Every nation in the world agreed that killing 50% of it's human population will help save turtles. Except one. Who's are baddies here?

[removed]

My point is the absurdity of your OP. The logic is flawed. Just like the old saying "if everyone told you to jump off a bridge, would/should you?".

Apparently, you follow the opposing view.

If the opposing minority claims this is a terrible idea, it must be great.

Good work.

Your comment is absurd just like your OP. Good Work!

The Trillion Dollar boondoggle they were lobbing for was going to have a negligible impact on human production of CO2 and environmental impact. It was set to reduce emissions by 0.x% which would be offset by increasing production in countries that didn't sign.

It makes no logical sense whatsoever. Global Warming is real, in that its been warming since the last Ice Age. Man's impact is a hoax. Efforts to "curb emissions" are geo-political and business/oligarchy related.

In the 80s/90s the US/Canada banned the majority of chemical production via regulations. It then went to China and increased exponentially. One might argue its better the West is less toxic but overall it did not decrease. So either you are a "racist" that is fine with offshoring pollution and descriptive processing/production or you care about the world and realize anything touched by Politicians is completely useless.

A hoax? Really man. It must suck to be a scientist and spend half your life collecting data and doing field work and have it immediately dismissed by someone who read a couple paragraphs on a blog once.

Appeal to Authority. Firstly no actual "scientist" believes man has had an impact on global warming. There isn't enough data. Some hold reservations or will say maybe but very few actually agree and if they do they are being disingenuous.

The 97% "Survey"...I mean... Study was entirely cherry picked and had manipulated data interpretations.

Really? Just a few? Of course science is a lot of guess work and predictions but to say no scientist believes that is just wrong.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WWGnjIUpDYU

Well a scientist either knows or doesn't know. Belief shouldn't and doesnt play a part in any real science. For what cannot be known we have theory and models. And their models failed so their beliefs are as useful as religious zealots.

Also the mercury problem already is being addressed.

https://www.gore.com/products/gore-mercury-control-systems#section24406

"Believes" was your phrasing. He just turned it around on you.

If you don't agree with the scientific community, then fine. Lost causes are lost causes. But stop spreading propaganda.

He turned around nothing. Learn definitions and origins of science before it was twisted into "Life Sciences".

Science is observation and experiment and without being able to prove your models with experimentation one cannot know anything. Their models are inaccurate and do not work.

CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE this means they are wrong. That is science. If someone is claiming they are correct in their theories when it doesn't match observational data they are not scientists they are shills.

It's very simple. A 10 year old, when informed about the evidence for a previous Ice Age can determine its getting warmer. Any predictive model that says "it's warming" is correct in that its warming. To prove CO2 you would have to use all the data they claim is causing the warming which they did and the climate models are WRONG.

Wow... That is a very informative graph. It does not include how prior to the 80's the temperature was rising at about 0.1 C a decade or how the industrial revolution has impacted global temperature. You're picking segments of data that you feel validate your stance without looking at the overall information. That's something that separates you from scientists. You just want to push an agenda, while the scientists look at the big picture.

The only conspiracy related to climate change is the propaganda campaign denying the science of global warming.

Focusing on a subsection of a cycle that exists over millions of years is not going to yield accurate information. If CO2 and temperatures was much higher 10,000 yrs ago, 100,000 years ago, or 1 million years ago = how did that happen? Was there an industrial globalized nation wiped out were not aware of? How could it have returned to an Ice Age if its not a natural cycle.

This is what separates scientists from propagandists.

You're reading your methane graph backwards. And you're claiming there's no relationship for CO2, while providing a graph that shows it.

Also, notice how sharp and distinct the rise and fall of temperature is in the past, but currently it is staying in roughly the same area? That's because of man. Notice there's also more CO2 than ever before? Also because of man. Higher CO2 means higher average temperature means ice melting means trapped methane being released means we are screwing ourselves by favoring profits over the planet.

Also, notice how sharp and distinct the rise and fall of temperature is in the past, but currently it is staying in roughly the same area? That's because of man.

That's because the chart is over the course of thousands of years and we haven't gone near the peak levels.

The estimates need to be looked at over long periods because any cross section would make it appear like a runaway reaction. Earth is believed to be millions of years old after all

And you're claiming there's no relationship for CO2, while providing a graph that shows it.

Temperature precedes CO2 rise. The causality can then be interpreted as increased temperature creates CO2. Impossible for backwards causality [without some underlying alternative mechanism - which is possible but not what is promoted].

You will notice they stopped promoting and publishing charts like these and now stick with averaged CO2 lines because it was painfully obvious for most people who can read data.

The subsections of the temperature chart are for 50k years, with the exception of the last looking at 20k years. It is not difficult to visualize a comparison of half of any of the 50k subsections in approximation to the final subsection. The impact is telling.

