Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

No, the science is very much real. You are rejecting the facts based almost exclusively because you do not like the potential policy response.

Duke University did a study on this very concept. It is also one of the reasons why liberals continue to endorse gun control legislation.

 

China and India are currently doing more to address Climate Change than America.

 

The Amish do not use renewable sources of energy, nor do they drive fuel efficient cars.

Your current energy policy embraces a massive amount of "marxism." How else would you describe the billions which go to oil and gas companies every year or the cleanup from the resultant pollutions?

 

Then we need to put massive tariffs on China to limit the amount of goods they sell. That is if you believe in global warming.

 

Where on this earth do you get the idea........

Don’t tell me - Fox News

No, IF you had take the small amount of time to actually READ the IPCC reports you will see no one is suggesting that

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

 

Then Mexico or Pakistan or Indonesia would start making those products

We needed a global agreement and we very nearly had one!

 

It wont supply our needs...yet.

But the potential to reach that level of supply is absolutely possible.

 

Or just reduce consumption of all products. Switching from Chinese to American manufacturing just shifts CO2 output back to America which was the previous leader for at least 50 years.
You are just looking for a scapegoat to excuse your overconsumption.
Try comparing the carbon footprint of the average American with the average Chinese consumer.

 

Can you make a cogent argument for that position based on something besides your feelings?

 

No problems what? Did you even read the statement Legal disputed? What am I saying, of course you didn't.

Here it is: NASA has a real budget interest in keeping the man made hoax alive. How much money would they lose?

And he said "none"

So what part of that link deals with proving that claim Bowerbird or are you going to back down now?

This is always the risk when you strap on the superhero tights without actually reading the debate you are stepping into.

 

Wrong!

 

And?

 

I am not wrong. CO2 emissions only tell part of the story. Policies that actively promote and produce future green energy sources (which China and India are doing through their creation of solar energy plants) are much more helpful than promoting policies that attempt to produce non-green energy sources (what America is currently doing through trumps efforts to prop up coal power plants).

 

Tariffs are not a solution to climate change.

 

A cogent argument for my desire to not subject humanity to the darwinism model because of a threat self-imposed by humans?

 

America is just about the only country in the world where half of the population disputes the validity of climate change and it is one of only a handful of countries where the leadership actively argues that the threat as a hoax created by the chinese.

 

You appear to be implying that I should kill myself.

 

How do you propose limiting pollution in China? An Internet campaign to get 100 people to stop buying Chinese products?

 

Yes.

 

Not at all. I think everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, but I’m no fan of suicide. I’d prefer everyone stick around.

 

Is money now more important than the planet? Why is it so expensive? What would Greta say?

 

Is money now more important than the planet? Why is it so expensive? What would Greta say?

 

There's one solution. Not you, but billions of people "falling on the sword" for the planet would surely reduce global CO2 levels (if you think that's important).

Afterall, we humans breath in about 0.04% CO2, but we exhale 4.0% CO2. Look at how well your "scientific" chart on CO2 increases correlates with the world population increasing from less than 3 Billion to over 7 Billion since the 1970's. Certainly you come to the conclusion that mankind exhaling so much CO2 every day is causing an increase in the global CO2 levels. So why aren't they just suggesting mass genocide as a solution? Oh. You find that distasteful?

On the bright side, all the CO2 we humans exhale feeds plant life. That allows us to grow more produce and feed billions more people on the planet. Nature is pretty smart in balancing everything out, don't you think? We feed the plants CO2 and in return, they feed us.

 

Cannot happen. When cave man got cold he combusted to relieve his suffering.

When modern man gets cold he gonna combust, directly or indirectly, to relieve his suffering.

Where the rubber meets the road nobody gives a shet about CO2.

Combustion is King.

What man can do is stop interfering with plant life so much and start nurturing plant life -- but it is difficult to make that a political money grabbing thing.

 

No, it isn't and I didn't say it was.
My point is that there are reasons other than environmental concerns, over toxic waste and possible radiation leaks, for the lack of new nuclear power plants being built.
It is expensive due to many reasons including safety precautions as it is potentially very dangerous.
For the record, I'm not against nuclear power as a short term solution to CO2 output but in the long term with dwindling supplies of readily available uranium and potential dangers from ''accidents'' or terrorism I'd rather we concentrated on other forms of renewable energy.
Why would you care what a 16-year-old mouthpiece of the liberal elite would say?