- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:45 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Your photobucket is just a neverending self-own. It's really amazing. But thank you for making the point for me that if we were experiencing a natural climate cycle we would be seeing slow cooling, not rapid warming.
1
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:47 pm to el Gaucho
quote:Gotta laugh at these environmentalist the next time a volcano spouts off elevety-zillion times more crap than man has in 50 years
He's right
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:48 pm to Dale51
quote:What record temps? Mean global temperature was lower 85 years ago. Are you gonna post a list of US cities that had record highs cribbed from Tony Heller? Because the existence of regional variation is not a particularly strong indictment of "global" warming.
What caused the record temps--many of which remain-- 85 years ago? World population was much less and pollution much greater.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:52 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
yeah see...scientist that publish their results in peer review journals for the entire scientific world dont really work like that really, really bad analogy you just posted.
your job as a scientist that publishes is to find flaws in previous research so they kinda take care to publish stuff that passes muster.
What a naive view of science. Trust me, its not as altruistic of a field as you think.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:58 pm to Iosh
quote:Nope. But we are at a probable interglacial maximum, and we really haven't a formal clue as to why.
we would be seeing slow cooling
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:As a polite and restrained gentleman, I will forgo the ocean of laughter GIFs I initially pulled up and invite you to further consider the implications of the last seven words in this quote on the first word.
Nope. But we are at a probable interglacial maximum,
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:06 pm to boogiewoogie1978
CO2 levels had gotten so bad around my house that I installed these contraptions that recycle the gas into Oxygen. You should invest in this was well.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:06 pm to Iosh
IOsh, where does climate change rank on your policy concern scale?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:12 pm to Cruiserhog
Heard of Michael Mann of Penn State? Hockey stick graph?
Question his work and you just might get sued for Defamation.
Mann
Question his work and you just might get sued for Defamation.
Mann
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:16 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I don't know. Pretty high? Some of the tail risk scenarios border on existential so even if it's unlikely some form of mitigation makes sense as insurance.
IOsh, where does climate change rank on your policy concern scale?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:17 pm to Iosh
quote:
Clearly these "rounding errors" have significance or we wouldn't have records of English vineyards during the Medieval Warm Period.
You're comparing an established past with the guess about the future.
Science!
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:23 pm to Dale51
quote:Not sure what you're referring to with this. Your post asked about the significance of the last 100 years' warming, and I pointed out that even small amounts of warming have significance as shown by the medieval warm period. That's not past to future, or even past to present. It's past to recent past.
You're comparing an established past with the guess about the future.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:24 pm to Iosh
quote:Assuming accuracy in accounts of the extraordinary and apparently uniquely unfettered nature of CO2 warming, and shy of a Western Pro-warmist military takeover of China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc., what sort of mitigation might that be?
some form of mitigation makes sense as insurance
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:27 pm to Iosh
quote:Please proceed.
As a polite and restrained gentleman, I will forgo the ocean of laughter GIFs I initially pulled up and invite you to further consider the implications of the last seven words in this quote on the first word.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Multiparty emissions agreements with an external complaint adjudication mechanism are the most promising start.
Assuming accuracy in accounts of the extraordinary and apparently uniquely unfettered nature of CO2 warming, and shy of a Western Pro-warmist military takeover of China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc., what sort of mitigation might that be?
(Apologies to 90PP for lifting his post and changing a word.)
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:30 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:If you think we are at an interglacial maximum of the natural cycle then by the definition of maximum we would expect cooling in the future.
Please proceed.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:33 pm to Iosh
quote:So we know that will not work past western borders, and will serve to weaken pro-Warmist countries at advantage of polluters. So what next?
Multiparty emissions agreements with an external complaint adjudication mechanism are the most promising start.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:We do?
So we know that will not work past western borders, and will serve to weaken pro-Warmist countries at advantage of polluters.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:36 pm to Iosh
quote:
You're comparing an established past with the guess about the future. Not sure what you're referring to with this.
By "established past" I mean exactly that ( don't know why this would cause confusion)...A past that has an established record. You're attempting to use that established past record as an indicator of what the future will be.
Science doesn't work like that, so to claim it is a scientific reality is silly.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:37 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
we havent begun to see the effect of that very fast rise, but its coming.
You mean Florida will be under water? Yeah, right; nice try Al.
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News