All the "predictions" of the IPCC have failed until now, they discard causes far more imporrtant than CO2, and since the mail leakage, we know that the "predictions" are nothing but lies in order to get subsidized, amplified by the UN to follow his own depopulation agenda. (Besides Exxon, I got paid also by the Pope, remember)
What motivates your faith on these predictions for 2100? 2014-12-13 8:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <[email protected]>: > > On 12/12/2014 9:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nobody bothered to explain that it might have been volcanoes or >> asteroid strikes as well as oribtal variations and they did that because >> it's completely irrelevant to current global warming. We know that CO2 has >> increased from 300ppm to 450ppm and that we put about twice that amount >> into the atmosphere. >> > > But nobody has a solution for excess CO2 that won't kill far far more > people than climate warming ever will, or at least environmentalists > don't. > > > Donald McKay, withouthotair.com, has spelled out exactly what it will > take and it doesn't kill anybody and it doesn't cost anymore than a small > war. In fact everybody knows what the solutions are, it doesn't take some > future discovery. It just takes the will to demote fossil fuel to few > specialized applications. > > Environmentalists don't have solutions for anything because > environmentalists are silly irrational people who mix ridiculous pessimism > (global warming will kill us all) with ridiculous optimism (windmills will > save us all) and who believe it's a virtue to think with your gut and not > with your brain. > > > And deniers are luddite morons who think we can fix global warming on > short notice when it gets a lot worse but we can't screw it up in the > meantime. > > > > So how the Earth warmed or cooled in the distant past is just your >> attempt at diversion. >> > > It's a diversion from the fantasy that the Earth's climate has always > been the same and there is one true temperature that everything should be > at. > > > Which is another bullshit attempt at diversion. It's completely > irrelevant to whether a 4degC global temperature increase over 50yrs will > cause extensive suffering, death and economic damage. And note that 4degC > increase is the projected worldwide average increase as of 2100. The > oceans tend to lag, so that corresponds to a 5 or 6degC increase over the > continents. And it doesn't mean the temperature increase goes to +4degC > and then stops. Under your do-nothing scenario it will still be rapidly > increasing as it crosses through +4degC in 2100. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
