Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Easy fix.
Nuclear winter.
Why are they surprised with computer models that 97% of scientists trusted?
"According to an analysis published Friday, climate scientists found a clear link between climate change and extreme heat in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, although year-to-year variability prevented researchers from making definitive statements."
I wonder what caused the climate to change prior to humans. Did dinosaurs drive cars too?
Vets are linked to asteroid strikes. We should reduce the number of vets we have immediately.I don't know about cars, but they never went to the Vet. Look what happened to them.
213 degrees??
Yeah, time to walk to work.
"I wonder what caused the climate to change prior to humans. Did dinosaurs drive cars too?"
Huge cars!
Because recent measurements are in the very high end of the best supported models?This is a valid question
Does it matter?"According to an analysis published Friday, climate scientists found a clear link between climate change and extreme heat in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, although year-to-year variability prevented researchers from making definitive statements."
I wonder what caused the climate to change prior to humans. Did dinosaurs drive cars too?
Yes, yes it does.Does it matter?
Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.Yes, yes it does.
Because what you're potentially proposing is a set of very, very expensive tradeoffs that require worldwide adherence.
Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.
How many chances will humanity have to influence this trend?
You are operating from assumptions I'm not convinced have met the threshold of fact. Further, has a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis demonstrated the end result of all your assumptions?
Yeah, Freeman was a sceptic of the models, not however of the thesis. All those likes I presume affirmed that conclusion as well.Freeman Dyson, the physicist who took over the Einstein chair at Princeton said about climate computers, "they are great at telling you what happened, but, lousy at telling what is going to happen" (paraphrased).
Human population increases require more not less habital, aerable land.
Your presumption is then that a warming planet increases net aerable/habitable land?Good thing the planet is warming then.
In before Toon lol's at BP doing a carbon emissions study despite having no ability to debunk any of the facts or conclusions.With friends like these right @davidallen ?
China, for example, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 119 million tons from 2016 to 2017 – more than any other country in the world – despite its alleged commitment to the Paris Accords. Spain added more than 18.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. France’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.5 million tons.
But it’s the Canadian government that might deserve the award for being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide hypocrite. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was critical of the Trump administration for its decision to leave the Paris Accords, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” by the “disheartening” decision.
“Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth,” Trudeau said. “Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”
So, after those bold words Canada cut its carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, right? Well, not exactly. In 2017 Canada emitted 17 millionadditional tons of carbon dioxide compared to its emissions in 2016.
***
According to a June report by BP – measuring global carbon dioxide emissions from the use of oil, gas and coal – the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 41.8 million tons from 2016 to 2017, marking the third consecutive year Americans’ carbon dioxide emissions fell.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-criticize-trump-environmental-policies.html
Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.
How many chances will humanity have to influence this trend?
Did anyone say this would be easy? If so, they are fools. Head in the sand is no answer however. Doing hard things, once upon a time we were kinda good at that.With friends like these right @davidallen ?
China, for example, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 119 million tons from 2016 to 2017 – more than any other country in the world – despite its alleged commitment to the Paris Accords. Spain added more than 18.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. France’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.5 million tons.
But it’s the Canadian government that might deserve the award for being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide hypocrite. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was critical of the Trump administration for its decision to leave the Paris Accords, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” by the “disheartening” decision.
“Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth,” Trudeau said. “Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”
So, after those bold words Canada cut its carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, right? Well, not exactly. In 2017 Canada emitted 17 millionadditional tons of carbon dioxide compared to its emissions in 2016.
***
According to a June report by BP – measuring global carbon dioxide emissions from the use of oil, gas and coal – the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 41.8 million tons from 2016 to 2017, marking the third consecutive year Americans’ carbon dioxide emissions fell.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-criticize-trump-environmental-policies.html
So evidence and consequences be damned because Gorby. Do I have your position correct?When Gorbachev got friendly with the green movement, that should have been a dead giveaway to the next play for commies.
Green is the new Red.
What with fudged figures, manipulated data, and tactics that bully many honest scientists into towing the "official" line.
Did anyone say this would be easy? If so, they are fools. Head in the sand is no answer however. Doing hard things, once upon a time we were kinda good at that.
Good thing the planet is warming then.
Your presumption is then that a warming planet increases net aerable/habitable land?
Cause you can't have both right? Simple thinking...But not at the expense of our lifestyles.
My family's carbon footprint is microscopic compared to those who are telling us to change.Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.
How many chances will humanity have to influence this trend?
Cause you can't have both right? Simple thinking...
And the net impact of a single family is microscopic on the overall problem. Both are moot points. Do what you can, do what you will, but the only way things actually change is systemically. Period.My family's carbon footprint is microscopic compared to those who are telling us to change.
Think I can parlay this into a couple of private jets?Prosperity preacher
We've been told on this very board that individual contributions don't matter. If that is actually true, then all carbon emissions don't matter because they are all generated for something benefitting individuals.Cause you can't have both right? Simple thinking...
Except in America we are already doing our part to lower emissions - regardless of the BS Paris accord or other agreements.Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.
How many chances will humanity have to influence this trend?