Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Look, I do not post attacking you personally.

Have you never noticed this?

Charged language amounts to attacks when directed at posters.

But i have ordinary people protesting over the windmills in their local areas. They seem to have put a stop to some of them, if only temporarily.

 

"Denier" is a loaded phrase, that is why we so maturely respond by calling you a member of an apocalyptic death cult. It would be better, perhaps, if we simply compared the various theories against real world observations, but when someone leads off with "denier" it's clearly a name-calling contest, so be it.

I do not want mass killings of anyone, other than terrorists who want to kill us, and that does not include Liberals.

No it isn't, it's a statement that accurately reflects my very reasonable position.

I never claimed it was.

The effect of increased CO2 in the presence of adequate sun energy and water is more rapid growth of life and the food that sustains it.

Delusional hyperbole

Nonsense. The Little Ice-age ended a little before the civil war, and global temperatures have been recovering nicely, which means the blessed inter-glacial we have been enjoying should continue, but, due to the current configuration of the continents, we have little hope of finally exiting this seemingly endless ice age we have been in for the last 2.58 million years.

Well, the Holocene Climate Optimum lasted from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, and it was a bit warmer in the Northern Hemisphere, but a bit cooler in the Southern Hemisphere, and about the same, at the equator. The Holocene Climate Optimum followed the end of the last glacial advance.

Why? I swear, sometimes it seems like you folks want another glacier advance. You do realize that in the last glacial advance that Chicago was under a MILE of ice? Holy crap. Thank goodness your wishes are not translated into reality>

Well, except that it was coldest era of the last 10,000 years, and thank goodness it has warmed since then. During the Holocene Climate Optimum, the current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall. The Sahara, for example, was lush Savanna until about 7,000 years ago. During this period, the "Green Sahara" was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. I have no clue why you folks fear a return to a climate optimum, that we should be so fortunate!

I'm also not clear on why you would want the cooling that extended into the little ice-age to have been followed by more cooling, rather the relief, through warming we continue to enjoy. Farms and villages in the Swiss Alps were destroyed by encroaching glaciers during the mid-17th century, you wish that would have continued? Madness!

Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing harbors to shipping. The population of Iceland fell by half. Iceland suffered failures of cereal crops and people moved away from a grain-based diet. The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished by the early 15th century, as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters. Those colonies had been there for nearly 500 years!

With cooling temperatures comes famines, and during the Little ice age that you describe as "insignificant" the Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10 percent of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.

European peasants during the 1300 to 1850 chill labored through: famines, hypothermia and bread riots. In the late 17th century, agriculture failed dramatically. Alpine villagers lived on bread made from ground nutshells mixed with barley and oat flour as agricultural failures swept Europe during the Little Ice Age.

Misses by 170 to 300% are hardly "excellent" and they ALWAYS miss to the high side. Always, Always, Always.

My apologies, I misunderstood your position. I'm in firm agreement that there is no runaway scenario, that we agree on. While I would welcome an end to the ice-age and a return to warm earth conditions, I'm afraid I will have to settle for the good fortune of the continuing inter-glacial hopefully building to a new climate optimum. If you have to be in an ice-age, we can all certainly be grateful that its within an inter-glacial, because glacial advances lead to mass starvation and death.

 

LIKE
like like like better than that, great

GREAT

 

"Windmills for instance are proving a health risk where they exist. People report ill health. Cattle die off"

Evidence?.

 

Let's all join hands and watch this very good video done at the Wall St. Journal.

http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-jo...out/64410386-C38D-4902-A53A-1E73B0468D4C.html

To scientists that are truly experts, and whom i follow a great deal are mentioned.

There are plans to have a red team vs blue team debate on this very topic. As points are made by each side, pro and con, we will learn how it all shakes out.

 

Why do the same people who accept alarming with no questions, seek evidence when they learn windmills are causing health problems for humans?

They never fret the alarm attached to warming but fret hugely that windmills cause problems. Funny innit?

I posted proof before but here it comes one more time

 

I'm still waiting for that list of hundreds of Climate scientists opposing AGW.

 

There you go again, posting from reliable scientific sites like Alex Jones. That's really pathetic coming from someone who asserted...

 

There you go again, posting from reliable scientific sites like Alex Jones. Now you've gone one better - asserting the Alex Jones video is "PROOF".

That's really pathetic coming from someone who asserted...

 

Infowars has been labeled a fake news website;can you reference a credible source?

 

Ignore them. There were people discussing their problems. It is not fake. It simply does not appeal to Democrats.

I judge them by my own research.

I always laugh when I get told that since they approve Rachel Maddow and even ABC,.CBS and NBC.

 

I find it impossible to ignore the well-known fact that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist.

 

An engineer spoke. People that lived with the windmills spoke. Why focus on Millie Weaver, who is super hot, when you ignore the public who spoke on these issues. At the least a sound engineer explained the problem.

All due to your phobia over info wars.

Well, what if Madcow had told you?

 

Another unreference you tube

So "sum bloke wats has an opinion"

 

"An engineer". Sorry want to see the research

 

Does not apply to me I am not American and do not get those prgrams here

 

Don't bother it is the OISM

 

That explains why I shun your links so much.

 

Since most of my links are to science papers or reports I am not surprised you are not reading them. That is OK because others DO read.

Bottom line

 

You worship science, do you? Why then when I post scientific papers, do you shun them?

Man though I don't lie about your sources, it would be great were I to get the same respect back.

 

What about Mr. Science guy? He a non practicing engineer. But you trust him.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/22/untangling-the-march-for-science/#more-22997

 

No I worship academic rigour. This means your papers should be less than 10 Years old unless it is seminal research. And that a meta analysis of research is even more powerful than single papers

 

We do not get his shows here. Prefer Prof Brian Cox

 

It doesn't matter,to me,what someone's political ideology/affiliation is,I don't watch youtube videos.
I will read a study on it if you can provide any from a credible source.