- 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: 20 new papers published suggesting solar activity the key driving force of CC
Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:39 am to tarzana
Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:39 am to tarzana
Green energy is extremely expensive compared to fossil fuels. People in extremely poor areas throughout the world struggle to be able to use fossil fuel energy once or twice a week. Eliminating fossil fuels & forcing these people to use green energy will cause people in poverty-stricken areas throughout the world to suffer even more than they are. Why do liberals hate poor people so much & want to inflict so much pain on them just to make themselves feel better?
0
Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:44 am to Iosh
quote:After wide acceptance of the "97% of scientists" BS, even if your complaint is accurate, one would expect such a technique to be considered good research.
he papers don't seem to say what the site says they say, it looks like someone just ran a search for papers that mentioned sun and climate
Looking at the regular, cyclical nature of Ice Age climate variances, (as of yet unproven) solar cycling has always seemed to me the most plausible cause. IMO, it's why so many AGW zealots focus away from those climate patterns, and onto weather instead. The fact we've not cracked the Ice Age code, yet claim valid climate modeling is laughable.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 5:43 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Are you asking how people would benefit by denying co2 emmision caused climate change?
CO2 does not cause climate change. There is zero evidence that it does.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 5:51 am to tarzana
quote:CO2 is not a pollutant.
Yes, it's humans who pump untold millions of cubic meters of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the firmament on a constant basis
Posted on 6/12/17 at 5:53 am to tarzana
quote:
Humans are here by the billions and directly cause climate change; the sun is 150 km away (about 10 light MINUTES away from Earth) and can't possibly have that degree of effect on the climate.
Why do you hate science?
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:27 am to Gusoline
quote:
So once we can use the solar patterns to start predicting heavier hurricane seasons... the left should stfu about man made cc, right?
The left is anti-science. They will twist and argue as long as they think there is a chance to raise taxes. Once they give up, they will move on to another scam to raise taxes.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:33 am to cokebottleag
Easy there, killer. With posts like that, you're implying that "Muh Carbon Offsets" are a waste of money.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:40 am to cokebottleag
A gigantic fusion reactor only 93 million miles away the major factor for our climate?
No
fricking
Way
No
fricking
Way
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:49 am to Dale51
CO2 IS a pollutant, being present currently at levels in the atmosphere about DOUBLE what is was at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It is the result of sustained carbon injustice practiced mostly by the U.S. and Western Europe, through coal fired power plants and automotive exhaust.
Who convinced you it's not a pollutant? Rush? Hannity? Mark Levin?
Who convinced you it's not a pollutant? Rush? Hannity? Mark Levin?
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:54 am to tarzana
quote:
CO2 is a pollutant
According to a hyperpartisan EPA.
It's not. Without it, all mammals on this planet would be dead, along with a lot of other organisms, because it is essential in photosynthesis.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:54 am to cokebottleag
The two excerpts are the easy cycles to measure.
There are other longer patterns that matter greatly.
Location of sun and earth relative to each other as the sun moves around galaxy. Isnt sun on a 26,000 cycle?
So yes to points 1 and 2 and i raise you the relative position of earth to big warming thing in sky.
As noted above, we do not get to ignore coal fired power nor diesel and gasoline fuel.
There are other longer patterns that matter greatly.
Location of sun and earth relative to each other as the sun moves around galaxy. Isnt sun on a 26,000 cycle?
So yes to points 1 and 2 and i raise you the relative position of earth to big warming thing in sky.
As noted above, we do not get to ignore coal fired power nor diesel and gasoline fuel.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:03 am to tarzana
quote:
CO2 IS a pollutant
Really. Plant food is a pollutant? Can you name another pollutant that is so vital to life?
There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to trap heat and increase global temperatures. It's minuscule. The whole theory is not technically possible.
Man Made CC is a big lie.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:06 am to tarzana
quote:
CO2 IS a pollutant, being present currently at levels in the atmosphere about DOUBLE what is was at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It is the result of sustained carbon injustice practiced mostly by the U.S. and Western Europe, through coal fired power plants and automotive exhaust.
Who convinced you it's not a pollutant? Rush? Hannity? Mark Levin?
Good grief.
Photosynthesis. Look it up. I learned about it in grade school. And while you're at it, you might want to look up how carbon dioxide and oxygen are both critical components to the symbiotic relationship that plants and animals share on this planet.
This post was edited on 6/12/17 at 7:45 am
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:11 am to tarzana
quote:
Yes, it's humans who pump untold millions of cubic meters of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the firmament on a constant basis
Yeah this is troll gold. You're playing a character. Have fun.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:16 am to tarzana
quote:
Who convinced you it's not a pollutant? Rush? Hannity? Mark Levin?
Science..objective and observable reality, etc. Who convinced you that it is a pollutant? Al Gore? Obama? Bill Nye? Maybe we're having a definition problem. What criteria did you use to arrive at the conclusion that CO2 meets the definition of a "pollutant"?
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:16 am to cokebottleag
I'm kind of amazed we can live this close to that thing.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:17 am to udtiger
quote:
According to a hyperpartisan EPA.
Hopefully Tom Price will bring a change of attitude.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:26 am to tarzana
quote:
Humans are here by the billions and directly cause climate change; the sun is 150 km away (about 10 light MINUTES away from Earth) and can't possibly have that degree of effect on the climate.
Early favorite for dumbest post of the century.
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:29 am to kingbob
quote:
that giant ball of burning gas
You mean the source of 99.999999999% of energy in this solar system?
quote:
could have something to do with climate.
Umpossible!
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:31 am to tarzana
quote:
CO2 IS a pollutant
It absolutely is not a pollutant. CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element of our atmosphere - REQUIRED to sustain life as we know it. If anything, a little too little CO2 would be a much bigger problem than a little too much.
This post was edited on 6/12/17 at 7:32 am
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News