Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

LMFAO! Carbon Monoxide (CO) is not the same as Carbon Dioxide (CO2)...

https://biodifferences.com/difference-between-carbon-dioxide-co2-and-carbon-monoxide-co.html

 

This is hysterics.

 

Yes. At rates approximately 1/100th of the current pace.

 

True. And the other effect is, that the temperature goes up. And that's where the plants die.

 

The notion that we must choose between the Jurassic Period and the Ice Age.

 

More fake news. CO2 levels were three times higher during the Jurassic period and plants and animals flourished.

 

I never made that claim.

 

so is the idea that global warming is going to bring about some catastrophic Doomsday. Doesn't stop you from believing that.

which climatologists names and credentials please?

 

That is a link to a report on the findings from a new study by the University of East Anglia, the James Cook University, and WWF.

 

Every single recognized group of national or international scientists on the planet has a position statement in support of the basic tenets of AGW.

 

So it doesn't work the same way you cannot succeed if your in a room with increasing CO2?

 

You said the following:

That suggests that we only have two options.

 

So you can't list actual scientists and their credentials.

How do you know you're not just parroting back political talking points? You do realize that groups are often political right?

I can actually give you names of climatologist and their credentials that say otherwise.

A real scientist versus some group that wants to believe something so they can get more money are two different things.

 

Based on what science please?

 

So political organization?

So people whose authority you accept without question?

So this is your religion?

 

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[30] no national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[29][31]

But if you want to review all the groups that have concurring opinions, go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Concurring

 

Ice Core Data from Volstok:

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2

If you look at the last time, after the end of the ice age, where the CO2 rose by 80 points (which is the amount it increased from 1900 to 2000), it took about 10,000 years.

 

I don't think we have any options. To believe mankind controls the environment is absurd. And you people make it more absurd when every time some sort of environmental catastrophe happens you blame it on global warming. I remember that last hurricane that hit here in Houston. It was because of climate change. What about the 25 thousand years of history where hurricanes hit at no lesser frequency and no lesser power. A drought happens in Australia and it's because of climate change, but droughts has been happening for thousands of years with the same frequency and severity.

It's almost like you're some religious fanatic and climate change is your devil

 

So you're still presenting no scientists and no credentials? you're just presenting political organizations that function for the main purpose of funding political organisations?

That's not science.

 

Those are not political organizations.

 

So prove that's not natural.

 

...you legitimately want to argue that groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the European Academy of Arts and Sciences are "political organizations that function for the main purpose of funding political organizations?"

 

The 1900 to 2000 increase or the 10,000 year period after the last ice age?

 

So they don't exist to generate clout? Why have an organization at all what's the point otherwise?

 

The hurricane in Houston dropped more rain in a shorter time frame than at any point in recorded history for that region.

The droughts in Australia were more severe and longer lasting than at any point in recorded history for that region.