Is it not true that plants need CO2? And if the CO2 drops to 150ppm all the plants die. Plants like it better and grow better at 450ppm. Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? Plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today [slide (at 24:35) shows greenhouse demonstration]. Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher. CO2 is the giver of life. We should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.’ http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html From Patrick Moore. Mr. Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada.In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.Guess you still haven't figured out the greenhouse gas thing. Reality = +400ppm and rising faster than ever. History = Ice ages somewhere around 200ppm.
Plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today [slide (at 24:35) shows greenhouse demonstration]. Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher. CO2 is the giver of life. We should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.’ http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html From Patrick Moore. Mr. Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada.I don't know if you're genuinely confused or a committed global warming denier, but you keep posting the kind of garbage that deniers have used for years. Read this piece from Skeptical Science on why raising global levels of CO2 isn't going to lead to an explosion of growth for plants, especially food crops. http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media
Mike Yohe’s cherry picking of information seems pretty specific and biased towards global warming denial and doesn’t really change even with provided with firm rebuttal with very well established science.
I’m pretty new here and don’t want to waste my time “discussing” this topic with a professional BS artist, is this his pattern on climate change?
Mike Yohe's cherry picking of information seems pretty specific and biased towards global warming denial and doesn't really change even with provided with firm rebuttal with very well established science. I'm pretty new here and don't want to waste my time "discussing" this topic with a professional BS artist, is this his pattern on climate change?I am not cherry picking anything. I ask basic questions about where we are in the climate cycle and can’t get a real answer. You seem to be stuck on the CO2. I bring up the top science advisor to the president and you would rather deal with data from climate denial sites. I think you are wasting your time if you want to crusade against denialist and not deal with the whole picture. Tell me, why you think 200ppm is a good place for the earth to be, when you know that all plants die at 150 and anything below 200 lowers food production. The web site you posted is not a scientific site, it is a political site. I post from Stanford.edu and you post from blogs. My data if from Greenpeace people and yours if from echo chamber. So don’t try and make me out to be something I am not. Are you in denial that there are jumps in the climate changes? Are you in denial that we are in the cooling stage of the climate cycle? If you think that John should not be advising the president, then who do you think should be advising the president? What is the best level of CO2 in ppm for the earth in your opinion?
I am not cherry picking anything. I ask basic questions about where we are in the climate cycle and can’t get a real answer. You seem to be stuck on the CO2. I bring up the top science advisor to the president and you would rather deal with data from climate denial sites. I think you are wasting your time if you want to crusade against denialist and not deal with the whole picture. Tell me, why you think 200ppm is a good place for the earth to be, when you know that all plants die at 150 and anything below 200 lowers food production. The web site you posted is not a scientific site, it is a political site. I post from Stanford.edu and you post from blogs. My data if from Greenpeace people and yours if from echo chamber. So don’t try and make me out to be something I am not. Are you in denial that there are jumps in the climate changes? Are you in denial that we are in the cooling stage of the climate cycle? If you think that John should not be advising the president, then who do you think should be advising the president? What is the best level of CO2 in ppm for the earth in your opinion?Pretty much answers my question when CO2 emissions are the central issue with climate change forces global warming. It's already been explained here why and there's a huge amount of evidence from peer-reviewed science from around the globe. As for my sources just where do you think Skeptical Science is getting all its information, you can link to the peer-reviewed articles throughout it articles. The fact that you're plugging away at all the supposed "holes" in the science between the links of massive emissions of carbon dioxide by human activity and the profoundly dangerous consequences answers my question of where you come down on this divide. See my comment above, as far as I'm concerned climate change denial is already mass murder which will transition into the worst genocide yet and people who engage in it belong in prison...at best.
I post from Stanford.eduMaybe that was found on Stanford's blog, but why are you investing it with some Authority it does not have? It's a summation of a 45 talk given by Patrick Moore who has a hell of record of lying and manipulation. But that you choose to be blind to, instead investing it with the authority of Stanford. Man, that's like fraud. SkepticalScience is a bona fide scientific blog - even if denialistas call it their enemy number one! Or… mike can you provide examples of why you feel you can reject the information they offer outright. They provide explanations and clear links back to original studies the post are built up around - it's a place where constructive can be done - the discussion after the articles are often quite informative also. Why do you choose to dis them? ________________________________________________________________________________ Why you are labeled a cherry picker, has been demonstrated in these past few comments. You start with a claim that Earth's atmosphere was once 300 time greater than today and that this MUST be explained. When pointed you to sources of info on that, you ignored them. When DougC does a great job explaining it to you is simple english - Snow ball Earths, volcanic CO2 emissions continued building CO2 in atmosphere, but with the global ice sheet, none of it was absorbed until a Tipping point was reached. But, you talk like you didn't hear a word of that, instead to jump to other subjects (thus demonstrating the contrarian penchant for playing Whack-a-Mole) Further when DougC pointed out it was actually more like 50x and not 300x - again you totally ignore that information. Your words define how objective people see you. Why do you never learn from new information?
