Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

1. It doesn't matter if it's half. If your GW theory isn't supported by the data (Which it is isn't), the theory is wrong, period.

2. Math challenged Cale? Your exaggeration about CO2 in the garage is exactly why when you and your friends cry wolf, nobody listens any longer. We are talking CO2 parts per million and you example is goofy

[cale]

1. It doesn't matter if it's half. If your GW theory isn't supported by the data (Which it is isn't), the theory is wrong, period.

2. Math challenged Cale? Your exaggeration about CO2 in the garage is exactly why when you and your friends cry wolf, nobody listens any longer. We are talking CO2 parts per million and you example is goofy

Nope, but it appears you are. You're trying to assert 5% is negligible, based on....what exactly? My example was to point out the importance of accounting for everything. Your approach is ignore the bits you dont like.

Your entire argument revolves around your opinions as a lay-person, and a routinely proven scientifically illiterate one at that. Start posting bullshit articles again, your own ramblings don't even come close.

[gwb72tii]

good we can agree ti disagree again

and you can go on believing that if we wrecked the world economy to reduce CO2 emissions 0.08% (20% reduction in anthro CO2 annual emissiosn) the world will be saved

[mbonder]

Whose talking about wrecking the world economy? I always found that argument a strange one, clean energy innovations wreck the economy!! I'm not sure I've ever met a single person that has advocated for ruining the economy to accomplish anything. Pushing clean energy doesn't have to mean ruining the economy. No one here is saying that we should drop fossil fuels tomorrow, I think people are advocating for attempts to reduce the need for fossil fuels over the long haul, allowing industries and the economy as a whole to adapt. Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of capitalism that all the conservatives bristle over?

[z31maniac]

Whose talking about wrecking the world economy? I always found that argument a strange one, clean energy innovations wreck the economy!! I'm not sure I've ever met a single person that has advocated for ruining the economy to accomplish anything. Pushing clean energy doesn't have to mean ruining the economy. No one here is saying that we should drop fossil fuels tomorrow, I think people are advocating for attempts to reduce the need for fossil fuels over the long haul, allowing industries and the economy as a whole to adapt. Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of capitalism that all the conservatives bristle over?

And I don't understand (or I have missed it) why the fossil fuel industry doesn't just buy up and invest heavily in renewable energy thus maintaining their power over the world.

Is there a regulation against it?

Have I drank too much wine?

[cale]

co2 is plant food for those grapes, you're welcome.

[gwb72tii]

looks like there are benefits to warmer temperatures and increased CO2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9

an increase of 865,000 square miles of tree canopy cover (more trees) since 1982

[cale]

I like how when it's something you interpret as beneficial, you accept it as true.

[Massive Lee]

I like how when it's something you interpret as beneficial, you accept it as true.

I was thinking the same thing.

[gwb72tii]

I like how when it's something you interpret as beneficial, you accept it as true.

You doubt the Bible of the global warming movement Nature magazine?

Even the most die hard AGW alarmists admit some additional warming will be beneficial

Posted a a long term response that others have claimed the planet is losing forests

[cale]

You doubt the Bible of the global warming movement Nature magazine?

Even the most die hard AGW alarmists admit some additional warming will be beneficial

Posted a a long term response that others have claimed the planet is losing forests

Not at all what I was saying, just wanted to point out your hypocrisy. Are you really too simple minded to understand you were being laughed at? Had that been one of the hundreds of articles published in Nature discussing the negative ramifications of AGW you'd have denounced it in a heartbeat, but you gobble it up because you falsely interpret it as a net benefit. This is why you're not taken seriously by anyone on this forum.

[gwb72tii]

Wow you’re as obtuse as the rest, no surprise
Nature is no better at the science of AGW than you are frankly. Alarmists editing alarmists.
Yes I do not believe in your political goals by endorsing claptrap science.
The article was posted because it frankly refutes some of the bullshit your side wants us to be worried about.
I actually admire Nature for posting a study that refutes some of the crap your side peddles.

Apparently they at least have some integrity.

[cale]

Wow you’re as obtuse as the rest, no surprise
Nature is no better at the science of AGW than you are frankly. Alarmists editing alarmists.
Yes I do not believe in your political goals by endorsing claptrap science.
The article was posted because it frankly refutes some of the bullshit your side wants us to be worried about.
I actually admire Nature for posting a study that refutes some of the crap your side peddles.

Apparently they at least have some integrity.

You don't even know what you're arguing about, you just see an article that discusses an increase in foliage and ignorantly and falsely interpret that as a net positive for the planet. No shit foliage increases, why do you think the term greenhouse effect gets used so often? That entire article is based around human influences and our effects on changing landscapes, both through direct and indirect processes. Nowhere does it state that it's a positive, it states that it's happening. None of this detracts from the negatives associated with rising temperatures, but at least you're finally accepting that temperatures are indeed rising?

You have no clue what you're talking about, you'll just cling to anything you think validates you.

[gwb72tii]

So now more trees are bad rofl, nice Cale.

I’ll let this go for now.

But please come back when you have anything, any data, you know, proof that your side knows what it’s talking about.

Because all you have are models that so far haven’t been able to predict anything with any kind of accuracy, or anything outside of normal climate variance. You have models overstating what CO2 affects, and no proof it’s driving the warming that’s been happening before man really started spewing CO2

You have hypotheses that say we’re all going to die, yet no data in support.

I suppose you believe the infamous hockey stick? Lol

And a hypothesis unsupported by data is, drumroll, wrong.

[mbonder]

And a hypothesis unsupported by data is, drumroll, wrong.

Would it be possible then for you to stop claiming that by attempting to better control CO2 output humanity is going to wreck the global economy?

I mean that's just as much of a hypothesis isn't it? Haven't seen any real world data on it anywhere...cause it simply hasn't happened despite the attempts that have been made to move away from fossil fuels to renewable, clean energy.