SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (21) down (22)
SciShow - Humanity breaks an ominous record

SciShow - Humanity breaks an ominous record

(3:30) At the end of this year, we'll have the most carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since humans began. And that is a problem, as Hank explains. SciShow YT channel

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Nay sayer (2221 days ago)

Why do the nay sayers get tagged as 'Sceptics' when in fact they are conspiracy theorists, but people who have legitimate claims against the government get tagged as 'Conspiracy nuts' when in fact they are sceptics.

Reminds me of George Carlin, and how the yanks had started to bastardise their adopted language to suit the elites into tricking a dumbed down nation. Still continues at pace.

ReplyVote up (182)down (145)
Original comment

Why do the nay sayers get tagged as 'Sceptics' when in fact they are conspiracy theorists, but people who have legitimate claims against the government get tagged as 'Conspiracy nuts' when in fact they are sceptics.

Reminds me of George Carlin, and how the yanks had started to bastardise their adopted language to suit the elites into tricking a dumbed down nation. Still continues at pace.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Patrick Hrushowy (2222 days ago)

Please at least get a fact checker. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels were five times higher in the past. I have no idea why you would agree to post something that was so completely fictiscious.

ReplyVote up (217)down (193)
Original comment

Please at least get a fact checker. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels were five times higher in the past. I have no idea why you would agree to post something that was so completely fictiscious.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (2222 days ago)

Your failure to read, "since humans began", and failure to hear, "since the advent of humanity" in the initial sentences shows bias against believing. Are you a paid poster financed by the Koch brothers or just a Fox news fan?

ReplyVote up (192)down (184)
Original comment

Your failure to read, "since humans began", and failure to hear, "since the advent of humanity" in the initial sentences shows bias against believing. Are you a paid poster financed by the Koch brothers or just a Fox news fan?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2221 days ago)

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant, my blind, deaf and retarded uncle used to say.

Actually, that could be him posting, Hey Bongo!!

ReplyVote up (191)down (158)
Original comment

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant, my blind, deaf and retarded uncle used to say.

Actually, that could be him posting, Hey Bongo!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Submitted as a guest (2222 days ago)

97% of the climate researchers cant be wrong Patric, the last 3% researchers is probably pro carbon fuel lobbyists/ sponcered fact deniers or just poorly educated researchers. Theres really no choice left, now get into the fight and get real.

ReplyVote up (179)down (169)
Original comment

97% of the climate researchers cant be wrong Patric, the last 3% researchers is probably pro carbon fuel lobbyists/ sponcered fact deniers or just poorly educated researchers. Theres really no choice left, now get into the fight and get real.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2221 days ago)

Oh dear lord, you and others keep bringing up this incorrect statistic. There was no survey about how many climate researchers believe in anything. It was all about cherry picked papers and how many of those mentioned the possibility that humans are the cause. There is no direct correlation between the number of papers and the percentage of scientists.

The study has already been debunked and was shown that the results have been doctored.

ReplyVote up (191)down (171)
Original comment

Oh dear lord, you and others keep bringing up this incorrect statistic. There was no survey about how many climate researchers believe in anything. It was all about cherry picked papers and how many of those mentioned the possibility that humans are the cause. There is no direct correlation between the number of papers and the percentage of scientists.

The study has already been debunked and was shown that the results have been doctored.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Another guy (2221 days ago)

Eh, I see you don't know what you are talking about also.

There was no cherry picking of anything.

97% of all peer reviewed papers about climate change all indicate the same thing. We are f-ing up the world. And by we I mean multinational companies, americans (3 cars per person, 8 cylinder pieces of shit), and the chinese government (burning tonnes of coal, to compete with america).

Some papers are written by the same person, but they are all peer reviewed and each report differs slightly from others. That is the statistic, which is competely true and real.

Please link this "study" which debunked a strawmans argument, please.

ReplyVote up (180)down (173)
Original comment

Eh, I see you don't know what you are talking about also.

There was no cherry picking of anything.

97% of all peer reviewed papers about climate change all indicate the same thing. We are f-ing up the world. And by we I mean multinational companies, americans (3 cars per person, 8 cylinder pieces of shit), and the chinese government (burning tonnes of coal, to compete with america).