I think Mike illustrates well the techniques used by climate change contrarians, they don’t have to provide any real evidence for their economically and politically motivated position, they just have to keep throwing out red herrings to create “doubt”.
Not only do deniers like Mike ignore all the information provided, they ignore the evidence of how extensive the denial campaign is and where it started as has been established by the journalism of reporters like George Monbiot.
This is the same criminal activity that went on to deny the links between tobacco products and serious and often terminal illness.
People like this will never address this issue honestly because that is the last thing they want to do based on their incredibly selfish interests.
You seem to be stuck on the CO2.Yeah, and rocket scientists seem to be stuck on the Gravity thing. What's your point? Are you denying the physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Are you denying the massive quantities humans have been injecting into our atmosphere (and oceans)? Got any justification for your apparent faith that CO2 should be down played… in favor of what?
I think Mike illustrates well the techniques used by climate change contrarians, they don't have to provide any real evidence for their economically and politically motivated position, they just have to keep throwing out red herrings to create "doubt". Not only do deniers like Mike ignore all the information provided, the ignore the evidence of how extensive the denial campaign is and where it started as has been established by the journalism of reporters like George Monbiot. This is the same criminal activity that went on to deny the links between tobacco products and serious and often terminal illness. People like this will never address this issue honestly because that is the last thing they want to do based on their incredibly selfish interests.Occam would have liked you. He was into clarity and being succinct.
I think Mike illustrates well the techniques used by climate change contrarians, they don't have to provide any real evidence for their economically and politically motivated position, they just have to keep throwing out red herrings to create "doubt". Not only do deniers like Mike ignore all the information provided, the ignore the evidence of how extensive the denial campaign is and where it started as has been established by the journalism of reporters like George Monbiot. This is the same criminal activity that went on to deny the links between tobacco products and serious and often terminal illness. People like this will never address this issue honestly because that is the last thing they want to do based on their incredibly selfish interests.Occam would have liked you. He was into clarity and being succinct. Agreed. Nice summation, Doug.
Has the science been settled?
No, because no scientific theory is every fully settled, it’s the reason that science is able to advance based on new evidence. So science relies on the best case based on the evidence.
The evidence going back centuries is that carbon dioxide is a powerful moderator of the global climate based on a wide variety of observations made by many people.
People like Joseph Fourier who almost 200 hundred years ago determined the existence of a greenhouse effect that warms the global climate.
Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature? Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.Or John Tyndall who a few decades later demonstrated just what it was in the atmosphere that causes this effect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=586
In 1859, physicist John Tyndall ran an experiment demonstrating the greenhouse effect. Visible sunlight easily passes through our atmosphere to warm the Earth. However, invisible heat rays rising from the Earth’s surface, otherwise known as infrared radiation, don’t easily escape back to space. What Tyndall showed by shining heat rays through tubes filled with different gases is that certain gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide block the heat rays. These became known as greenhouse gases.
