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

And lots of other creepy crawlies, but hey, we could just feed them bugs:
https://www.livescience.com/12922-eating-insects-global-warming-greenhouse-gases.html

 

Science does not make use of "consensus". That is what religion and politics does.

 

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have near enough thermometers to do so.

Define "climate change". You cannot base an argument upon an undefined buzzword. That renders your whole argument void.

 

I am not a farmer. I experience weather as well.

Define "global warming". You cannot base an argument upon an undefined buzzword. Void Argument.

Weather happens, dude.

 

And FL “may” be hit with a record number of Hurricanes from this day forward....

We in south FL heard this incessantly after Andrew back in the early 90s and after a long hiatus, back in 06 or 07 when we had a busy fall, then nothing happened for another 10 or so years. Believe us, FL will be underwater. Take that to the bank.

I fully believe down to my soul that every meteorologist and scientist that uttered those words should be hung by their ****ing balls in the sun to rot. And every commentator that nodded along can join them. I could statistically toss darts at a target blindfolded and easily be more accurate in my predictions than all those numskulls talking out of their asses.

Not saying we aren’t effecting the environment. No doubt we are. But to claim it’s ALL OUR FAULT is fear mongering BS.

 

This is a baseless assertion you keep making, and have had it thoroughly refuted. We can and do measure the temperature of the earth.

 

Personally, I ignore all studies that are based on the fallacy that random numbers are data. (RandU Fallacy).

 

Plants love warmer conditions and CO2.

 

nobody has provided a study with random numbers. What you ignore is proven science and experimentation and simply say "nuh uh" when presented with such.

 

You don't know what happened thousands or millions of years ago. You weren't there.

 

Define what you mean by “define”. We can’t continue this conversation until we know what edition dictionary you are using and the exact number of words we can use in our examination of how you need “define” defined.

 

I am not currently in Australia or Africa either.

#Logic

 

Not in any way that adheres to science and statistical mathematics, thus rendering the results nothing more than a wild guess.

 

To provide a statement of the exact meaning of a word via a reference that is outside of the word itself.

I am not using any dictionary. Dictionaries do not define words, nor are they an authority over any word definition.

As many as you wish.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have near enough thermometers to do so.


Define "climate change". You cannot base an argument upon an undefined buzzword. That renders your whole argument void.

 

I believe you.

 

I'm not knowledgable enough on Climate science (and I would posit that there isn't a person on this board who posts regularly who is) to make definitive statements about such open ended questions as yours.

Do I think we contribute? Absolutely. It would be the height of hubris to think that the untold numbers of toxic poisons we have put into the sky, water, and ground, since the industrial revolution, has had absolutely Zero affect on the environment. It defies logic and even the simplest amount of thought and common sense.

Which is why I only tend to jump into these discussion regarding very specific points, such as the comparisons between the Jurassic Period and Today.

 

Well.. Yeah. Then the consensus shifted as more information became available. Which is science.

What happened to you dude? I remember you being a lot more....amenable around here. Back when your avatar was a rainbow instead of ... that.

 

repeating the same baseless and unsupported assertion doesn't make you less wrong. Here's a nice little graphic with pictures to help you comprehend

https://scied.ucar.edu/blog/how-measure-global-average-temperature-five-easy-steps

 

LOL I didn't ask if we contribute. If someone farts they contribute so let's get away from lower school debating and move into the big leagues.

So you cannot prove what the primary cause for climate change is nor can you prove humans are the primary cause of climate change. Thanks.

 

Consensus isn't science

My Avatar was never a rainbow you must be thinking about someone else.

 

Well, considering the options are

1) Only Humans cause change in climate

2) Humans have no control at all over the climate

3) Humans contribute to the occurring climate change to some degree

I never said I could prove anything. You assumed that because I didn't say I couldn't, that I could. I've seen no definitive proof either way, and of the mountains and mountains of studies and evidence, I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine at all. But, neither am I a helicopter pilot, and do not understand the intricacies of flying one in any way shape or form. Yet If I see one in a tree, I can safety assume that someone somewhere screwed up royally.

I can see that the climate is changing, due to the evidence we have today. I can't say with 100% certainty that Humans are the only reason, but I can safety assume that we aren't completely disconnected from it either. So, as such, I would prefer to take action to make an effort to not contribute more then is absolutely necessary for our survival as a species.

I don't see much evidence from you on this matter though. Are you a climate scientist?

 

Yes it is.

Odd. I guess so. Never mind then.

 

have you ever wondered why this is a partisan issue?

it is anti petroleum because the petroleum industry gives money to Republicans.

That's why people say electric cars which are probably worse for the environment are better for the environment.

burning petroleum does produce CO2. The stupid Chicken Little in the times beliefs coupled with the only solution is the government are the parts I disagree with in your religion.

I doubt they are part of the brain-dead cult.

 

I'm sorry people just agreeing with each other doesn't make something true.

 

I asked specifically for names of scientists nothing else you can't produce them because you don't know any.