Some papers are written by the same person, but they are all peer reviewed and each report differs slightly from others. That is the statistic, which is competely true and real.

Please link this "study" which debunked a strawmans argument, please.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2221 days ago)

The nature that they have to be peer reviewed, by definition, is cherry picking.

If you really understood global warming, you would know that animal farming produces more greenhouse effect than all the transportation methods combined so I don't know why you mention the number of cars per person and the number of cylinders they have. You should be talking about how many animals people eat each year instead.

Here is the link you requested: LINK

ReplyVote up (157)down (156)
Original comment

The nature that they have to be peer reviewed, by definition, is cherry picking.

If you really understood global warming, you would know that animal farming produces more greenhouse effect than all the transportation methods combined so I don't know why you mention the number of cars per person and the number of cylinders they have. You should be talking about how many animals people eat each year instead.

Here is the link you requested: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2221 days ago)

Thank you. I didn't have the time to post again until now.

It is interesting about the major cause of greenhouse gas being with animal farming but the boreme users are following a red herring and trying to fix transportation.

The real inconvenient truth is that everyone should become vegetarians if you want to save the planet from global warming but they pick transportation instead. Even building with the manufacturing of cement is a huge cause of CO2 creation but no, let’s not consider making houses and buildings out of different materials. Let’s take away our transportation so nobody can work or go grocery shopping unless everyone can do that from home.

ReplyVote up (164)down (126)
Original comment

Thank you. I didn't have the time to post again until now.

It is interesting about the major cause of greenhouse gas being with animal farming but the boreme users are following a red herring and trying to fix transportation.

The real inconvenient truth is that everyone should become vegetarians if you want to save the planet from global warming but they pick transportation instead. Even building with the manufacturing of cement is a huge cause of CO2 creation but no, let’s not consider making houses and buildings out of different materials. Let’s take away our transportation so nobody can work or go grocery shopping unless everyone can do that from home.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2218 days ago)

See above post for a better response than the 'red herring'. If you can read statistical information properly, you'll find that farming sans transport actually accounts for less gas house emissions than transport. There are other factors, but don't let that distract you from distracting ;-)

ReplyVote up (162)down (149)
Original comment

See above post for a better response than the 'red herring'. If you can read statistical information properly, you'll find that farming sans transport actually accounts for less gas house emissions than transport. There are other factors, but don't let that distract you from distracting ;-)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2218 days ago)

It may be less total gas but it's a more dangerous gas -- methane. It's worse than CO2 so has a bigger impact on the green house effect.

ReplyVote up (111)down (163)
Original comment

It may be less total gas but it's a more dangerous gas -- methane. It's worse than CO2 so has a bigger impact on the green house effect.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2221 days ago)

You’re welcome. I agree that the temperature has increased slightly in the last 100 years but I’m skeptical about the cause. I don’t dedicate as much time to posting about it as you do. Users already nagging me because I’m a banker.

I do keep up with what is being posted about AG and find it interesting. Boreme users require that papers are peer reviewed but have no problem when Neil Degrass or Bill Nye speak up on TV — those interviews are not peer reviewed. Neither scientist, by the way, is a climate scientists.

I’m a vegetarian and proud of it. I don’t do it for AGW. I could easily have a healthy diet without the killing of those animals.

ReplyVote up (129)down (172)
Original comment

You’re welcome. I agree that the temperature has increased slightly in the last 100 years but I’m skeptical about the cause. I don’t dedicate as much time to posting about it as you do. Users already nagging me because I’m a banker.

I do keep up with what is being posted about AG and find it interesting. Boreme users require that papers are peer reviewed but have no problem when Neil Degrass or Bill Nye speak up on TV — those interviews are not peer reviewed. Neither scientist, by the way, is a climate scientists.

I’m a vegetarian and proud of it. I don’t do it for AGW. I could easily have a healthy diet without the killing of those animals.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2218 days ago)

Wow, you replied.

