You're being sarcastic, but this is true. If we can cut our emissions, the earth will indeed recapture the excess carbon. The problem is that we're currently putting it out much faster than the earth can recapture it, and becaues of all the feedback in the system, the effects are magnified.
On the other hand, why do I bother?
Uncertainty analysis not found.
so you being a geologist means we should believe you when you talk about cosmic rays? i liked "i work in the oil industry" better. having actually worked in the oil industry i don't believe you
The side denying climate change appears to be those pushing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Your side would have us accept that climate was stabilized at some ideal temperature, notably the Little Ice Age, and then mankind (specifically capitalism, white people, and Americans in increasing order of guilt) came along and threw everything out of whack. But the LIA was NOT an ideal temperature, at least not for people, as life became much harder during that time. Starting a graph at the end of the Little Ice Age is pure sophistry, as is denying the Medieval Warm Period (a much better time to be a human from a climate perspective.) Both were solidly established in science before it became politically expedient to pretend they didn't exist in order to push CAGW. Now many people (like me) are increasingly skeptical of anything the pro-CAGW crowd publishes because of the plethora of frauds uncovered. A theory that is universally accepted shouldn't need to resort to such tactics as intentionally losing data, stacking the deck on peer review (as if anything can be peer reviewed without the underlying data), and model outputs.Man, you climate change deniers need to get on the stick, and claim some of your Exxon cash:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/exxon-and-the-climate-fight/
Assuming you're doing this for free, of course.
You'll have to look through the references
Please tell me which one, or have you not actually read the references?
Then...you sir...are one dumbass geographer. It appears that you're ill-equipped to understand the subject matter and, unfortunately, too ignorant to understand the limitations of your education. I don't know where you went to school...but you might want to ask for your money back.The thing is, I DO have a clue what I'm talking about. I'm a geographer and this IS my field. I've debunked talking point after talking point. You're some internet yahoo who gets his information from climate change denier websites that quote non-peer reviewed papers and purposely misrepresent real phenomena. You're SO deluded that you're willing to dispute the known physical properties of a gas!
Hey Einstein...you're talking about solar irradiance...not galactic cosmic ray flux. Pathetic.I'm a geographer, not a geologist. I'm no expert on cosmic rays, but I happen to know they vary on an 11 year cycle.
and then mankind (specifically capitalism, white people, and Americans in increasing order of guilt) came along and threw everything out of whack.
That is the stupidest crap I've seen posted in quite a long time. Congrats. Enjoy your straw man dude, because nobody but you is saying that. And it pretty much destroys whatever idiotic point you were trying to make.
LOL... Another 'it is cold this month so the planet isn't warming' prognosis? :awe:
There has been no global warming since 1995
He says 15 years, you say a month. Guess we're still waiting for reality to set in.
There has been no global warming since 1995
He says 15 years, you say a month. Guess we're still waiting for reality to set in.
Just exactly who are these 'anti-global-warming wingnuts' here that are against renewable energy, cleaner energy and reduced fossil fuel consumption? I think you're confused.Doesn't matter if the weather is warming, cooling, or staying the same. If we continue to shit on the environment at our current pace, our grandchildren will suffer for it. That's undeniable.
The anti-global-warming wingnuts can't provide a single good reason why we shouldn't:
1) adopt renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro)
2) adopt clean(er) energy sources (nuclear, clean coal)
3) reduce fossil fuel consumption
4) etc.
I know we can't adopt everything overnight. But we can't expect technologies to get cheaper unless we slowly adopt them at some level right now and ramp up.
There has been no global warming since 1995
He says 15 years, you say a month. Guess we're still waiting for reality to set in.
You know, I'm all for a cleaner man kind. A nicer environment, cleaner land, air, and water and greener technology. I recycle, I ride a bike, and drive a small car.
Yet, I still somewhat dislike the tactics of the CAWG and Gore and his cronies. Because of that, whenever I read an article such as the one above a part of me wants to go "NEENER NEENER NEENER!" and be done with it. It may be that immature part of me, but when I keep reading "deniers and skeptics are dumbasses" posted every other post, I build up a bit of resentment for wanting actual proof before believing in something that not everyone agrees on who are suppose to be the experts.
There has been no global warming since 1995
He says 15 years, you say a month. Guess we're still waiting for reality to set in.
Doesn't matter if the weather is warming, cooling, or staying the same. If we continue to shit on the environment at our current pace, our grandchildren will suffer for it. That's undeniable.
The anti-global-warming wingnuts can't provide a single good reason why we shouldn't:
1) adopt renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro)
2) adopt clean(er) energy sources (nuclear, clean coal)
3) reduce fossil fuel consumption
4) etc.
I know we can't adopt everything overnight. But we can't expect technologies to get cheaper unless we slowly adopt them at some level right now and ramp up.
This is the hostile resistance we meet at every turn.
extreme government take-over and control
eco-kooks
Algore worshipers.
I am not against a single one of those issues. I am just not willing to have my energy rates and prices on things like food and goods shoot sky high because one or all are not yet ready for prime time.
Once you find an economically VIABLE alternative to fossil fuels, I will be one of the first adopters. I want a car that has the range, power and space of my gasoline powered sedan. Give me that at an affordable price and I'll jump on it.
While we're at it, give me a VIABLE affordable alternative to incandescent light bulbs and I'll jump on that too. CFLs suck for most applications and good LED lights are just too expensive.
I'm all for trading in our coal and NG power plant for Nuclear. We HAVE a viable option for power yet refuse to use it because of irrational fear. Once other "renewable" sources of power become truly viable, I'm all for adopting them. But NOT at the cost of my standard of living.
However, it is plainly obvious that MMGW is being used to restrict freedoms, and tax people unfairly through a now obviously manufactured "emergency."
There has been an element of the left that is anti-industrial and anti-capitalst and MMGW is a perfect way for them to push these ideologies.