Mismanagement of the forests and drought are the reasons for the forest fires. Drought is a cyclical thing unrelated to so called man made global warming. Unless you can somehow offer proof of NO droughts in the past prior to man.
Please give specifics on how I’m wrong. I believe in global warming and global cooling. Past records show it happens regullary, in regular cycles. I just don’t think man has a significan impact on that traditional global warming and cooling. Please give specific examples (preferebly with links to show your work) of how I’m wrong (and other so called “experts” who are on the same side are wrong).
So far that ain’t the man man global warming “experts” have been wrong, and have shown no reason why they will be right in the future.
No it just goes to proves that consensus doesn’t mean that it is right.
Look the purpose of my OP was not debate the validity of this issue. Because the the fact is that whether one believes in man-made climate change or not, it is the dominant view of the political landscape across the world. So in my OP I was simply trying to look at this in a different way:
“Assuming those on that side are correct what reductions in global CO2 do you really believe will see, especially with more countries looking to industrialize their economies and with continued population growth? Also what differences in the climate do you believe we will see if only modest reductions are the result?”
PS - One of the questions to address what aspect of human activity is/are the biggest emitters of CO2?
Your argument does not make sense to me.
Because the experts were wrong, in your opinion, you now choose to believe yourself over the experts henceforth?
Under a similar approach, one could dismiss every expert in the field of economics, as well as a variety of other fields, and crown oneself the king of that field, because someone was wrong at some point.
I see no logic whatsoever in that approach.
Enjoy your consensus science. It will take 10 to 20 years before today’s alarmists are shown to be completely wrong. By then you can look back and laugh at how foolish people were to believe on faith what the consensus says.
You will never succeed at getting denialists to accept your assumption.
It is a bridge too far.
We’ll need to wait a decade or so.
I do, thank you. Denying scientific consensus never held much value to me, for obvious reasons.
You are assuming the only “experts” think it’s man made global warming. There are “experts” on both side. You choose to beleive on group, while I believe the other.
Again, what’s the deal with the quotation marks? They are experts.
So of the experts on both sides, you choose to go against scientific consensus.
You opt to agree with yourself and with a tiny minority of climate science experts.
So you’ll agree there are experts (no qutations) on BOTH sides of the issue?
Right now I’m choosing the side that hasn’t been WRONG on everything. The other side experts say that natural global warming is happening, but man’s influence on it is insignificant.
Two mass extinction events in the last 150,000 years, with dramatic impacts on the global climate, and reshaping of the face of the continents, yet here we are, refusing to shoot ourselves in the face to combat a non-threat.
We will revert back to being in an ice age barring any further cosmic impacts or super volcano eruptions.
I don’t trust climate science. How do they know what happened more than 100 years ago? The truth is they are probably guessing.
I would not choose a Dr who had a certificate, but never actually saw an appendix but only heard about them in lectures. I also would not choose a Dr who didn’t know what a good appendix looked like or exactly where it could be found. Further I wouldn’t choose a Dr who couldn’t tell me the exact problem with the appendix I have and what the exact ramifications would be if I didn’t have the procedure.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, it sounds like you’d choose an expert in surgery on the appendix.
I know a lot of people who got dental work done in Mexico. I doubt those “dentists” were licensed.
So the earth was taking on human CO2 emissions for it’s entire life? Um, no Snow… try again.
1 Like
So then what caused the other warming and cooling cycles?
Wasn’t man. Must be …
hmm
what could it be.
NATURAL cycles. One that we are in right now. a natural warming cycle.
Well it definitely was not people because no one is calling past episodes of climate change anthropogenic. It comes across as nonsensical to argue the prior non-existence of a thing negating the effect of that existing thing.
1 Like
Actually, those could help the onset of an ice age. Or at least a short one.
I’m fond of this one Far Side where two scientists are peering into the face of a glacier and at the surprised expression of a man leaving his out house and one scientist confirms that ancient men were apparently caught off guard by the ice age.
Which is also happening on Mars too? Pull the other one.