As a confessed banker I would have expected you to understand statistics a little better. It is true that worldwide Farming (Including transport by the way, so if you deduct this it is actually less than transport) creates more greenhouse effects than transport (Slightly) but you neglecting to take many (other) factors into consideration.

One, of the more than 7 billion people in the world, all of them need to eat, and do eat. The most part eat meat or nuts as a source for protein while dairy (milk/cheese) is hugely important to our diets. Vegan, Vegetarian or other all need foods that require transport.

Two, of the more than 7 billion people in the world, not all of them need to drive. In fact more people in the world don't drive than do. So yeah, I won't be telling the starving skinny non car driving kid in Africa to stop eating certain foods but I will tell that fat ignorant person driving a truck in a town to stop.

Three, if everyone in the world were to live like an american resident, we would need 4.5 times the entire world's resources. Of the percentage of humans who own vehicles, americans are the worst pollutants. There is a trend here, try to spot it.

Four, vegetables need to be transported also. No country in the world produces enough vegetables to even sustain its nation with enough nutritional food to last a month. Transport of food is enevitable unless we stop eating food and pop pills or we stop using transportation and start localizing food production to the detriment of the capitalistic market you so love and adore.

Five, If we stopped all farming production tomorrow, there will still be millions of animals that produce methane gas. Should we start a war on cows, sheep and deer? Lead by the valiant american war machine of course. If people stop eating meat, it will not remove the problem.

So if you can read statistics, without resorting to childish 'pick the biggest number' rhetoric, you might actually understand the problem.

ReplyVote up (174)down (146)
Original comment

Wow, you replied.

As a confessed banker I would have expected you to understand statistics a little better. It is true that worldwide Farming (Including transport by the way, so if you deduct this it is actually less than transport) creates more greenhouse effects than transport (Slightly) but you neglecting to take many (other) factors into consideration.

One, of the more than 7 billion people in the world, all of them need to eat, and do eat. The most part eat meat or nuts as a source for protein while dairy (milk/cheese) is hugely important to our diets. Vegan, Vegetarian or other all need foods that require transport.

Two, of the more than 7 billion people in the world, not all of them need to drive. In fact more people in the world don't drive than do. So yeah, I won't be telling the starving skinny non car driving kid in Africa to stop eating certain foods but I will tell that fat ignorant person driving a truck in a town to stop.

Three, if everyone in the world were to live like an american resident, we would need 4.5 times the entire world's resources. Of the percentage of humans who own vehicles, americans are the worst pollutants. There is a trend here, try to spot it.

Four, vegetables need to be transported also. No country in the world produces enough vegetables to even sustain its nation with enough nutritional food to last a month. Transport of food is enevitable unless we stop eating food and pop pills or we stop using transportation and start localizing food production to the detriment of the capitalistic market you so love and adore.

Five, If we stopped all farming production tomorrow, there will still be millions of animals that produce methane gas. Should we start a war on cows, sheep and deer? Lead by the valiant american war machine of course. If people stop eating meat, it will not remove the problem.

So if you can read statistics, without resorting to childish 'pick the biggest number' rhetoric, you might actually understand the problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2218 days ago)
Latest comment:

You may have misunderstood the study. Are you SS.ATM by any chance?

The study said that Livestock (a.k.a., Cattle-rearing) generates more global warming gases (as measured in CO2 equivalent) than transportation.

People are still expected to eat and they could consume vegetables. The growing of plants actually reduce CO2 because they consume the carbon from the atmosphere. Animals, on the other hand, inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 and release methane which is much worse to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

Livestock farming accounts for 37% of all human-induced methane which is 23 times warming as CO2. That kind of farming also produces 64% of ammonia which adds to acid rain. The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector.

If you really care about the temperature of this planet, you would stop eating livestock and get all your friends and family to stop too. You would be helping more than not driving your car or converting your gas car to use electricity which would come from coal.

ReplyVote up (155)down (172)
Original comment
Latest comment:

You may have misunderstood the study. Are you SS.ATM by any chance?

The study said that Livestock (a.k.a., Cattle-rearing) generates more global warming gases (as measured in CO2 equivalent) than transportation.