Again, you are reading the graph backwards. The X axis is going from past to present. So when reading left to right, if the temperature spikes and then CO2 spikes, it means the CO2 spike preceded the temperature spike.

The X axis is going from past to present. So when reading left to right, if the temperature spikes and then CO2 spikes, it means the CO2 spike preceded the temperature spike.

Absolutely false. In your own words.

It's also admitted yet claimed it doesn't contradict the model.

The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming. link

It of course fully contradicts the model. The entire claim is that CO2 increases temperature but if temperature increase precedes CO2 rise its a non argument. Correlation is not causation.

Mental masturbation.

Ah, good catch. So your graph that showed the pink CO2 line rising, then the blue temperature line rising to the right of it was showing that rises in CO2 cause rises in temperature. It also showed the drops in temperature result in drops of CO2. Good thing you're keeping an eye on what I am saying, otherwise, you might have believed your graph showed CO2 rises following temperature rises.

As for your new reference, maybe look at some of their articles that aren't over a decade old. Seems they came to realize that CO2 is a factor in climate change. But I guess that's the beauty of data. You can generally find something that supports your argument. Just don't ignore the mountains of opposing data.

As for your new reference, maybe look at some of their articles that aren't over a decade old. Seems they came to realize that CO2 is a factor in climate change.

Or someone is cooking data to "find" what they perceive as a predetermined cause.

Climate models are not accurate - literally pseudoscience.

You really like that graph. So what do you know about it? What data sets are being used by UAH to determine "reality?" What data sets are being used by RSS? How inclusive is the data? What do up-to-date comparisons show?

You make a claim of cooked data in recent reports by one of your sources, then you turn around and post old data that you feel agrees with your stance. That is very dishonest and hypocritical.

Wow, the fossil fuel industry's campaign to muddy the water has succeed in getting people even in here to parrot their propaganda. Sorry, but there is scientific consensus on global warming. You are misinformed and are intentionally or unintentionally spreading propaganda.

Even if there wasn't consensus, CO2 isn't the only pollution fossil fuels dump in are air and water. You know all the mercury that's in tuna fish wasn't there 100 years ago. It's a direct result of coal burning. We're trashing this planet and people like your are stoking the fires.

No there isn't a consensus and CO2 is not the problem. It's distracting you from Methane. CO2 is part of the carbon cycle and is plant food. More CO2 healthier and larger plants. [Heaven Forbid]

You know all the mercury that's in tuna fish wasn't there 100 years ago?

So the thread Im reading is about "climate change". Maybe you should focus on the ball and make one about lobbying for Mercury filters/scrubbers in coal plants.

You realize you just linked to right-wing propaganda? I linked to a government source with the actual studied, and you linked to an option piece.

Seriously what is your MO? You know the corporations muddied the water with tobacco, fat making you fat, and now with climate science. Why do you repeat their propaganda? Do you want to see this world burn? Do you have no children or grandchildren and just want to fuck this place on your way out?

Do you realize you linked to deep state propaganda?

Take a step back from your passion; it is causing you to be unable to be objective.

I'm not saying climate change isn't real.

I'm saying consider the evidence.

That is all I am going to say to you, because your emotional involvement is so high nothing anyone can say to you will cause you to consider any other information.

You will need to seek it yourself.

I actively seek out counter evidence to what I believe, so that I can remain objective. It's a particular human failing that we all share and is worsened by the emotional involvement.

So, push against confirmation bias. You may come out even more convinced that you're right, and you may find that one question which will lead you to better answers.

Remember, you've believed in lots of things over your lifetime that turned out to be wrong. We all have.

Do you realize you linked to deep state propaganda?

Read the actual paper that claims "97% Consensus." It's junk. "Scientists" included biologists and others across many disciplines. 8000 out of 12,000 refused agree to AGW, but said "it's possible." The authors then stated "they support the hypothesis". The 97% figure if memory serves was a subsection of the actual people surveyed or it was cherry picking and twisting of words.

Try to actually falsify beliefs and realize most "knowledge" is merely belief and narrative.

deep state

LOL. Today I learned that climate scientists from all over the world are "deep state".

This tells me our conversation is over. Best of luck to you.

Well if you're going to dismiss everything as "deep state" that goes against the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel corporations, I guess there's no way we can see eye-to-eye. Honestly I don't know what's going on with this sub. Lately we are pro-corporations, anti-consumer, anti-privacy rights.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6m4l1p/record_july_cold_in_both_hemispheres_how_did/?st=J4WJ9CRC&sh=50f945cc

Weather ≠ Climate

Watched a few minutes of that video and the author clearly does not understand the difference between weather and climate. Or they do and are intentionally spreading misinformation. The fossil fuel industry has an active campaign to muddy the water.

Translation: I am not willing to hear that which goes against what I currently believe, no matter who the expert is doing so.

Yet the trillion dollar initiative was simply goodwill for mankind. No money to be made with trillion dollar regulations and literally no tangible effect.

