Yes stu, if the govt had to address gravity the far right/libertarian/TPrs would deny that gravity exists. To them, reality follows ideology. But in fact, this absurd denial runs straight down the middle of the GOP as a whole. Can't even blame it on the crazies.
Except I have never argued that we should not drive intelligently. First we need to figure out what driving recklessly is. You just saw that clouds create massive ambiguity. But there is other ambiguity as well. Remember all the data we have shows that co2 trails change in ocean temps. it does not lead. Oceans are warming... Co2 is up. if you look at the long millions of years charts we are only just above the cutoff point where co2 is so low plants don't grow. We really don't know that some more co2 is bad for the earth. We have an exploding population. We may need more co2 to grow more food. If you wish to have us cut back on co2 fine. Lets just waste time and massive amounts of money on this til we have some science. I am an environmentalist. I believe in the conservation of resources. I gave significant time to clean water groups. (Until they sold a few of us out because they were getting their funding from polluters and they were told to terminate the law suits.) I just beg you drones to stop having supporting the left spending billions on this unproven bullshit and start spending it on useful things like protecting and rebuilding our fisheries so that we can feed our kids.
...but is bad for humans. You only need hold your breath for a few seconds and the nervous system will register a tiny imbalance of CO2 in the blood. A miniscule disproportion of CO2 is enough to cause the overwhelming urge to breathe, to bring the balance of CO2 back down. Increase CO2 in the air by just 1% and you'd be hyperventilating, desperately trying to find air with less CO2. So won't starve but will suffocate. Brilliant plan. There is some science. Lots of it. Some science which confirms creating an imbalance of CO2 is seriously not a good idea and like reckless driving, continuously pumping huge volumes of it into the atmosphere is asking for trouble if nothing else. So cut some other bullshit schemes, there are plenty of them. Certainly spend time and money to reduce vast levels of CO2 pollution if that's what it takes, even if it can now only mitigate a potential existential harm for future generations. FC is right. It is an absurd political denial. But of course, science deniers, especially like Tea Party Pence (omg really!), never do have 'some science'. Your contribution to this thread does not bear that out.
Mankind has never lived with CO2 levels this high. We don't know effects this may have. What if one of the effects is brain damage in conservatives that results in their inability to have a rational thought process? It might also explain their religitardism, fondness for Trump and trickle down economics.
co2 is bad for humans is a comedic change of subject and shows you to be a troll. we are at around 400 ppm and we would have to be at 60,000 ppm for co2 to be toxic to humans in the report I just read. In terms of contribution of science to this thread. Not a single one of you agw trolls has produced any science showing man made co2 causes warming. All you do stu is make up shit off the top of you head and act like its science. try linking to some science... then you can talk about contributions to this thread.
Look Jem, I realize you've been in so much denial for so long now, no amount of science will have any impression on you, but the simple point I was making is, it's simply reckless to continuously pump into the atmosphere such massive amounts of man made CO2 over such a long period. It's asking for trouble. Relying on clouds and more plant food to mitigate pollution on this scale, doesn't make it any less reckless and is what's comical. All you do Jem is sound like an mad alcoholic trying to justify why too much drinking is not dangerous in spite of all warnings. "Not a single one of you agw troll deniers has produced any science showing man made co2 doesn't cause warming."
And of course we have presented lots of science showing it. I just did with the spectral analysis piece. He just says it is not. Like up is down. Stu, I have given up on jem and have him on ignore. He is probably insane. Smart yes, but insane. I think it may be an act of masochism to continue to engage him. Maybe I'm just weak. He disturbs me. You got close with the "mad alcoholic" I think.
first of all that is a pretty sick comparison. really low, even for an ET troll. science can show us how years of heavy drinking is bad for your health. There is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming. (fcs spectral analysis pieces speaks to properties of co2 which no one is denying... but co2 also cools. What he does not even accept into his thin brain is that we have shown him NASA science showing co2 also prevents warming. We have also shown him the science that explains co2 on its own is such a small part of the atmosphere it by itself does very little. This is why the papers used to try and argue its impact was amplified by clouds. But, now we know that science does not yet have sufficient understanding of clouds to make an statement. ) So the burden is on your team to show us that man made co2 is causing problems. I have shown you before using stats and charts that there is a good chance that man made co2 is simply getting off gassed or absorbed and that co2 levels are rising naturally due to the fact they follow change in ocean temps.
and science can show how years of heavy pollution is bad for the environment and for health. Like science shows CO2 can cool, science shows alcohol can be healthy too. But the science in both cases shows how it's dangerous to have too much CO2 or too much alcohol at which point serious damage can occur. There's a good chance that man made co2 is simply getting off gassed or absorbed is there? Well you know what, if it were only you that were taking that chance like the alcoholic, against all the advice of science stats and charts that says it isn't enough to stop the problem, then I'd be happy for you to take your chance. Thankfully others are less reckless with the environmental prospects for this and future generations and take some heed and apply at least a modicum of common sense which tells it is foolhardy to the extreme and highly dangerous to be unbalancing any natural equilibrium on such a gigantic scale and potentially beyond control, especially of things essential to life. But no worries, you have a few charts and stats to go against all the odds and all the consensus science, so there's a good chance it may be ok. You are absurd.