On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I has fluctuated over the last 500 years, but has been trending higher.
OK > No, you are talking about a snapshot of data, specifically, 'the last > decade' you tend to go on about. I am talking about the current warming > trend that has been going on for thousands of years. A little old, but this > talks about the trending over hundreds of thousands of years, note that the > right and side is showing a trend of rising temperatures for the last > 25,000 years or so - > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ > http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png > I never said or implied that climate is not always changing. The science > that climate is changing is settled. And there is a consensus that it is > changing. No matter how many times you say there is no consensus, there is. > I also do not think it is outside the realm of possibility that humans have > hastened the change. Everyone knows the climate changes, I hope. I said there is no consensus on AGW. > And why is it bad that the facts have changed? I even admitted that the > facts SHOULD change given increases in technology and actual events that > are happening. If the original models of the consequences proved in > accurate, that does not mean that the change is not happening. Because warming no longer applies as the scare word since the warming stopped and the earth will like start it's cooling cycle. They are scare words. Sky is falling type of crap. That's the problem. >> What scientific method are you using to back up your claim? You don't >> have one, you're reading from DNC TPM. > You know the one where you test a theory and if the results don't match the > theory, you take what you learned and adapt the theory (or reject it > outright). What is the specific science that proves Man made CO2 is causing the earth to warm? >> When every test fails it's time to create one that works, not hide the >> facts and claim a consensus. > As opposed to saying, 'nothing to see here. Every thing is fine. Carry on.' I never said nothing to see here. How many times do I need to say this. The USA has curbed CO2 emissions more than planned. Other countries aren't so good at that. The entire argument is about banning manufacturing in the US and moving it to other countries that don't care. It really isn't that difficult to understand. But Al Gore made $millions with his carbon trading scheme. > > I tend to look at it like Gmoney seems to (and forgive me, G, if I am > putting words in your mouth). I am not sure the worst possible consequences > will be seen in our lifetime, or maybe even my children's lifetime. > > But, if there is a chance we can start to make a difference now, doesn't it > make sense to try? What is the worst thing that can happen? The air we all > breathe has less pollutants in it? the water we drink is naturally cleaner? > I am OK with those consequences..even if shows that man had nothing to do > with the climate change. As I said, we're ahead of schedule without the regulations and money making fines. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:370774 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
