And Macron's amateurish "intimidation handshake" was probably the clincher for Trump, the final humiliation.
Even if Globull Warming existed, there is no way for us puny Humans to reverse it.
They now choose to call it Climate Change. They think the entire Earth can be maintained at a comfortable 72 Degrees.
Just call a good HVAC Guy and it’s all good.
They are delusional. They watch Science Fiction Movies full of CGI Effects and think what they see is actually possible.
two devastating facts-
1: Man’s CO2 amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- that’s it= NOWHERE near enough to cause climate to change EVEN IF CO2 caused climate change, which it doesn’t as will be pointed out in the next devastating fact
2: Temperatures always rise first- then 800 or so years later CO2 rises- ice core samples prove that- meaning that CO2 can not be causing temperatures to rise- just the opposite-
Bonus fact: Despite rising CO2 levels the last 20 years- there has been no warming- proving further that CO2 does NOT drive temperatures
What is their null hypothesis? Make them state one.
Is it that, absent human industrial activity, the “earth’s climate” would be invariant? (I put “earth’s climate” in scare quotes because I’m not sure there is such a thing.
The main fact about “Climate Change” is that it isn’t about the climate, it’s about money.
..yeah, but volcanoes can’t cough up the cash to keep the scam going...so shuuuush!
Vanities are not news....they are general chat
What is the reference for the 95 percent CO2 from nature?
As far as I can tell, the entire hypothesis that CO2 can heat the earth is derived from its fluorescent profile in the infrared. CO2 has an unusually wide band in the infrared where it absorbs and emits fluorescence (light energy). Most fluorescent materials have a fairly narrow band in which they absorb and emit. Fluorescent materials typically absorb light of a certain frequency and emit the energy as light of a lower frequency (lower energy). The energy difference is retained by the material and contributes to its internal energy, thus heating it up. That heat is then shed as infrared radiation.
What the hypothesis omits is that 1) CO2 is not the only material that fluoresces; many materials have that property, and 2) that a system can never contain more energy than was inserted into the system. In addition, the CO2 emits the fluorescent energy in every direction, so that it is as likely to go back into space as it is to be directed towards the ground. Most of the sun’s energy is contained within the visible portion of light and thus passes right through CO2 to heat the solid material on the ground, and this is responsible for the bulk of the earth’s warmth. The people whipping up such hysteria over the life-giving gas CO2 might want to address the practice of paving roads with dark materials, because those materials do more to warm the earth than the CO2.
You’re still buying into the premise that there is a problem. Take it back some steps further.
1) Climate is not static. Never has been, never will. The hysteria over change is comparable to “warning” everybody that the sun will go away tonight, and without the sun we will all freeze to death, etc., without ever mentioning that the sun comes back in the morning.
2) Warmer is better, not worse. In case you haven’t noticed, life depends on water. More liquid water, more life. Compare the amazon jungle to the antarctic. Antarctica is considered a desert because the water is frozen up. Warmer world means more liquid water. Which environment seems more amenable to life to you?
3) Based on past cycles, you would actually expect it to get warmer. What you are also not told is that we are still in an ice age. Geologists define that as ice at sea level, 24x7x365. Current ice age is 4 million years old. Within ice ages are “glaciations” where the ice advances significantly. The last maximum was wooly mammoth time about 15k years ago. There have been 60 such glaciations this ice age, identifiable geologically by moraine layers. So, based on that maximum and the average cycle of 66k years, half cooling, half warming, we would be 15k years into a 33k year warming cycle.
Finally, also do not buy into the premise that we can do something about it. We can change the climate about as easily as we can change earth’s orbit.
I’ll believe the alarmists are serious when they call for a ban of all carbonated beverages, beer, colas, champagne, etc.
They’ll never do it.
They don’t need facts. Just feelings. Duh.
Volcanoes likewise get far trumped by the impact of the sun.
When we reach the “tipping point” can we have a party and forget about this insanity?
We have global terrorist that want to saw off heads, a monetary system on the verge of collapse, 3rd word countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons and somehow these “global warmists” want me to worry about cow farts? Really? They want to put that on my plate?
There’s been a scandal in both peer review and replicability of scientific research.
Peer review scandal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Replicability:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
Worldwide human CO2 production was about 30 Gt per year in 2012: https://www.iea.org/media/statistics/topics/emissions/CO2_Emissions_Overview.pdf See fig 3
Meanwhile volcanic production of carbon is 0.04 to 0.05 Gt per year which is 0.15 to 0.18 Gt of CO2 http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_311/article_references/Sc_Feb93_GlobalCO2Budget.pdf
That is, there is NO clear, NO direct, NO scientifically-proven linkage between human CO2 production and climate change
That might be a more reasonable claim, but not based on volcanoes. Would have to be biosphere particularly oceanic.
Oh my god, Jim! We have to stop those volcanoes!