People are still expected to eat and they could consume vegetables. The growing of plants actually reduce CO2 because they consume the carbon from the atmosphere. Animals, on the other hand, inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 and release methane which is much worse to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

Livestock farming accounts for 37% of all human-induced methane which is 23 times warming as CO2. That kind of farming also produces 64% of ammonia which adds to acid rain. The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector.

If you really care about the temperature of this planet, you would stop eating livestock and get all your friends and family to stop too. You would be helping more than not driving your car or converting your gas car to use electricity which would come from coal.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2221 days ago)

"The nature that they have to be peer reviewed, by definition, is cherry picking."

BAHAHAHA. LOL, yeah 'cherry picking' the most correct answer.

Peer review has no confirmation bias, so is not by definition cherry picking. Nor is there reward.

Your link, you have got to be kinding, right? A fox puppet. Here is the link you'd want to look at LINK

Which shows Taylor's writing to be nothing more than the scriblings of an idiot. You will also see links to other studies which claim a 97% agreement on the causes of global warming.

Nice try troll.

ReplyVote up (164)down (164)
Original comment

"The nature that they have to be peer reviewed, by definition, is cherry picking."

BAHAHAHA. LOL, yeah 'cherry picking' the most correct answer.

Peer review has no confirmation bias, so is not by definition cherry picking. Nor is there reward.

Your link, you have got to be kinding, right? A fox puppet. Here is the link you'd want to look at LINK

Which shows Taylor's writing to be nothing more than the scriblings of an idiot. You will also see links to other studies which claim a 97% agreement on the causes of global warming.

Nice try troll.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2221 days ago)

Cherry picking.

Scientists who write studies so that they can be peer reviewed don't receive a cent in reward where as Taylor has plenty of reward from fox news etc. One has motive, the other not.

Scientist don't have bias when conducting studies nor when they review them. They base their finding against a set of laws governing mathematics ,logic etc. Taylor on the other hand has plenty of bias as his motive is to find evidence to support an already held claim. Shoehorning I believe it is called. One has motive, the other not.

I know who cherry picks their data.

While you're looking for the other 3% of claims that support your flimsy argument, I'll sit here safe in the knowledge that the 97% (32.33 times more than 3%) of studies which contradict you is not mob ruled, but the words of unbiased men and women.

ReplyVote up (175)down (172)
Original comment

Cherry picking.

Scientists who write studies so that they can be peer reviewed don't receive a cent in reward where as Taylor has plenty of reward from fox news etc. One has motive, the other not.

Scientist don't have bias when conducting studies nor when they review them. They base their finding against a set of laws governing mathematics ,logic etc. Taylor on the other hand has plenty of bias as his motive is to find evidence to support an already held claim. Shoehorning I believe it is called. One has motive, the other not.

I know who cherry picks their data.

While you're looking for the other 3% of claims that support your flimsy argument, I'll sit here safe in the knowledge that the 97% (32.33 times more than 3%) of studies which contradict you is not mob ruled, but the words of unbiased men and women.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2221 days ago)

You have claimed before that peer review is cherry picking. Maybe you can explain your reasoning?

As for that link, it basically says that John Cook's survey was indeed correct - that 97% of peer reviewed climate research papers (which incidently were chosen by keyword searches, not cherry picked) do agree that humans have caused some global warming.

Skeptics claim that the survey doesn't say how much warming is caused by human activity. Skeptics claim humans have not caused enough global warming to worry about. Is that what you think?

ReplyVote up (155)down (171)
Original comment

You have claimed before that peer review is cherry picking. Maybe you can explain your reasoning?

As for that link, it basically says that John Cook's survey was indeed correct - that 97% of peer reviewed climate research papers (which incidently were chosen by keyword searches, not cherry picked) do agree that humans have caused some global warming.

Skeptics claim that the survey doesn't say how much warming is caused by human activity. Skeptics claim humans have not caused enough global warming to worry about. Is that what you think?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2221 days ago)

From the dictionary:

Cherry pick, verb, "selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available."

The act of cherry picking completely discounts the 750 scientists (not papers) that wrote to the congressional committee on climate change. That document lists the scientist's name, their credentials, and why they do not believe in AGW. That document showed that 100% of scientists disagree that climate change is human caused.

