I like this thread. Keep it (and global temps) up!

crowman2010 said:

---

dead said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Atmospheric CO2 has been declining in the atmosphere for the last 600 million years.

---

I've got a chart here that says it's risen globally since at least 1980.

(https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html#global)

Quote:

---

CO2 dropped to 180 parts per million at the peak of the last glaciation and that is only 30 parts per million above the "death of the planet".

---

The actual quote is "death of plants".

---

Great...now show the graph over the last 600 million years

---

Here's one I found, because you didn't post one.
(https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/)


Here's one that uses ice core data going back to 800,000 years to 1958.
(https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/)

dead said:

---

The actual quote is "death of plants".

---

I went back and listened to that portion with the volume up higher and you are right.

Thanks.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

There's not much doubt that we can affect the climate. How much we can affect it remains to be seen.

The problem is those who think it is a bad thing.

---

Actually, there's plenty of doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

---

I would agree that there are plenty of doubts about whether man is the driving force of climate change and to what extent, but not about whether or not we have some influence, however minor.

Quote:

---

I would agree that there are plenty of doubts about whether man is the driving force of climate change and to what extent, but not about whether or not we have some influence, however minor.

---

OK - quantify it.

Seriously, there is a ton of literature out there casting significant doubt on whether mean global temperature change is man-made.

Unfortunately, the debate is being had (for the most part) among persons with a very real agenda (politicians wanting more money and power and "scientists" being paid to find man-made temperature changes). I for one would love to see some objectivity thrown in the debate.

You have to ask yourself, if the models were so bad a predicting temperature, then aren't the inputs/assumptions proven wrong?

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I would agree that there are plenty of doubts about whether man is the driving force of climate change and to what extent, but not about whether or not we have some influence, however minor.

---

OK - quantify it.

---

Does it even matter how much other than for scientific curiosity? We don't need to quantify it to enjoy the benefits.

If I had to guess, I'd guess no more than 1% of the warming is due to man's activities. It would be great if it were much more, though, so that there might be something we can do to try to extend the Holocene at whatever time that becomes necessary. But my wanting it to be more isn't going to make me claim that it is more just as I'm not going to claim it doesn't exist just to argue with the alarmists.

I am so confused.

More "climate change." :) https://t.co/A50p1Nmve9

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 1, 2022

So, wait, more people freeze to death than overheat, and we have more snow than ever?

Also, if the way to fight climate change is to eat bugs, ok, but are lobsters really the food of the future? Shouldn't the white house be serving more crickets?

If the Biden White House can prioritize purchasing 200 Maine lobsters for a fancy dinner, @POTUS should also take the time to meet with the Maine lobstermen his administration is currently regulating out of business. https://t.co/PLiGGopsid

— Congressman Jared Golden (@RepGolden) December 1, 2022

Lead by example, leftists!

You think Biden is a leftist

dead said:

---

You think Biden is a leftist

---

More like the people pulling his strings.

dead said:

---

You think Biden is a leftist

---

No, I know the man/men/women/furries/CCP behind the earpiece are. He is the Manchurian president.

the furries

eric76 said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

There's not much doubt that we can affect the climate. How much we can affect it remains to be seen.

The problem is those who think it is a bad thing.

---

Actually, there's plenty of doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

---

I would agree that there are plenty of doubts about whether man is the driving force of climate change and to what extent, but not about whether or not we have some influence, however minor.

---

No doubt. I can definitely say that I increase the volume of water in a swimming pool if I pee in it, but how much did I actually effect the chemistry of the pool? I also affect the volume of water and the chemistry of the ocean if I do the same thing there.

My guess is human impact on climate change is analogous to somewhere in between the two above scenarios.

And the crazy thing about the climate change argument is that my guess is as good as anyone else's. Every prediction is based off of models of assumptions.

agracer said:

---

OP, don't you know, CO2 from humans is the wrong kind of CO2…

---

Yes. Volcano co2 is much better.

oldcrow91 said:

---

agracer said:

---

OP, don't you know, CO2 from humans is the wrong kind of CO2…

---

Yes. Volcano co2 is much better.

---

And CO2 from China and India, or the rich. American and European middle and working class CO2 is a big problem for the planet.

To 'dead' above, note that one of the presidential appointees led a class on spanking seminar recently, and is/was a public 'pup play' advocate, or something.



He was only in charge of some nuclear programs, not the lead furry behind the earpiece.

Communists are leftists, whom should be presumed dangerous around kids and the White House.