- 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: U.S. c02 emissions have fallen to below WW1 levels
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:01 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:01 pm to Chucktown_Badger
1
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:04 pm to notiger1997
quote:they say the street food gives off more garbage and disease per square foot than any other place on earth
India
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:05 pm to TT9
From your link:
What percentage of "world scientists" (your term, with no qualifiers) does that constitute?
Is anyone here shocked that people whose livelihoods and funding rely on pushing a certain narrative would say they believe the threat they're employed to research and "solve" is real?
It's like saying "97% of surgeons suggest you get surgery for that thing" as support for the claim "all doctors agrees surgery is the best treatment".
A little more context for you: LINK
quote:
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent
What percentage of "world scientists" (your term, with no qualifiers) does that constitute?
Is anyone here shocked that people whose livelihoods and funding rely on pushing a certain narrative would say they believe the threat they're employed to research and "solve" is real?
It's like saying "97% of surgeons suggest you get surgery for that thing" as support for the claim "all doctors agrees surgery is the best treatment".
A little more context for you: LINK
quote:
Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.
In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive.
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 4/2/25 at 2:28 pm to Chucktown_Badger
So a vast majority then. Again, I'll take that over a bunch of uneducated hacks on right wing "news".
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:32 pm to TT9
quote:
MIDDLE
OF
THE
ROAD
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:18 pm to TT9
quote:again you lied. In fact, you have no idea how many scientists "support it." It's an oft-repeated narrative vomited up by religious zealots. Science is dynamic process driven by evidence and data with no such thing as absolute consensus.
So a vast majority then. Again
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:34 pm to RaoulDuke504
I'm going to state a few facts about CO2 and it's impact on climate here that are contrary to Global Boiling Theory. But first I want to say that I think we should manage our CO2 emissions as much as practical and without communism. But first:
CO2 has a VERY SMALL direct contribution to climate.
CO2 has a large indirect contribution to climate.
Why?
CO2 causes earthly greening. Greening causes more plant respiration. More plant respiration creates more water vapor. Higher concentrations of water vapor in the air means more temperate climate. Specifically, it means higher low temperatures in the morning and lower high temperatures in the afternoons. Climate data suggest this trend as CO2 concentrations increase.
Higher concentrations of CO2 means more life. The explosion of life on earth was during the Cambrian Period. CO2 concentrations were 4000-10000 ppm during this period.
How do we manage CO2 emissions?
More nuclear power. It's really that simple.
CO2 has a VERY SMALL direct contribution to climate.
CO2 has a large indirect contribution to climate.
Why?
CO2 causes earthly greening. Greening causes more plant respiration. More plant respiration creates more water vapor. Higher concentrations of water vapor in the air means more temperate climate. Specifically, it means higher low temperatures in the morning and lower high temperatures in the afternoons. Climate data suggest this trend as CO2 concentrations increase.
Higher concentrations of CO2 means more life. The explosion of life on earth was during the Cambrian Period. CO2 concentrations were 4000-10000 ppm during this period.
How do we manage CO2 emissions?
More nuclear power. It's really that simple.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:34 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
For funsies... This graph below and the fact that China gets a complete pass from the media, politicians, and "climate activists" should tell you everything you need to know about the ultimate goal of their movement...
China needs to get to work, they only have 5 more years to hit their peak. Or did China already say F that, we will do want we want since they know one will do anything away?
EDIT: I read that their new coal plant construction reached a 10 year high in 2024, so they are working hard to get those numbers up.
China will add more coal MW capacity in just 2024/2025 than the U.S. has in total. But those gas stoves guys
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:47 pm to UncleFestersLegs
Well I do see with my own eyes severe storms becoming more frequent and deadly.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:52 pm to TT9
quote:well that certainty settles the science. Meanwhile:
Well I do see with my own eyes severe storms becoming more frequent and deadly.
quote:
Yet it is becoming increasingly common to attribute, at least in part, every weather-related disaster or anomaly to climate change. Atlantic hurricanes are a case in point.
We saw records shattered in 2020, but are we seeing an ominous upward historical trend in the hazard posed by major Atlantic hurricanes? No. And a search for answers about climate and hurricane connections reveals little or no evidence that major landfalling hurricanes in the Eastern United States have increased in frequency since data collection started around 1850.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:11 pm to RaoulDuke504
Firstly, I don’t believe man made climate change is occurring due to CO2 addition into the atmosphere
Secondly, if it was, wouldn’t the absolute value of manmade CO2 addition be far more important than percapita CO2 addition?
Secondly, if it was, wouldn’t the absolute value of manmade CO2 addition be far more important than percapita CO2 addition?
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:20 pm to Klark Kent
That's me,you bubble people don't know what it looks like. You guys should stick with the Poli where nobody challenges retardation. 
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:21 pm to TT9
you should stick to Reddit or DU where no one will challenge your retardation and parroting of talking points.
You aren’t a Moderate. You’re a Leftist. It’s obvious.
You aren’t a Moderate. You’re a Leftist. It’s obvious.
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:28 pm to Klark Kent
Definitely a leftist.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:30 pm to GumboPot
quote:
CO2 causes earthly greening. Greening causes more plant respiration. More plant respiration creates more water vapor. Higher concentrations of water vapor in the air means more temperate climate. Specifically, it means higher low temperatures in the morning and lower high temperatures in the afternoons. Climate data suggest this trend as CO2 concentrations increase.
Higher concentrations of CO2 means more life. The explosion of life on earth was during the Cambrian Period. CO2 concentrations were 4000-10000 ppm during this period.
While true, there were no terrestrial plants or animals during the Cambrian so a comparison to the Quaternary isn't quite relevant. Since terrestrial colonization began CO2 ppm decreased to the point of over oxidation until the huge spike during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.
Higher CO2 concentrations may mean more life and a "greening" but the geologic record shows it likely be simple photosynthetic life such as Cyanobacteria and algae that will flourish before plants and animals have a meaningful recovery.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:31 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
If you accept, as is blatantly obvious by now to anyone who can fog a mirror with their breath, that "man-made" climate change is a load of hogwash then a per capita graph is as good of a reference point as anything.
Besides, if the greenies and do-gooders actually gave a shite about Mother Gaia (which they don't), they'd be the first and loudest demanding tariffs and restrictions on Chinese and Indian imported products - you know, the countries whose industrial pollution dwarfs the United States.
Besides, if the greenies and do-gooders actually gave a shite about Mother Gaia (which they don't), they'd be the first and loudest demanding tariffs and restrictions on Chinese and Indian imported products - you know, the countries whose industrial pollution dwarfs the United States.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:44 pm to Klark Kent
quote:never been on either unlike you.
you should stick to Reddit or DU
quote:but I am, can a moderate not see what's going on with our weather and form his own opinion?
You aren’t a Moderate
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:49 pm to TT9
quote:
never been on either unlike you.
never claimed otherwise. ballsier Moderates than you post there and they need to be called out for hypocrisy as well.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 5:53 pm to Klark Kent
Post my hypocrisy .
Posted on 4/2/25 at 6:09 pm to TT9
I'm against gay marriage, all the evil trans bullshite, for fast pace to the death penalty where there's DNA evidence. 100 against abortion other than rape. That make me a leftist?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News