Have you considered you simply don't know who you are being a tool for?

trillion dollar initiative was simply goodwill for mankind.

If the end result is clean energy, then yes it's good for mankind. If some people get rich in the process of weaning us off of dirty fossil fuels, then I'm all for it.

Just like the tobacco industry muddied the water with cancer research, the coal, oil, and gas industry is doing the same with climate science. For every year we delay the transition to clean energy, they make more money.

This is how corporations operate. They don't have our best interest at heart. They don't care if policies trash the planet, all they care about is their stock price. At the end of the day, we will be the one to foot the tab to clean up the mess they leave behind.

You are proof that their campaign of misinformation was successful.

If the end result is clean energy, then yes it's good for mankind.

How Machiavellian.

Man's impact is a hoax.

You really think burning fossil fuels does not impact the environment? Can't do something for over 100 years and not expect it to affect the Earths cycle.

The narrative is a hoax [although you are correct it's possible]. Actual reproducible observations tell us it doesn't affect the environment except by putting CO2 back into the carbon cycle. Plants feed off CO2. CO2 produces larger plants. It's good for the environment.

If you want to argue about heavy metals, methane [actually problematic] again those are scientifically proven (negative) in observable experimentation and in large scale observation. But the push for "climate science" is focused on CO2. Maybe the question should be asked why the focus is wrong.

The Earth is alive. It's a living cell. It has a plasma sheath [ionosphere] which surrounds it, just as your living cells have have plasma membrane just as the sun is very similar to a plasma cell [white blood cell].

In the Earth's case the environment utilizes CO2 for growth and produces Oxygen. It's a naturally efficient ecosystem. The only way its not "natural" is if the Earth itself was engineered.

I agree, I don't understand why it's all pushed to CO2 output. Although CO2 is healthy for plants. It's not so good got animals. Needs to be the correct balance and we have been fucking with the balance for over a century (at least.)

It's not so good got animals.

Yet the plants produce oxygen in return which is good for animals. The easiest solution here seems to be seeding more efficient trees and seeding where its possible with natural foliage.

Or the most efficient way is to move away from fossil fuels and use renewables...

I'd frankly rather be an asshole than a sheep.

What happened 12,000 years ago that caused the Earth to warm up enough to melt the two mile thick sheet of ice covering North America then? Maybe there's a cycle to this whole Earth warming then cooling again that we don't quite understand yet.

Perhaps. But by acknowledging this lack of understanding you also admit you might be wrong.

We don't know? Is that your claim?

Therefore we might do terrible things by protecting our planet, making it better, saving our environment, just in case?

Where is the problem with that view?

Well, here is the fundamental problem with climate change. You are just trading the big oil mafia for the carbon tax mafia. That's the biggest reason people push back against it. We all want to use cleaner energy, but not if it means paying yet another tithe to the holy taxation fund.

no

The narrative is a hoax [although you are correct it's possible]. Actual reproducible observations tell us it doesn't affect the environment except by putting CO2 back into the carbon cycle. Plants feed off CO2. CO2 produces larger plants. It's good for the environment.

If you want to argue about heavy metals, methane [actually problematic] again those are scientifically proven (negative) in observable experimentation and in large scale observation. But the push for "climate science" is focused on CO2. Maybe the question should be asked why the focus is wrong.

The Earth is alive. It's a living cell. It has a plasma sheath [ionosphere] which surrounds it, just as your living cells have have plasma membrane just as the sun is very similar to a plasma cell [white blood cell].

In the Earth's case the environment utilizes CO2 for growth and produces Oxygen. It's a naturally efficient ecosystem. The only way its not "natural" is if the Earth itself was engineered.

I agree, I don't understand why it's all pushed to CO2 output. Although CO2 is healthy for plants. It's not so good got animals. Needs to be the correct balance and we have been fucking with the balance for over a century (at least.)

Do you realize you linked to deep state propaganda?

Read the actual paper that claims "97% Consensus." It's junk. "Scientists" included biologists and others across many disciplines. 8000 out of 12,000 refused agree to AGW, but said "it's possible." The authors then stated "they support the hypothesis". The 97% figure if memory serves was a subsection of the actual people surveyed or it was cherry picking and twisting of words.

Try to actually falsify beliefs and realize most "knowledge" is merely belief and narrative.

deep state

LOL. Today I learned that climate scientists from all over the world are "deep state".

The X axis is going from past to present. So when reading left to right, if the temperature spikes and then CO2 spikes, it means the CO2 spike preceded the temperature spike.

Absolutely false. In your own words.

It's also admitted yet claimed it doesn't contradict the model.

The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming. link

It of course fully contradicts the model. The entire claim is that CO2 increases temperature but if temperature increase precedes CO2 rise its a non argument. Correlation is not causation.

Mental masturbation.