As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days. This is because at night, the Earth's surface cools by radiating heat out to space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling. It took over 130 years before Tyndall's prediction was confirmed. Over the last few decades, surface measurements have observed nights warming faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006, Zhou 2009).Or Svante Arrhenius who went to the great effort of doing by hand the thousands of calculations to determine climate sensitivity(what happens with the doubling of CO2) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.php
Arrhenius argued that variations in trace constituents—namely carbon dioxide—of the atmosphere could greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth. Using the best data available to him (and making many assumptions and estimates that were necessary), he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius)."This was all before the end of the 19th not 20th century, and already had a high degree of confidence in what would happen if we significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Modern theories like Quantum Mechanics and modern technology have given us a far greater degree of confidence in the role that carbon dioxide plays in moderating the Earth's climate and what will happen as we dramatically increase the levels as has happened. You look for consistency in data with current theories in science, Occam would definitely say that we don't need to go looking for zebras when we already have a horse described down to the number of hairs on its body to explain the hoof beats we hear. The science is very mature behind global warming and climate change driven by the huge amounts of CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere in the last couple hundred years. It's why billions of dollars have been spent by corporations and individuals who rely on the fossil fuel sector for their wealth and resultant social standing to confuse and divert attention on this issue. It's also why there is always going to be someone showing up to any discussion on the issue throwing out red herrings like Mike is that reek due to how long they've been out in the Sun. There is no evidence for levels of CO2 300 times current levels in ice cores, the evidence is that levels fluxuated between 280 and 180ppm during the current glacial cycles. Much higher levels of CO2 aren't going to turn the globe into a lush garden of green from plants with high levels of CO2 to utilize. Without other nutrients present like water, nitrogen and other essentials that growth soon ends. What more carbon dioxide can do with some plants like soy is make them vulnerable to pests. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm Then we get mega droughts like in California and rapidly depleted water sources, plants don't grow at all well in desert conditions...unless you think we can all live off cactus. Mike also throws out cloud cover as if that refutes the centuries of evidence of the primacy of carbon dioxide in moderating the global climate. It's denial at work, whenever there is a discussion on this most crucial issue there will always be industry reps to sow doubt in their interests.
Has the science been settled? No, because no scientific theory is every fully settled, it's the reason that science is able to advance based on new evidence. So science relies on the best case based on the evidence. The evidence going back centuries is that carbon dioxide is a powerful moderator of the global climate based on a wide variety of observations made by many people. People like Joseph Fourier who almost 200 hundred years ago determined the existence of a greenhouse effect that warms the global climate. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/why-we-know-about-the-greenhouse-gas-effect/Now, that you have gotten that off your chest, can you answer any of the five questions that I ask you?Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature? Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.Or John Tyndall who a few decades later demonstrated just what it was in the atmosphere that causes this effect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=586In 1859, physicist John Tyndall ran an experiment demonstrating the greenhouse effect. Visible sunlight easily passes through our atmosphere to warm the Earth. However, invisible heat rays rising from the Earth’s surface, otherwise known as infrared radiation, don’t easily escape back to space. What Tyndall showed by shining heat rays through tubes filled with different gases is that certain gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide block the heat rays. These became known as greenhouse gases.As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days. This is because at night, the Earth's surface cools by radiating heat out to space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling. It took over 130 years before Tyndall's prediction was confirmed. Over the last few decades, surface measurements have observed nights warming faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006, Zhou 2009).Or Svante Arrhenius who went to the great effort of doing by hand the thousands of calculations to determine climate sensitivity(what happens with the doubling of CO2) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.phpArrhenius argued that variations in trace constituents—namely carbon dioxide—of the atmosphere could greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth. Using the best data available to him (and making many assumptions and estimates that were necessary), he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius)."This was all before the end of the 19th not 20th century, and already had a high degree of confidence in what would happen if we significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Modern theories like Quantum Mechanics and modern technology have given us a far greater degree of confidence in the role that carbon dioxide plays in moderating the Earth's climate and what will happen as we dramatically increase the levels as has happened. You look for consistency in data with current theories in science, Occam would definitely say that we don't need to go looking for zebras when we already have a horse described down to the number of hairs on its body to explain the hoof beats we hear. The science is very mature behind global warming and climate change driven by the huge amounts of CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere in the last couple hundred years. It's why billions of dollars have been spent by corporations and individuals who rely on the fossil fuel sector for their wealth and resultant social standing to confuse and divert attention on this issue. It's also why there is always going to be someone showing up to any discussion on the issue throwing out red herrings like Mike is that reek due to how long they've been out in the Sun. There is no evidence for levels of CO2 300 times current levels in ice cores, the evidence is that levels fluxuated between 280 and 180ppm during the current glacial cycles. Much higher levels of CO2 aren't going to turn the globe into a lush garden of green from plants with high levels of CO2 to utilize. Without other nutrients present like water, nitrogen and other essentials that growth soon ends. What more carbon dioxide can do with some plants like soy is make them vulnerable to pests. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm Then we get mega droughts like in California and rapidly depleted water sources, plants don't grow at all well in desert conditions...unless you think we can all live off cactus. Mike also throws out cloud cover as if that refutes the centuries of evidence of the primacy of carbon dioxide in moderating the global climate. It's denial at work, whenever there is a discussion on this most crucial issue there will always be industry reps to sow doubt in their interests.
