Petros used to be a proponent of the AGW theory.
He, like myself, do not question the fact that the climate is in flux.
I question as to what extent man has had on it, and the viability of the schemes presented to attempt to reverse or impede the problem.
Any skeptic would be eventually led to the truth that anthropogenic is the biggest factor influencing the climate right now.
The scope and length of time is where the science is uncertain, but that will be sorted out in the next few years.
Once that becomes well defined, a firmer policy will follow.
The scope and length of time is where the science is uncertain, but that will be sorted out in the next few years.
Once that becomes well defined, a firmer policy will follow.
If you can't see what's wrong with that post, you shouldn't claim to be a skeptic.
Especially considering how much you claim to "follow" this issue.
Funny, Petros seems to prove your claim wrong.
So what's with all the partisanship and babbling now than?
What policy?
There are policies needed. If we are to mirror the successes of Germany, we have make major shifts in legislation and policy, across a wide and varied spectrum of the economy and environment.
The simplistic policies Mulcair has put forward, and endorsed to varying degrees by yourself, are putting the cart before the horse. Bound to fail and cause hardship.
Which I find extremely short sighted and hypocritical coming from you. Someone who recently ranted on about food insecurity.
The kneejerk policies proposals by Mulcair, are bound to increase food insecurity. As they will have a detrimental impact on transportation and processing of foods.
Back to projection, when you can't formulate a reasoned response.
Speaking of rinse and repeat... :roll:
Some day, it would be refreshing to see you have an honest conversation.
What will happen in the future is unknown. There are risks we know we face in the future but we don't know what will happen.
Insurance does this. Businesses analyze risk. Unknowns are part of managing risk.