There is a problem in the scientific community. If you disagree with your employer, you can lose your job. The scientists that do not agree must have tenure before becoming outspoken. Money comes from the government for research and the government has expectations that you will say that AGW is true so your research better say it is or you will lose your funding for more research.

If you used the peer reviewed process to prove God exists, 100% of papers peer reviewed by preachers would show that there is a God. How many preachers that wrote a paper about God not existing would be allowed to keep their jobs?

ReplyVote up (166)down (139)
Original comment

From the dictionary:

Cherry pick, verb, "selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available."

The act of cherry picking completely discounts the 750 scientists (not papers) that wrote to the congressional committee on climate change. That document lists the scientist's name, their credentials, and why they do not believe in AGW. That document showed that 100% of scientists disagree that climate change is human caused.

There is a problem in the scientific community. If you disagree with your employer, you can lose your job. The scientists that do not agree must have tenure before becoming outspoken. Money comes from the government for research and the government has expectations that you will say that AGW is true so your research better say it is or you will lose your funding for more research.

If you used the peer reviewed process to prove God exists, 100% of papers peer reviewed by preachers would show that there is a God. How many preachers that wrote a paper about God not existing would be allowed to keep their jobs?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2220 days ago)

I’m glad you pointed out the 750 list of scientists who disagree with AGW is cherry picking. Tell that to cengland0, he seems to think it’s valid.

In John Cook’s survey, the papers were chosen by a keyword search of scientific research during a 20 year period. 97% of papers that were relevant agreed with AGW. That is not cherry picking.

Surveying preachers on the existence of God is like asking scientists on the existence of gravity. Of course they will tend to agree. But if you agree that evidence matters, then you should respect scientists and not preachers.

Surveying what climate research papers say about AGW is like surveying what Bible experts say about Noah’s Ark. If you respect the expertise of climate scientists, then you should listen to what they say. If you respect Bible experts, the same applies.

As far as I’m aware, scientists make their name by finding fault, not by agreeing. And that is what funds new research. Doubt is what needs investigating.

Sure there are scientists who falsify data for their own personal gain, or under pressure - maybe those working for Exxon? They are the 3%.

Thing is, science works. Peer review is core to the scientific method that has produced the amazing products and achievements we have today. As they say, the proof is in the pudding.

ReplyVote up (160)down (154)
Original comment

I’m glad you pointed out the 750 list of scientists who disagree with AGW is cherry picking. Tell that to cengland0, he seems to think it’s valid.

In John Cook’s survey, the papers were chosen by a keyword search of scientific research during a 20 year period. 97% of papers that were relevant agreed with AGW. That is not cherry picking.

Surveying preachers on the existence of God is like asking scientists on the existence of gravity. Of course they will tend to agree. But if you agree that evidence matters, then you should respect scientists and not preachers.

Surveying what climate research papers say about AGW is like surveying what Bible experts say about Noah’s Ark. If you respect the expertise of climate scientists, then you should listen to what they say. If you respect Bible experts, the same applies.

As far as I’m aware, scientists make their name by finding fault, not by agreeing. And that is what funds new research. Doubt is what needs investigating.

Sure there are scientists who falsify data for their own personal gain, or under pressure - maybe those working for Exxon? They are the 3%.

Thing is, science works. Peer review is core to the scientific method that has produced the amazing products and achievements we have today. As they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2220 days ago)

It is wrong to try to prove a hypothesis by surveying scientists and asking if they agree with the hypothesis. This is not how science works. It's even worse to read papers written by them to see if they mention anything about anthropological climate change and then use that as the basis for evidence.

I suggest you and other people that believe in AGW start providing evidence instead of just stating that 97% of scientists think it’s true (when scientists were not surveyed, a bunch of papers were read instead). Science does not care about the opinions of scientists and only cares about evidence.

Try answering the questions that skeptics have instead of just repeating the same bogus 97% figure over and over again.

ReplyVote up (174)down (158)
Original comment

It is wrong to try to prove a hypothesis by surveying scientists and asking if they agree with the hypothesis. This is not how science works. It's even worse to read papers written by them to see if they mention anything about anthropological climate change and then use that as the basis for evidence.

