Posted on 05/14/2011 10:14:28 PM PDT by minervx
i'm anti-kyoto, and anti- al gore, but the best way conservatives can persuade people to this, is to make better arguments.
conservatives need to do a better job arguing against global warming. they usually make 3 arguments which do not prove their point.
1. it is cold or snowing in one region of the world that is normally hot. some areas get colder, but global warming is about the overall change.
2. co2 is a necessity for human life. yes, but that doesnt mean much. venus has a lot of co2 for that matter.
3. temperatures were far higher than this century hundreds of thousands of years ago. true, but there is one difference: the industrial revolution. a global population of 5 million could survive global warming, but a global population of 9 billion cannot.
I asked my Dutch friend the same question. She said she “believed in global warming because when she was a girl in Holland she ice skated on the canals and now they never froze”. I asked her which was normal then or now? She couldn’t answer me.
Yeah, and they whine SO much when they are given brackish water to drink and it's only 0.05% salinity!
Even though some wimps fall over dead with FAR lower concentrations than that of ricin in the air, those little percentages mean nothing...
</sarc>
Evidently not, as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise.
Is that really unreasonable thinking?
Only if you continue to maintain it after it is demonstrably false.
A little warming might even be a good thing when it comes to producing food for billions of people, but it doesn’t seem like real temperatures are going to accommodate us in that endeavor.
No...a rapid warming (global warming, though that actually represents cooling in some regions) would lead to climate bands that are out of alignment with soil types, leading to lower productivity. A main part of the issue is the rate of change. Rapid change in either direction leads to instability and reduction of productivity.
“normal”? Silly question...smart lady to have no answer.
One question that’s more relevant would be “in quasiequilibrium?”
I used to think that, but I found that there are many FReepers who actually have no understanding of what the term "global warming" means. You'll see their ignorance of the subject demonstrated when they think that "climate change" is some new replacement for "global warming."
It's like those who have no clue about the differences between Shi'a and Sunni, and know what Qutbism is, despite the decade of intense relevance of these subjects.
1. “Is the earth in the quaternary ice age or not?”
2. If they are smart enough to know we are in the Quaternary Ice age which only one ever has but he wasn’t a normal flat earthier only he is a want-to-be mass genocidal do to 'over population,' Then I ask, “Are we in the second longest interglacial period in earth history? doesn’t that mean we are approaching the end of our interglacial?”
3. This one always gets them to scratch their head. “Is the CO2 concentration today of the earth extremely low or extremely high?”
A: The average CO2 levels of the earth has been just short of 3000 ppm and today it is so low in fact that if we drop about 100 ppm plants stop growing.
“Evidently not, as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise.”
But they have risen and fallen in the past.
“Rapid change in either direction leads to instability and reduction of productivity.”
We aren’t talking rapid change, or certainly no more rapid than what has been experienced for the past 500 years or so— not as rapid as what has happened in previous periods. And there are scientists who would argue that warmer climates in regions that are now too cold to produce crops would change that. Greenland comes to mind. True, we are talking regional changes, and I have read studies that demonstrate the main areas of warming are in cooler regions that would benefit from warming. Of course, that is if there is really any warming going on at all.
Welcome to FR newbie...
WTF?!!! Newbie?!?! Yup, that's me, "Newbie!" Are you sure this was supposed to go to me?
Mark
The reason my Dutch friend could not answer my question is because she understood my meaning, which you did not. There is no normal.
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.