Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

I'm saying you should take no action.

If what you're saying is true, then the Greenland Ice Sheet core samples should show ice from previous Glacial Periods, but they don't.

At the end of the day, the average global temperatures could increase by 10.4°F and the only thing you can say is this Inter-Glacial Period is as warm as the last one.

Here's another study that casts doubt on AGW:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/epdf

 

Democrats want you to be frightened so much you will beg Obama to just ignore the amendment giving him two terms.

Here is the test.

This test shows you just how serious this really is.

1. Is there protection being constructed today to save low lying lands? Such as the dykes in Holland.
2. Do they plant trees and plants at a furious rate as if they got serious about ridding us of Carbon Dioxide?
3. Do they make massive use of nuclear power? If not, why not?
4. Do they take advantage of Carbon Dioxide collectors now invented?

That short test explains why this is bunk.

 

The nations of the world should sue the earth. The earth is constantly changing its climate, temperature and sea level. The earth has been doing this crap for millions of years and it's finally time to put a stop to it. All nations of the world should sue earth in the International Court for an injunction against earth changing anything ever again and for monetary damages.

 

And obviously, the "No action" option would be "not changing the climate by emitting more CO2". Turning up the heat by adding CO2 obviously is an action.

You seem to be confused. I'm pointing out each interglacial is different, hence there is no "should".

Being that human civilization didn't grow up around the peak temperature of the previous interglacial, that's quite irrelevant. Human civilization grew up around the current much cooler climate. Suddenly heating things up from what human civilization was designed around really screws the humans badly.

Trying to change the topic, I see. Not a very good attempt, though. That Bates paper just rehashes the badly flawed Lindzen and Choi (2011) paper. Both papers were so bad, no mainstream journal would take them, and the authors had to go journal-hunting so they could slip it past a lazy editor. Here's Dessler taking apart the previous version of the paper.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wr7nr8m4v4kwhc8/BatesResponse.docx?dl=0

 

And obviously, the "No action" option would be "not changing the climate by emitting more CO2". Turning up the heat by adding CO2 obviously is an action.

what is it exactly that CO2 does that scares you about it? you know there has never been any evidence that CO2 does anything to the climate.

Please post up that evidence of bad CO2.

BTW, for your scare, is there a solution? LOL

 

There is no correlation between CO2 and Earth temperatures. None in the ice cores per the British Court ruling in 2007. None from the atmosphere today, which has not warmed at all despite rising CO2.

 

Every science agency on the planet disagrees with you

 

"Should" is precisely what AGW supporters base their claims upon, that the average temperature should be "this"

Again, warming is perfectly normal during an Inter-Glacial Period.

Not every scientist supports AGW.

 

LOL!!!

Translation - "I'm parroting greater gurus than you"

Response - The DATA speaks for itself. As for the 30 or so "climate scientists," there are 37000 non-climate real scientists who dispute Algores FRAUD. Truth be told, you don't have any scientific ability at all. All you do is parrot. If you had a brain instead of a beak, you might actually learn something, like LEFT WINGERS LIE TO STEAL FROM THE TAXPAYER...

 

Name this 37,000. Oh and please cite the Oregon petition. PLEASE! LOL

 

The problem with America today is that too many sub humans here are absolutely 100% incapable of thinking, and hence resort to parroting.

Answer the question threads I post. Your heroes won't. They know where the answers lead - to the correct conclusion that Co2 levels in the atmosphere have absolutely nothing to do with Earth climate change...

 

Afraid to name them? Hilarious

 

There are plenty of reports of this number or that number of scientists. Truth be told, the one here who is "afraid" is you, afraid to answer why the Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic etc. You are afraid because you don't have anyone to parrot for "your" answer...

Sad truly. What separates man from beast is the ability to think. You are no more evolved than a double yellowhead...

 

Can't name them huh? Hilarious

 

"sub humans"???

sounds exactly like what Hitler called his enemies

 

hahaha!!!

so you've never seen the Vostok Ice core data huh?

 

LOL!!!

I have and so did the British Court in 2007...


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth


"The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing."


Once again with 90% of Earth ice INCREASING, the case for "the ice is melting" isn't exactly strong...

- - - Updated - - -

You Zionists learned quite a bit from Hitler, right down to faking attacks to start wars.... and doing away with things like due process...

 

but its YOU who are calling people "sub-human",

why not just call them "untermenschen"?

anyways, the Vostok ice cores show a direct link between CO2 and air temperatures

 

no British court or any other court ever deemed the Vostok ice core data to be false.

 

a simple view of the Vostok ice core data shows there is indeed a very clear and consistent corrolation between CO2 ppm and average air temps

 

LMAO!!!


That's not what the British Court ruled. And your FRAUD side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal it...

Two sides went to court. Your side LOST and DID NOT APPEAL.

NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temps in the ICE CORES.

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica GROWING..

ACCEPT THE COURT RULING OR APPEAL...

 

so you're saying if you look at the Vostok data, CO2 ppm and average air temps don't increase and decrease in almost identical trends over the last 400,000 years?

 

Yup, those charts are fudge.

If you don't think they are fudge, take them to court...

LOL!!!

'cause in Court, DATA TALKS and FUDGE WALKS...

 

no, the charts are based on the ice core data and are correct.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth


"The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim."