There is no Planet B

[Udacha]

When it all boils down it is all "Political", I got a real kick out of Obama blaming ISIS on Global weather change, not really sure if it is going up or down.

Check this out if you have time, ALL Scientist DO NOT AGREE with Global Warming

NCA Rebuttal

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Udacha

That is the whole point!!!!! Strong possibility that we are being misinformed now and in 30 years from now looking back going, well, I guess I was lied to again

strong possibility that media competence is a skill that needs to be learned.
who is misinforming for what reason?
is an oil funded think tank the proper source for climate related science?
is a saudi funded think tank the proper source for middle east intelligence?
is the catholic church ... nm i am getting carried away..

[ZULU40]

Originally Posted by Udacha

When it all boils down it is all "Political", I got a real kick out of Obama blaming ISIS on Global weather change, not really sure if it is going up or down.

Check this out if you have time, ALL Scientist DO NOT AGREE with Global Warming

NCA Rebuttal

true
about 3% of so called climate studies paid for by spurious industry connected sources debunk real science by scientific institutions

i know who i would trust

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Fossil fuel combustion and the associated emission of CO2 grew exponentially as a result of the industrial revolution.

The total anthropogenic carbon emissions from 1751 to 2011 is:

373,729,000,000 metric tonnes or 1,370,464,000,000 metric tonnes of CO2.

Are you positive? Could it have been 373,728,000,000 or 1,370,463,000,000?

Those numbers are so obviously just made up and without any substance.

There were no scientists measuring this stuff in 1751, they didn't even know how. Its also difficult for me to understand how someone with your advanced ability to cut and paste can actually fall for this junk science?

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Udacha

When it all boils down it is all "Political", I got a real kick out of Obama blaming ISIS on Global weather change, not really sure if it is going up or down.

Check this out if you have time, ALL Scientist DO NOT AGREE with Global Warming

NCA Rebuttal

OK, I read it. I'll stipulate not everyone agrees. (But, by the way, scientific papers do not need to capitalize or boldly print things to make a point. They assume the reader understands the implications of the data and conclusions drawn.) Now if someone has a terrible disease and 9 doctors recommend medicine A and the tenth recommends medicine B, what would you advise the patient should do?

[Freemind]

Originally Posted by Don C L

OK, I read it. I'll stipulate not everyone agrees. (But, by the way, scientific papers do not need to capitalize or boldly print things to make a point. They assume the reader understands the implications of the data and conclusions drawn.) Now if someone has a terrible disease and 9 doctors recommend medicine A and the tenth recommends medicine B, what would you advise the patient should do?

Find out if the nine are getting paid off in "research" grants

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Udacha

When it all boils down it is all "Political", I got a real kick out of Obama blaming ISIS on Global weather change, not really sure if it is going up or down.

Check this out if you have time, ALL Scientist DO NOT AGREE with Global Warming

NCA Rebuttal

Nor do all biologists agree on evolution.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Udacha

I'm confused about the "We have used the fossil resources few hundred years now" part. 100 years ago we were still traveling by horse and buggy/wagon or Steam engine train. The automobile was in it's infancy. What were we using Fossil Fuels for during the other "few hundred years"???

Mike

I was thinking about the industrial evolution and related industrial level use of coal. In the UK this process started during the 18th century. That's 200+ years ago. 100 years ago problems with polluted air were still very much local. Since then our consumption of fossil fuel has dramatically increased, and has reached levels that are intolerable to the atmosphere.

[Freemind]

True. Are we destroying the American economy over that too? (Biology)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Are you positive? Could it have been 373,728,000,000 or 1,370,463,000,000?

Those numbers are so obviously just made up and without any substance.

There were no scientists measuring this stuff in 1751, they didn't even know how. Its also difficult for me to understand how someone with your advanced ability to cut and paste can actually fall for this junk science?

Did you check out the link?

The first number is carbon emissions, the second is CO2 emissions. The per annum figures are on the link. I used a spreadsheet to do the totals.

"cut and paste" - another term for evidence.

[Enrique100]

What I find absolutely fantastic about this "debate" is that there has been objective, measurable evidence of CO2 increasing in our atmosphere at a very steady rate for decades. At this rate CO2 in our atmosphere will reach 1% at some point in the next 200-300 years. It has risen from 0.32% to 0.4% in most of our lifetimes here.

Whether or not you believe it directly ties into climate change, the increase carbon dioxide WILL end up in our oceans at an increasing rate, causing increases in acidity and fundamentally altering coral reefs and other aquatic species' habitats. That is just simple chemistry anyone can do at home with a ph meter. It's also how fizzy sodas are made.

How a group of people that make their living and enjoyment on, with, or by the sea can have such disregard for the changes that are happening to the very thing they supposedly love is beyond me. Reducing CO2 emissions is something we should be able to rally around, whether or not you believe it has anything to do with climate change.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by Enrique100

How a group of people that make their living and enjoyment on, with, or by the sea can have such disregard for the changes that are happening to the very thing they supposedly love is beyond me.

It would require lifestyle changes.
Most people aren't willing to give up something they enjoy, like eating a lot of meat and/or dairy products.

That includes me, by the way - I eat a lot less meat & dairy (and fish), but I do still eat it.

[ryon]

Originally Posted by conachair

. . . What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

I knew one of the scientists, a college geology professor, who was predicting with 100% assurance that we would run out of fossil fuels within twenty years. If his prediction were even close to accurate, there wouldn't be any concern for global warming today at all. We'd all be worried about collecting enough firewood for our freezing homes, while social crusaders predictably propose a tax to save the trees.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's actually our children that are the problem. There's just too many of the little darlings. They are all going to consume resources, get new iPhones every two years, burn energy on phones, ipods, computers, TV's and who knows what other power consuming gadgets ... <snip> ... shut down the very processes that give us this moment in history for no other reason than a bunch of "what if" reasons is just plain stupid, imo.

Perhaps this can be addressed by a modest proposal . Nothing like classic literature to remind us that there is nothing new under the sun.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by ryon

I knew one of the scientists, a college geology professor, who was predicting with 100% assurance that we would run out of fossil fuels within twenty years. If his prediction were even close to accurate, there wouldn't be any concern for global warming today at all. We'd all be worried about collecting enough firewood for our freezing homes, while social crusaders predictably propose a tax to save the trees.

Do you have a link to the published paper? Otherwise it's meaningless.