And are we to believe that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures?
Well what does the data say? When you zoom out and look at both CO2 and temperature over geological timescales it isn't so clear.
At some point I'd like to actually hear from the deniers a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere.
There are plenty of advantages to warmer temperatures and increased concentrations of CO2 - most of all the increase in living biomass. Plants growth is largely limited by CO2 availability.
Higher temperatures increase the total amount of arable land on the planet and the amount of total precipitation.
But that being said I don't favor of intentionally dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. What I want cheap, clean, abundant energy and a higher standard of living for the entire world and less government instead of more.
The only solutions offered by the AGW crowd are a reduced standard of living, more central planning and a forceful reduction of the earth's population.
Are you smoking crack? The average CO2 level over the last 500 million years is over 1000 ppm, with levels reaching as high as 8000 ppm without harmful effect and we're worried about an increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm?
How about we just pull our heads out of our asses, build high temperature thorium breeder reactors and enjoy approximately 1 million years of cheap, clean energy before we need to start mining the moon or mars for energy.
but I was raised with the principle of "waste not, want not."
So how do you feel about the fact that for every ton of coal we burn for electricity we throw away enough thorium in the ashes and tailings to produce 14 times as much power in a nuclear reactor?
You *think* that reducing cheap energy *might* prevent future inclement weather events. I *know* that raising people out of poverty *will* give them the power to survive future inclement weather events.
Again, this is all about control. It doesn't matter how many times you try to arguing that the desired actions are not the best way to achieve the stated goal, because the stated goal is not the actual goal.
We developed that back in the 1960s! Go look up the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment.
The same assholes who have blocked further development of "4th generation" nuclear power which forced us to built a bunch of coal power plants instead are the ones pushing for cap and trade.
I'm sorry but the prospect that 100 million people have a scant 90 years to either relocate or build a 3 foot tall dike fails to induce a sense of panic.
being silly because saying we shouldn't stop something dangerous from happening because it is happening makes no sense. That is, in fact, when you should be the most fervently trying to stop it.
Is it dangerous and should can we stop it even if it is?
It's not entirely clear that longer growing seasons, more rapid plant growth and expanded temperate zones are a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well what does the data say? When you zoom out and look at both CO2 and temperature over geological timescales it isn't so clear.
There are plenty of advantages to warmer temperatures and increased concentrations of CO2 - most of all the increase in living biomass. Plants growth is largely limited by CO2 availability.
Higher temperatures increase the total amount of arable land on the planet and the amount of total precipitation.
But that being said I don't favor of intentionally dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. What I want cheap, clean, abundant energy and a higher standard of living for the entire world and less government instead of more.
The only solutions offered by the AGW crowd are a reduced standard of living, more central planning and a forceful reduction of the earth's population.
Are you smoking crack? The average CO2 level over the last 500 million years is over 1000 ppm, with levels reaching as high as 8000 ppm without harmful effect and we're worried about an increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm?
Slightly.
It would be even better if you pointed out how introducing new facts into a discussion is the same as denying others.
How about we just pull our heads out of our asses, build high temperature thorium breeder reactors and enjoy approximately 1 million years of cheap, clean energy before we need to start mining the moon or mars for energy.
Plants eat CO2. Our food eats plants. More plants is a good thing.
Also CO2 levels are near a 500 million year low at the present time.
So how do you feel about the fact that for every ton of coal we burn for electricity we throw away enough thorium in the ashes and tailings to produce 14 times as much power in a nuclear reactor?
If it will take us decades to adapt it's a good thing that the changes will take centuries to manifest.
It is a religion, and their religion demands the population of the earth be reduced. Carbon control are a means to this end.
Please explain how a species that survives everywhere from the equator to the north pole is threatened by a 1 degree climate change over a century.
You shouldn't ASSume too much.
Calling CO2 pollution is silly. You might was well call oxygen pollution.
Please point out the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures on a geological time scale.
How about some historical context. CO2 levels have been more than 5 times current levels for about 75% of the last 500 million years.
It's amusing that you talk about mass extinctions and destruction of the biosphere in the context of CO2 levels.
A warmer planet with more CO2 in the atmosphere is a biological paradise.
Again, this is all about control. It doesn't matter how many times you try to arguing that the desired actions are not the best way to achieve the stated goal, because the stated goal is not the actual goal.
In another generation or two the earth's population will be naturally declining due to inexorably declining fertility levels.
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that historically every single democracy that ever existed turned out this way.
I don't see much difference between republican assholes and democrat assholes.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up some of the NOAA's other activities.
Have you been listening to advocates and reading headlines for the last 20 years or so? That's all they've been doing.
We developed that back in the 1960s! Go look up the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment.
The same assholes who have blocked further development of "4th generation" nuclear power which forced us to built a bunch of coal power plants instead are the ones pushing for cap and trade.
Because it's always been about control.
It's hard to tell because the resolution of our proxy isn't that good.
It is possible to see, however, that the increasingly erratic temperature trends started about 3 million years ago.
Also the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on geological timescales isn't exactly clear.
I'm sorry but the prospect that 100 million people have a scant 90 years to either relocate or build a 3 foot tall dike fails to induce a sense of panic.
Is it dangerous and should can we stop it even if it is?
It's not entirely clear that longer growing seasons, more rapid plant growth and expanded temperate zones are a bad thing.
You're assuming both that there's a problem with the climate and that there's anything we can do about it.