I suggest you and other people that believe in AGW start providing evidence instead of just stating that 97% of scientists think it’s true (when scientists were not surveyed, a bunch of papers were read instead). Science does not care about the opinions of scientists and only cares about evidence.

Try answering the questions that skeptics have instead of just repeating the same bogus 97% figure over and over again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2220 days ago)

Nobody has said the surveys are proof of anything. The surveys just show that 97% of research into climate change say humans are a significant cause. It's up to you how to interpret that fact.

ReplyVote up (174)down (163)
Original comment

Nobody has said the surveys are proof of anything. The surveys just show that 97% of research into climate change say humans are a significant cause. It's up to you how to interpret that fact.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2220 days ago)

When asked to provide proof, all we keep hearing is that 97% of climate scientists agree. That is not proof and it's not 97% of scientists that agree. It's 97% of peer reviewed papers that discussed climate change had some mention that humans did produce a minor amount of CO2. That does not mean humans are the cause of global warming.

You and your fellow brain-wahsed-by-the-media users do not have any evidence so the only thing you can fall back on is an old statistic of some research papers that was already debunked and proven to have been doctored.

Try answering this question, for example. During the majority history of this planet, the average temperature was around 25C. We are way below that and are coming out of an ice age. Previous dips in temperature due to some catastrophic event like a super volcano or asteroid has recovered back to 25C. Give us evidence that 25C is not the normal temperature of this planet and that the temperature would not rise if humans did not exist (noting that humans were not around the last couple times the planet’s temperature rose).

ReplyVote up (177)down (110)
Original comment

When asked to provide proof, all we keep hearing is that 97% of climate scientists agree. That is not proof and it's not 97% of scientists that agree. It's 97% of peer reviewed papers that discussed climate change had some mention that humans did produce a minor amount of CO2. That does not mean humans are the cause of global warming.

You and your fellow brain-wahsed-by-the-media users do not have any evidence so the only thing you can fall back on is an old statistic of some research papers that was already debunked and proven to have been doctored.

Try answering this question, for example. During the majority history of this planet, the average temperature was around 25C. We are way below that and are coming out of an ice age. Previous dips in temperature due to some catastrophic event like a super volcano or asteroid has recovered back to 25C. Give us evidence that 25C is not the normal temperature of this planet and that the temperature would not rise if humans did not exist (noting that humans were not around the last couple times the planet’s temperature rose).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2219 days ago)

We have discussed climate change for a very long time on BoreMe. This is how it has gone - I come up with a killer argument, you have no answer so you raise a new point. That continues for a bit until you run out of points. Then you start all over again. At least cengland0 had the grace to stop spouting climate nonsense when he ran out of points.

Your 25C question - we discussed that before. It's the wrong time period. It's irrelevant. Please concentrate.

And as for wanting proof, how do you prove a prediction?

ReplyVote up (177)down (162)
Original comment

We have discussed climate change for a very long time on BoreMe. This is how it has gone - I come up with a killer argument, you have no answer so you raise a new point. That continues for a bit until you run out of points. Then you start all over again. At least cengland0 had the grace to stop spouting climate nonsense when he ran out of points.

Your 25C question - we discussed that before. It's the wrong time period. It's irrelevant. Please concentrate.

And as for wanting proof, how do you prove a prediction?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (2220 days ago)

climate change is going to happen, but it's going to be a good thing for me.

Too bad for the brownies and blacks in the southern hemisphere, but fu*k em anyway.

ReplyVote up (172)down (171)
Original comment

climate change is going to happen, but it's going to be a good thing for me.

Too bad for the brownies and blacks in the southern hemisphere, but fu*k em anyway.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Climate Factor, global warming warning from 1984
The Climate Factor, global warming warning from 1984
Greener plastics that use CO2
Greener plastics that use CO2
New thinking on climate change
New thinking on climate change
Climate change, isn't it just natural?
Climate change, isn't it just natural?
Answers With Joe | The worst greenhouse gas might surprise you
Answers With Joe | The worst greenhouse gas might surprise you