<50% of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[Extrafire]

I can ensure you that they know this and that they are hardly doomsayers. There is enough evidence at this point however to, using bayesian reasoning, convince anyone with a non-zero prior of the reality of global warming. One might and should call this sort of thing consensus, but this is not the conventional sense of consensus.

Well they sure make a big deal out of consensus, while misrepresenting the science. Their motives are awfully suspect.

 

[Extrafire]

So, what you are saying is that the 8 trillion tons of CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution won't have it's full effect for another five or six hundred years.

No. Did you really misread my post or are you just twisting it around so you have something to argue against. That's a strawman tactic. Not particularly admirable.

What I'm saying is the CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere has had/will have minuscule effect, because it's a minuscule amount compared to what nature dumps, and CO2 only has a minor effect on temperatures anyway. The evidence indicates that temperature increase causes CO2 level increase, not vice versa.

Temperatures have risen, and CO2 levels have risen, and they continue to rise, seemingly, without your 800 year lag.

Temperatures have risen and are rising in direct relation to the increase in solar variability (except for the last 9 years they've stopped rising), in spite of Ton's papers saying it isn't enough.

CO2 levels are rising 800 years after the major warming event known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, you know, that history you learned in school about when the Norse settled Greenland (which really was green back then) and farmed there, when it was much warmer than now.

 

[Tonington]

No, I told you I might have one somewhere but don't have time to look for it.
A drop is a given. The amount is not supported. That's what I told Niflimir.

Do you deliberately intend to misinterpret me or is that just carelessness on your part?

Would that be the deforestation to provide palm plantations for palm oil biofuel? Here we re-forest what we log unless it's converted to other uses such as agriculture and/or urban sprawl. And in N. America we now have more trees than we had 100 years ago so it couldn't have that much effect over the last century.

No, I've been asking you for the link to give some credibility to the assertions you keep trumpeting of the explosives expert. You say you have it somewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be his link, but one showing the drop would be nice. Then Niflmir quotes the very paragraph I was referring to, and you say you don't know where it comes from, and you don't have the data.

No misinterpreting, just restating what you have said which is contradictory. Maybe it's careless on your part that you don't realize he and I are asking the same thing.

Urban sprawl & agriculture are land-use changes. North America is a very different continent now than it was before we showed up. Tropical forests are dwindling. I'm not saying agriculture is wrong, far from it. But the changes we create have ramifications. These are things we can reduce the impact of, though you seem to think carbon credits are a bad thing. Even if it allows for no-till farming methods to be brought to agricultural producers, where they couldn't afford to do so without the credits.

If you consider the ramifications of the plans for more biofuels, the ramifications are much worse. Growing all that corn, palm and sweet grass will require much more land, and will likely result in less land for food production.

 

[Extrafire]

No, I've been asking you for the link to give some credibility to the assertions you keep trumpeting of the explosives expert. You say you have it somewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be his link, but one showing the drop would be nice.

For the last time - I did NOT say that I have the link! I said I MAY have it in all the material but I DON'T HAVE THE TIME to do a search of those hundreds of pages.
Just go back and check my posts and you'll see this:

I may have a link somewhere in all my info, but I haven't had time to search.

Anything about that statement not perfectly clear to you? So stop misrepresenting my words. What are you trying to do, discredit my character? Take my statement for what it says. I barely have time to do as much as I am, as you are well aware.

Then Niflmir quotes the very paragraph I was referring to, and you say you don't know where it comes from, and you don't have the data.

I said the same to Niflmir as I did to you. The paragraph that was quoted also came with a link to the article whence I copied it. Go back and check. The link to the article is there. It's a link supporting that article that I may or may not have.

No misinterpreting, just restating what you have said which is contradictory. Maybe it's careless on your part that you don't realize he and I are asking the same thing.

I don't claim to be Mensa material but I did comprehend what both of you were asking, that it was essentially the same, and I answered both of you essentially the same. Enough of the smears. Just stick to the topic at hand.

Urban sprawl & agriculture are land-use changes. North America is a very different continent now than it was before we showed up. Tropical forests are dwindling. I'm not saying agriculture is wrong, far from it. But the changes we create have ramifications. These are things we can reduce the impact of, though you seem to think carbon credits are a bad thing. Even if it allows for no-till farming methods to be brought to agricultural producers, where they couldn't afford to do so without the credits.

I quite realize that there are consequences to the changes we have wrought upon the continent and the earth. But they aren't sufficient to make a significant difference in the climate. And yes, carbon credits are a bad thing, similar to stealing. And from what I hear from farmers, no-till is cheaper than cultivation.

If you consider the ramifications of the plans for more biofuels, the ramifications are much worse. Growing all that corn, palm and sweet grass will require much more land, and will likely result in less land for food production.

Here is one of those rare occasions where we agree! But since the populace has been deluded into thinking there's a climate crisis, and various activists have argued about how relatively harmless it is to burn biofuels as opposed to fossil fuels, enough people think it's a good thing and politicians are quick to react if it means votes, even if they know it's wrong. Here in Prince George, city trucks proudly display decals proclaiming that they're burning biofuels. Not only are the ramifications you mentioned true, there's more. Massive acreages are being cleared to grow biofuels, resulting in ecological devastation of tropical forests, and it also takes more energy to produce biofuels than they produce, so the net effect is more CO2 emissions! That's one of the things Bjorn Lomborg mentions too.