You seem to be stuck on the CO2.Yeah, and rocket scientists seem to be stuck on the Gravity thing. What's your point? Are you denying the physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? No, I am backing them as the IPCC sees them.
Are you denying the massive quantities humans have been injecting into our atmosphere (and oceans)?No, I agree with those figures, except on how you view those amounts. You only tell half the story. On the scale that CO2 can be in our atmosphere the top amount is never talked about. In other words, what would be the realistic idea CO2 levels for the earth when all the factors we know of are dealt with? What would be a practical target to try and achieve? The point being, stop spinning your wheels and thinking you are the only ones that can see that there is a problem. I have been way beyond that point years ago.
Got any justification for your apparent faith that CO2 should be down played… in favor of what?Finally, a thought about climate change in the right time zone. On this subject I am trying to get a handle on where the government is at. I think the government has realized that we are going to run out of oil and coal. The oil supply may start to run out before anything political can be accomplished other than filtering some of the carbon. The private industry will be able to make solid changes better and quicker than any government agency. The government is most likely following a program that was put together sometime back. There always seems to be plenty of money for particle accelerators in the industrialize countries. One of the goals is nuclear fusion power plants. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/644339/EXCLUSIVE-UK-FIRST-country-roll-out-nuclear-fusion-power-plants-say-experts Myself, if it was up to me. I would finish the technical research and development of geothermal power and use geothermal until fusion is developed. As far as sea level rising. The problem isn’t that it may happen. It is happening right now. I lean more towards the view of John Holdren. Let’s fix what is fixable, take the steps that can help and embrace and make the most out the changes that are taking place. As John had pointed out, some of these changes may be better for the earth and humans in the long run.
Now, that you have gotten that off your chest, can you answer any of the five questions that I ask you?You need to demonstrate you've taken any time to go over the large amount of valid information that has been provided to you and then explain in the light of that how you can keep attempting to downplay the very real dangers of business as usual with burning billions of tons of fossil fuels a year. As long as you're communicating denial misinformation like massive spikes of CO2 within the ice core records, that CO2 isn't really an issue or that it makes the world a better place through increased plant growth I'm not going to waste any more time and effort in assisting you. Start posting in line with the best evidence as has been amply provided for you or continue to not be taken seriously...
Now, that you have gotten that off your chest, can you answer any of the five questions that I ask you?You need to demonstrate you've taken any time to go over the large amount of valid information that has been provided to you and then explain in the light of that how you can keep attempting to downplay the very real dangers of business as usual with burning billions of tons of fossil fuels a year. As long as you're communicating denial misinformation like massive spikes of CO2 within the ice core records, that CO2 isn't really an issue or that it makes the world a better place through increased plant growth I'm not going to waste any more time and effort in assisting you. Start posting in line with the best evidence as has been amply provided for you or continue to not be taken seriously... Yes Doug, you are right, I confused the snowball with the ice cores. But you need to cut me some slack in the fact that all this data is covered with dust. And it is my fault that I did not check the decade or older data, it just did not seem that important. The idea I was trying to get across is still the same. We know a 150 ppm life ends. And you agree that we were down to 180 ppm not that long ago. But what is the upper limits of CO2 the earth can handle? And what is the best level for people and the earth? Point being, we are going to have a change in climate. That is proven over and over again by the ice cores. In post #215 you state that if it was not for the CO2 we would have ice at the equator. I agree. And I think we agree on the facts that it is the CO2 that is causing most of the warming. So, the obvious question you need to answer is that history tells us that glaciers and ice ages last for thousands and hundred of thousands of years. Our fossil fuels are about to run out. With the populations and changes to the earth, what is your game plan to keep life on earth? We better figure out what is going to work world wide and start moving in that direction.
Yes Doug, you are right, I confused the snowball with the ice cores. But you need to cut me some slack in the fact that all this data is covered with dust. And it is my fault that I did not check the decade or older data, it just did not seem that important. The idea I was trying to get across is still the same. We know a 150 ppm life ends. And you agree that we were down to 180 ppm not that long ago. But what is the upper limits of CO2 the earth can handle? And what is the best level for people and the earth? Point being, we are going to have a change in climate. That is proven over and over again by the ice cores.You posted the misinformation on vastly overstated levels of CO2 in ice cores more than once even when it was explained how far off they are...even for the Snowball Earth phase where CO2 levels were perhaps 50 times that of today. The best level for CO2 is that which the current biota is evolved and adapted to, which means that as rapid transition out of that range happens fewer and fewer species will be able to survive. Like the Arctic ecosystem and coral reefs right now, they are already well on the way to no longer existing. The same is true for many or most alpine ecosystems and anywhere else where rapid transitions are occurring. The question isn't about whether or not climate changes, this is another canard thrown out by global warming deniers. The issue right now is human forced change that is occurring in such a way that entire important ecosystems will no longer remain viable which at some point will lead to a large scale ecological collapse. Climate change is just one significant human impact on the natural world that we all depend on for our survival.
