Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
While I don't agree that man could be a cause of the higher range to 90%, I can agree that he could be the cause of 5% and more of the lower range of the warming, but the point is that the IPCC can not admit this is possible, for if it were in the lower range, stopping 100% of all man made CO2 emissions would not significantly alter the warming trend. For that reason, the UN IPCC has to have man as the predominate cause, meaning over 50%. And then they would be out of business.
Metis my friend, I am so happy to be unignored, I missed our exchanges...
And your argument is that because we are not sure exactly how much additional warming is contributed by human activities that are - even now - eminently modifiable (unlike the other factors) - we should ignore the fact and carry on as if we didn't know anything about it at all? Do you know what the Australian people thought of Tony Abbott when he took that position?
Bah, the 97% consensus meme has long been well and truly busted, but fake news ignores it. Here is a list of organizations that have reported on it, do check them out as to credibility. Climate scientist Dr Richard Toll in particular is an interesting story, for he was a part of the survey and can prove Cooke who wrote the 97% paper purposely cheated/manipulated the data, for as a skeptic, he among others ended up being a part of the 97%... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
Too bad I'm an athiest
What?
Considering the fact that any amount of warming that has been occurring over the last several decades is within the realm of natural variability, I'd say no, it's not worth wasting trillions of dollars and killing economies to do potentially nothing and AT BEST basically nothing.And your argument is that because we are not sure exactly how much additional warming is contributed by human activities that are - even now - eminently modifiable (unlike the other factors) - we should ignore the fact and carry on as if we didn't know anything about it at all? Do you know what the Australian people thought of Tony Abbott when he took that position?
PS - I have absolutely no trouble believing I had to spell this out for you!
Oh! What a great surprise! An entirely independent thinking Republican Politician hand-picked by President Trump to fulfill his election campaign promise of destroying the EPA makes his first independently reasoned statement on climate change. This is political farce plumbing bold new depths.Yikes, at last, the head of the EPA even understands that human derived CO2 is not the predominate cause of global warming.
EPA chief: Carbon dioxide not primary cause of warming
Mar 9, 3:49 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and his own agency.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said measuring the effect of human activity on the climate is "very challenging" and that "there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact" of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"So, no, I would not agree that (carbon dioxide) is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Pruitt told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is the man, he is just stating the obvious, CO2 is not the danger to mankind as the agw team claim, but he also knows that he will need to tread softly and slowly for the agw team is legion, and they fear losing their funding and-or jobs. That is understandable, it is merely human nature to put up a fight by any means necessary, even though you might know in your heart what you are being paid for is not producing any benefit for your fellow mankind.
@ben d - when was the last time you visited earth? Scott Pruitt tread softly and slowly? Have you read a real newspaper recently?
Oh c'mon sitiSiti replies:
And humbly requests RF staff to investigate the possibility of getting a few more face palm, head shakes and other emojis that express profound incredulity specifically for use in debates involving climate change and evolution deniers.
BTW - the picture showed a lot of Australian people who expressed their disapproval of Abbott' climate change denial stance by burying their heads in the sand - a position Bendy and Debate-Unable are strongly recommending - Mr Abbott is, of course, no longer important - his own party got rid of him on account of his propensity for silly arguments. (Look it up if you don't believe me).
, a staged picture of some loonie lefties is not representative of how the Australian people think. Tony Abbot won the election on a campaign promise to remove the carbon tax introduced by the outgoing leftie government, and which he duly carried out. Abbott hails carbon tax repeal after Senate vote
No - it wasn't meant to be...it was meant to be a picture of how they (and apparently you) don't think - i.e. clearly, rationally, sensibly, factually, critically, analytically or with any awareness of the facts. But to be fair - these are not generally considered requisite skills for government officials and politicians who are required to operate in the less well-defined realms of 'alternative facts'. In it's favour, the right does seem to have a progressive stance on equality - they don't discriminate against anyone on the grounds of complete lack of intelligence. You should stand for senate - you'd be good at it.
So, that he has good relations with energy companies is actually very good for America, he can implement a regulatory regime that permits higher energy production, make America great again.
Haha...being herded by the activists to gather on a beach and have their pic taken with their heads in a hole, is supposed, in your mind, to be a picture of sensible rational thought processes...they make great climate scientists.. would you join them do that if asked?
