Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moltres wrote

Do you mean that climate is a system composed of many parts that CO^2 is nothing but a part? Then what is the importance of CO^2?

Could it be that its raise was the initial trigger event?

Could it be that is the one most easily and conveniently dealt with? Coal and oil

What sort of thing humans use that produce CO^2 that could possibly be regulated? Coal and oil

Is there any part of the establishment that could be harmed by such regulations? Coal and oil

If there are, they would have to be huge corporations with lots of money to be able to affect public policy and opinion? Coal and oil

So powerful and so entrenched in the establishment that they could convince governments to go to war for their prime matter! Coal and oil

What kind of business has such interests, such money and power? Coal and oil

NO! It's something more sinister! The sunlight panel industry! It makes sense, too! All cars run on solar panel.


daniel wrote

All I'm asking for is reproducable physical science, which of course refutes completely the AGW 'greenhouse gas' hypothesis and hence is never part of the discussion. Quick! More pictures of people sweating! Climate sensitivity to CO2 is nowhere near as high as claimed by AGW proponents, which is why there is no reporducable physical model which results in anything close to the predicted changes. Their models are not mathematically sound or based in objective science. You have been lied to and inculcated into a cult mindset. The amount of CO2 required to change the climate is several orders of magnitude higher than an additional 0.0001 (aka going from ~400 ppm to ~500 ppm), so much so that it is all but impossible to produce through human activity alone.


Moltres wrote

all but impossible to produce through human activity alone.

Only you has said that, I haven't said it, no scientist has said that, mofongo even listed lots of things that has affected the climate change we're seeing. You should look back on that.

Only two entities benefit from the belief that only CO^2 emissions cause climate change. The first is the government because they can use as an election platform, make policies that barely do anything and don't affect the bottom line of the oil giants, look as good guys and ultimately prevent any revolt. The second one are oil companies because then they don't have to deal with the other practices, say deforestation, assassination, oil spills, war, etc, etc. Of course, they can lobby down any regulation that they don't like and propose changes that they have already made for profit in disguise of "progress".


daniel wrote

There are at least three entities. Plants also benefit from CO2 emissions. 95% of the mass of a tree comes from atmospheric CO2.


Moltres wrote

But trees don't use the internet into duping people that climate change isn't real.