Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

You sourced something that destroyed your argument.

 

You again can’t name one species.

That article clearly states that this is a cyclical process driven by El Niño. Nothing new here unless you argue that the 0.06 degree C increase in the global average temperature has killed the coral.

 

1. China Unveils an Ambitious Plan to Curb Climate Change ...
   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/climate/china-carbon-market-climate-change...
   Dec 19, 2017 · China’s emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas have nearly tripled since 2000, according to data from the International Energy Agency in …
   
   
2. China releases 2020 action plan for air pollution | China ...
   https://www.chinadialogue.net/.../10711-China-releases-2-2-action-plan-for-air-pollution
   China is losing the equivalent of 11 gigawatts of solar power from polluted air, reports Feng Hao. 31/10/2017 Climate change driving flooding, heatwaves and infectious diseases . China is one of the most exposed countries to the health impacts of global warming, finds health study. Catherine Early reports. 15/05/2018
   

 

China has stopped all government subsidies for new solar projects and is refusing to pay promised subsidies for existing construction. That's some plan.

It's delusional to think that China will do anything which will reduce their economic growth.

 

Victim hood is the liberal mindset.

 

Pollution has negatively impacted some sectors in China to include agriculture.

Climate change in China - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China
Climate change in China. The energy structure and human activities caused global warming and climate change, and China suffered from negative effects in agriculture, forest, water resource etc. China is implementing some policies to mitigate the bad effects of climate change, most of which are aiming to constrain coal consumption.

 

Funny. Trump has been whining about being a victim since the early 1980s and he's not a 15 year old girl with Aspbergers.

 

Pollution has nothing to do with global warming. China is doing nothing to reduce coal consumption regardless of what Wikipedia claims.

 

Trump whining ???

 

You are probably better at science than I.

Air pollution effects: Global Warming

• Global warming can be defined as an increase in the average temperature...
• Causes of global warming. The main cause of global warming, according to most climate scientists,...
• Global warming environmental effects: Climate change.
• Health effects of global warming. Despite climate change has direct...

Air pollution effects: Global Warming | AirGO
www.airgo2.com/air-pollution/effects/global-warming/



Global Warming Maine: Pollution and Climate Change Affect ...
https://www.nrcm.org/projects/climate/global-warming-air-pollution
What is Global Warming? Global warming, also known as climate change, is caused by a blanket of pollution that traps heat around the earth. This pollution comes from cars, factories, homes, and power plants that burn fossil fuels such as oil, coal, natural gas, and gasoline. Global warming pollution …

 

Oh Yes.. He's famous for whining about being treated unfairly and/or the system being rigged against him since 1982.

 

CO2 does not pollute the air. Humans breath out tons of it everyday.

 

The media is biased against Trump and everyone who voted for him.

 

Really?

Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions

• Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Human Sources. Since the Industrial Revolution,...
• Fossil fuel combustion/use. The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from...
• Land use changes. Land use changes are a substantial source of carbon dioxide emissions globally,...
• Industrial processes. There are many industrial...

Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions | What's Your Impact
whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

 

Oh don't be silly.. Trump is a crud that has aired his dirty laundry on Howard Stern, Esquire, Playboy for 40 years.. He LOVES being the center of attention.

 

This is a very casual political discussion forum. Asking and answering questions is part of what happens here.
Identifying the differences between totalitarian National Socialism and totalitarian Communism should not be a challenge for you since your position is that they are opposites.

 

This "Things change. Sometimes fast, sometimes more slowly." is on par with climate change. The climate is change on a far faster pace than normal the Co2 levels are going through the roof with a tremendous spike. It is unlike what we know happened in the last +400.000 years.

You're an amateur and with the above sentence you do challenge the results of scientific research. You either disprove it with a credible source or otherwise I just aint interested in your personal unfounded opinion.

You are an anonymous poster on an iffy forum. Your opinion is worthless.

To extrapolate known data to the unknown data is nothing new. If you have a disease that kills 30% of some human population in 90 cities. Safe to say that in the next 10 cities the results is going to be exactly the same.

Yet you have not found any credible research that debunks these results.
oh lol...

 

I sourced that they have a democratic system.

 

It aint my research and you again have not debunked it with anything.

 

Neah. You're just firing away questions,.. making other people to look things up. And your argument seems to be,... if you fail to answer my question and give it a source means that I am right, without ever looking up anything.

And so.... I turn that table and say... you go look it up yourself. You either debunk something and give it an argument or admit that others are right. I wouldn't know why I should be doing your work. I'm not paid.

 

You took a position. I assumed you would want to back it up. Too much to ask?

 

It's sad that neither she nor you have the moral courage to read peer-reviewed scientific articles like these:

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

In case you didn't get it, what's happening now is the same thing that happened in the previous 8 Inter-Glacial Periods as recorded in the EPICA Ice Core data (even the Inter-Glacial that ended abruptly after only 8,000 years).

Sea level rise is perfectly normal during an Inter-Glacial Period.

The melting of the Greenland Icesheet and West Antarctic Icesheet is perfectly normal.

To suggest that it is abnormal defies science.

Whether CO2 levels are 400+ ppm or 270 ppm makes no difference, because sea levels rose 3 meters to 14 meters in every previous Inter-Glacial Period, even when CO2 levels ranged from 260 ppm to 280 ppm.

Perhaps you an also find the moral courage to read these two peer-reviewed scientific articles:

Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al%202008.pdf

Just to make sure we're clear on the concept, 12.5°C is 22.5°F warmer than present temperatures.

From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 °C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada

Again, to make sure we're clear on the concept, 4.0°C - 5.0°C is 7.2°F - 9.0°F.

 

It's founded on that UN research. You got nothing.

 

Exciting, isn’t it?

Now if things were going in the other direction we would have cause for panic.

Oh well. I’ve been called worse.

I encourage you to actually read your link. We can’t confidently extrapolate from data that is incomplete or based on assumptions to begin with. As I said. I’m comfortable with their conclusions. I have and never have had any need or desire to disprove their conclusions. I’m just educated enough to actually understand them and the methods. They are just irrelevant to our discussion on anomalies. Background rates and mass extinction are two very different things.

Cool. And what gives your opinion value? Citing a source that’s irrelevant to my point?

See above. That is not analogous to your cited source.

I’ll tell you again. There is no reason to debunk them. I understand them. I accept them. You don’t understand them or you never would have posted them in the context of our debate. You are not out of your league, you are kicking a cricket bat around an ice hockey rink.