In post #215 you state that if it was not for the CO2 we would have ice at the equator. I agree. And I think we agree on the facts that it is the CO2 that is causing most of the warming. So, the obvious question you need to answer is that history tells us that glaciers and ice ages last for thousands and hundred of thousands of years. Our fossil fuels are about to run out. With the populations and changes to the earth, what is your game plan to keep life on earth? We better figure out what is going to work world wide and start moving in that direction.Carbon dioxide is the most important persistent greenhouse gas, it provides the baseline for the entire process. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the warmer it is which allows for more water vapour which sets up a feedback. Water vapour isn't a persistent gas in the atmosphere as anyone who's been rained or snowed on probably understands. My game plan? Treat everything as essential and have human society as a whole stop treating the entire planet and biosphere as a disposable resource in a mindless pursuit of money which has exactly no value if we destroy the ecological basis of the Earth that allows us to exist in the first place. This idea that man and our economies come first is insane, but that is exactly the position that the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet are endlessly advocating in their interests. And global warming and climate change denial is at the center of this insanity. Your questions have been more than answered here, as far as I'm concerned all even discussing this with you any further does is give you a format to present further doubt with terrible effect. As I said I don't think deniers will ever discuss this issue honestly, because it's entirely against their completely irrational agenda. Which is to keep us collectively working for our own destruction. You're still throwing out misinformation that is clearly rooted in the climate change denial misinformation campaign, I won't respond to you again as I chose to not be even an indirect part of that.
My game plan? Treat everything as essential and have human society as a whole stop treating the entire planet and biosphere as a disposable resource in a mindless pursuit of money which has exactly no value if we destroy the ecological basis of the Earth that allows us to exist in the first place. This idea that man and our economies come first is insane, but that is exactly the position that the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet are endlessly advocating in their interests. And global warming and climate change denial is at the center of this insanity.The economy comes first, the problem is that GDP does not measure the economy. http://www.toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html What we have is not economics, it is NAZInomics. psik
The economy comes first, the problem is that GDP does not measure the economy. http://www.toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html What we have is not economics, it is NAZInomics. psikWhen you look at all the prominent industrialists and bankers who made Hitler and the Nazi rise in Europe possible in the first place, that's hard to argue against. Some of their descendants are still hard at work to create the kind of totalitarian top down control that effectively enforces the status quo permanently no matter the social and ecological costs. This betrayal has been going on for a very long time, it's being illuminated incredibly well by the fact that essential choices that few argue aren't needed still aren't being implemented.
You seem to be stuck on the CO2.Yeah, and rocket scientists seem to be stuck on the Gravity thing. What's your point? Are you denying the physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? No, I am backing them as the IPCC sees them. You lie ! >:-( You say those words then totally ignore their implications like it's all flown right over your head, like some oblivious innocent, but you aren't innocent one bit. ======
We know a 150 ppm life ends.No we don't. Where does that come from? Can you explain the projected temps for 150ppm What life forms are we talking about. What's it got to do with today's reality of skyrocketing our (greenhouse gases driven) atmospheric insulation? And that it is us human's 100% responsible for that. We know that warming our climate system will energize it's climate system to a more intense more chaotic weather regime. Add heat = more moisture + geophysics = wilder weather Our society is not equipped physically or mentally to deal with that short of shift. Hell most of you are lost in these idiotic games you are so adept at. You haven't a cloud about what our real massive physical world is all about. It's nothing more than a post card impression on your shallow, but sharp mind. Slick words games you got going here.
you know mike, considering I just gave up a 15 power-nap for you and spending time calling you on your … -
it does admit to a certain fascination. You make a fascinating study in the art of the fraud. Finessed you are, in your own way.
But there’s no substance behind your bravado.
You’ve yet to incorporate new information into how you present your position. It’s like a record repeating itself.
Where’s the learning come in?
{Darron, practice makes perfects, things are clicking along just fine, now i gotta get back.} 