Posted on 10/15/2016 7:20:40 AM PDT by rktman
Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.
No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.
And yet, as Hurricane Matthew neared Florida on the very day the Paris climate accord secured enough signatures to bring it into force, politicians, activists and reporters refused to let that crisis go to waste.
Matthew is the kind of “planetary threat” the Paris agreement “is designed to stop,” said one journalist-activist. This hurricane is a “record-shattering storm that is unusual for October,” said another; it underscores how climate change could “turn seasonal weather events into year-round threats.”
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
—agree—even though annoyed at Heck and Cresent Hardy I certainly won’t “not vote” against the Dems-—
We can let them know that we aren’t happy with their opinions based on hear-say but, yeah, I still gotta help keep ‘ccm’ out of hairy screed’s open seat. Had to convince my sis that there is too much at stake to with-hold her vote from either one. To me, that’s a vote for ‘ccm’.
How soon we forget.
It was Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist (1859-1927), who was the first to theorize in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion could create a “Greenhouse Effect” and stall or prevent what was feared to be a pending ice-age.
On the money. Thanks to global warming (and efficiency) we no longer have to use as much energy for heating: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10271 but heating still requires almost 7 times as much energy as cooling.
The argument over AGW is simply a cover story and excuse for the reduction of the human population back to immediate post-glaciation levels. Most of that residue population, elites aside, could be kept in a state of "nasty, brutal, and short" existence. And all this of course assumes that none of the "elites" pushing for it or their progeny would be included in the cull or the post-cull reversion to a "natural" existence.
Dangerous Manmade Climate Change
Let us hope the enviorwackos do not latch onto that for their next climate name change.
Your link isn’t working — 404 error
The simple story in two parts:
1. Global warming is based on models predicting the future. Every one of the models has been proven, proven, proven wrong by actual events.
2. China is pumping out the most CO2 and the amount is growing. The U.S. has gone down by 25%. The China increase more than wipes out the decrease in the western world. If global warming was so dire, the entire emphasis would be placed on China, with India a close second. But the liberals always give them a pass. So the liberals know it isn’t true.
Actually, yes it is and there is even a major question about what actually is a "greenhouse gas".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.