re: Increased CO2 levels produced no negative effects on GW-signed by 31,847 scientists

quote:

---

I agree that nature is more capable of effecting climate change than man.

---

This is the whole point. man can not compete with nature, especially the sun.
Answer this: If man was eliminated from the planet today, what would the temperature be on this planet? If the sun turned into a rock (surface temperature 30 degrees C), what would the temperature be on this planet? No sun will cause a significant temperature difference on this planet. No humans will cause an insignificant temperature difference on this planet.

Trying to tie mans CO2 emissions to the temperature on this planet is a fruitless endeavor. Man can not compete with the sun or other natural events.

quote:

---

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. told us, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can.”

---

There are not enough humans to impact global temperature in a significant way.
Dare to see the light.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
LINK

THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUU..... I saw original research. 79 scientists, all Anonoymous, and from that the phrase, "97% of all scientists agree..."

When US Geo Society report came out showing the earth was cooling the thieves, progressives, leftists and totalitarians rebranded to climate change.

Only a moron, of which there are many, believes they need to fear spring, summer fall and winter

Wow...the fact that you are trotting this out is so laughable.

So what you're saying is that having more food, will kill more people?

Ok, so we have 7.5 BILLION on the planet.(roughly)

you obviously are spitting out a factoid without understanding.....

So, let's see if this can be broken down for you.

According to research from worldcounts.org and mercycorp.org, between 9 million to 36 million die of starvation on the planet each year. Yet, you claim that by having more food, 50 million will die due to lack of certain nutrients?

Your study doesn't take into account the lack of consumption of current food into those who aren't eating enough today, if that study is even correct. (if it's not independently funded it's bogus because the scientist have an incentive to skew data....how do I know, look at NOAA doctoring information because it didn't prove their Global warming hysteria...I'm not citing those sources, they're too easy to find)

The simple fact is that any geologist, astrophysicist, professor of thermodynamics worth their salt can tell you as the sun goes so do we.

WE SHOULD BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE PLANET, however that doesn't mean we should try and control people and their money through anthropogenic global warming hysteria and the connected taxation.

dude, you're linking facts and sources....this won't compute with an egoist.

quote:

---

Gumbopot

---

quote:

---

Duke

---

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

Just wanted to say I really enjoyed reading through yalls discussion. An informative read is welcome over a lot of the trolling etc.

quote:

---

Too often you get skeptics who don't know enough looking for gotchas and liberals who don't know much about thermodynamics calling them "science deniers". It's exhausting.

---

LINK

LINK

quote:

---

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

---