| Groundking said: I'm only replying to stuff from the first page, as some things need pulling straight away, and I'm yet to read the rest of the thread. 1) whislt yes we know that CO2 increases the temperature in a closed system, the Earth is NOT a closed system, so taking this and thinking that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the temperature is a false assumption, as it's not know how it works in an open system. 3) Yes because the models are all a crock of shit, and all have a fudge factor because of the fact that we don't have a perfect knowledge of the earth system, yet all the modles predict, to some slight variance of severity, the same thing, does that not smell an awful like corruption and collusion? The models can't even acurately back predict the climate in the past, which is the very easiest sort of modeling you can do. 4) Of course alarmism has risen, can't sell you shit if you don't feel like there's a need for said shit. 5) Of course it politics, or do you not realise which countries look to suffer the most due to the demonizing of fossil fuels, oh yes that's right, the developing world, and what does the developing world offer? Competition to the established, it's all away of reducing the competitive edge these developing countries have over the developed. 6) And this is the right way to think, thank you very much for this, of course CO2 doesn't have a drastic effect on the temperature, I mean ffs how on earth is a gass that makes up only 0.00004% of the atmosphere supposed to have any real effect on the temperature when compared to the fact that we have a big massive open fussion reactor in the sky that fluctuates in output constantly. I mean FFS come on people. |
I agree there's a lots of unknow but your argumentation is just based on misinformation and discrediting all argument that does not fit your agenda. You cannot prove your point, nor prove the argument you try to discredit wrong.
1) So it's false because we do not know if this apply to an open system??? Yet we do not have any indication that it will act differently than in an enclosed test system. So you're saying it's a false claim because we don't know??? How does this prove it has a false claim.
2)That's made me laugh, both CO2 and temperature increase simultaneously there's is no way you could say that the temperature is the cause. it's not like one year the temperature increase and the next the co2 rise followed by a year where both are stable. But hey maybe you're right, have you any source backing up this claim?
3)Model and estimation are what they are. They're imperfect, and prompt to reajustement and that's true in any field for any models that have been made since the beginning of civilization. It's not like they are windows to directly witness the future.
4) Well alarmist are alarmist and negationist are negationist I guess. But in doubts your better safe than sorry.
5) That's exactly why action against climate change must contains measures to helps develloping country like they will in the future.
6) So because number are small in relative perspective they should be discredited. Do you know how much cyanide it take to kill someone and the % it represent vs the human body? And by the way Co2 concentration in atmosphere is about 390 ppm (2010) which is 0.04% not 0.00004%
Edit: I recommend watching this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
