Good questions. No, it has nothing to do with skin color. Mexicans have emigrated to the US and have adapted pretty well. Have you seen any Mexican-incited riots lately? I have nothing against any religion except the Muslim religion and mostly because of the way women are treated. Still, the vast majority of Muslims do not assimilate to other countries social beliefs as they are fixed on their own religious-political beliefs. I think it is was a huge mistake for Merkel to accept so many people from the same religion in the country. If what she needed was a younger workforce she could have been more open to taking people from many different nationalities and religions. I expect that this will not end up well for Germany in the long-term. Yes, I liked Europe, especially because of its diverse cultural history and Roman/Germanic roots. A McDonalds in every corner is something that I find abhorring and steals away the enchanting Europe it once was. Call me a helpless romantic.....lol. As far as liberals, I also have an issue with liberal government and leadership. History has shown over and over that societies suffer under this ideology, sometimes for decades. How long will it take Venezuela to stand up again? Brazil? How are liberal controlled cities doing in the US? Societies based on conservative values have higher ethical standards and trust is paramount for any society to flourish and prosper. Just opinions though.....
Your opinion is counter to the consensus. Again with the diversions. Not all plants process co2 in the manner that you describe. There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies that indicate the opposite of what you promote. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/ The opinion's expressed do not reflect that you actually do value the earth as a beautiful blue marble that is the only home for all life. The values that are conveyed comes across as very liberal and not very conservative at all. The delta you describe would provide a better dataset to determine which factually has more influence, the sun or human activity. Both are concurrent, we have no control over the sun but we can have influence on the production of co2 from human activity. If you are a phD, why haven't you produced any peer-reviewed studies that back up any of your claims and instead use inflammatory language to inflame those you are attempting to convert to your line of reasoning? It's very counter-productive and the manner by which you are expressing your views comes across as gaslighting. Humans are interesting. Everyone thinks that they know something that everyone else does not. Most of the time, folks just want somebody to "get" them and be understood.
consensus is not a science. Legit science is to establish a hypothesis, clearly define how the hypothesis can be confirmed/defeated, then gather evidence for that.. the alarm camp is not following this process... there is no way to defeat their hypothesis.. if temperature goes up, it's global warming; if there is record snow fall, it's also global warming; if warming stops, let's just call it 'climate change', so we are covered regardless where the temperature moves. currently scientists are basically split 50/50 between the alarm camp and the doubter camp... there is not even a consensus... the 97% that Al keeps quoting is a lie... money trail: almost all of the alarm camp is living on gov grants... grants only given if the purpose of research is to confirm global warming. yes - it's a legit argument, that we cannot control the sun, but we can control CO2... again, the question is how much.... should you stop pissing in the ocean. if the Solar activity is contributing to the vast majority of the green house gas changes in the atmosphere... water vapor varies from 600 to 15000 ppm between -20c to 20c temperature, a green house gas that is 1 to 25 times more significant than CO2. now back to the CO2... human contribution is 1%. the other 99% is driven by the sun... yes we can control CO2, but only to a fraction of 1%, of a minor green house gas. is the absurdity clear enough now? don't run away..talk numbers.
Again, you state opinions without any references to back them up. No consensus in science? Nope, your assertion is false. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full The money trail meme has implanted itself into your mind, read the link. https://www.skepticalscience.com/absurd-claim-climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.html Water vapor as it contributes to climate change is complex and poorly understood. Cloud cover reduces the solar radiation absorption, so any napkin calculations are a simplistic reduction of a complicated process that we are just beginning to understand. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor You say you are a phD in physical chemistry. Out of curiosity what is the industry in which you are employed? I don't have a phD. I've been self-employed for close to two decades, experiences many failures and success. In walking a road less traveled throughout my life, I understand the rebel mentality and out-of-the-box thinking but don't come to ET to engage in philosophical or political debates. This is especially true when interacting with someone I interpret as having a closed mind and just repeating memes. It's entertaining only so far. So back up your claims please, and keep the patronizing attitude on the DL if you really intend on communicating otherwise the cost is too high. The world is full of absurdity, if one focuses upon it. It can also be heaven on earth, so why not start treating it so?
every link you quote, I can find 2 on the opposite side. this will never end.... put your credibility on the line, say the sentence about the 2-inch CO2, and we can move on. consensus, money trail... whatever you want... but say the sentence first.
Which you have failed to do since the beginning of this conversation and only repeat memes that are not even of your own thinking. Again with the distraction. We are focused on hard numbers here, just as you wanted. Yet when challenged, as you say, all that's there is an empty hand. Most likely none of the links that you would provide are from any reputable, recognized science based organization, thus the omission. Prove me wrong, let's see a paper published in a recognized journal that wasn't funded by a special interest. I've asked direct questions to you, which you create constant diversions yet say that is what I am doing, (and all others whom have challenged your meme mind in this thread.) It's not difficult to suss out your motivation. Go ahead say it, you work for the petroleum industry don't you? If not, then it's another industry that stands to benefit by your denial of human caused climate change. Let's see what repetitive diversion you'll come up with next.
every alarmist basically is already saying that a 2-inch layer of CO2 will burn the earth.. but I want this from their own mouth to have it on record.. but looks like no takers now.... I have so many good logical points about the consensus and the money trail... original stuff... but no lead-in now.