Global warming rate could be halved by controlling 2 pollutants, U.N. study says
I thought CO2 was the problem.The projected rise in global temperatures could be cut in half in coming years if world governments focused on reducing emissions of two harmful pollutants - black carbon and ground-level ozone, including methane - rather than carbon dioxide alone, according to a U.N. study released Wednesday.
Seriously, do none of you AGW proponents see the problem with any of this?
The problem with denying the science is that you and Wile E. Cobra do it.
I can't logically conclude global warming is true based on the fact that you both are consistantly, and provably wrong so often.
But I can take your opinions as good barometers as to how much skepticism I should give to any given topic or idea.
Not a very good way to approach a decision, Random. But, okay, whatever checks your boxes.
Finally Yoni, you posted something of use. I am totally stealing that!
I have asked you very often for any data that might support some of the ideas or opinions you express here.
You consistantly fail to back up your beliefs and ideas with actual data. Further, even when you present ideas or "facts" they almost always turn out to be half-truths that seem to have the only intent to deceive.
The only reasonable thing to conclude is that you don't base your opinions on facts or the full truth.
Can you show me ONE instance where I have asked for you to support your ideas with data and you have actually done so?
I can't think of any.
Sorry, I don't really pay attention to you.
But, seriously, if CO2 was the big booga boo last week, why all of a sudden is the UN (parent of the IPCC) refocusing on two other gases?
If it was warming, but now cooling, what's up with that?
I thought the time for debate was over - that's what Al "I've-got-a-carbon-footprint-the-size-of-Africa" Gore told me.
And data shmata, the Global Warmists have shown how valuable is data. They rely on models that are terribly unreliable and have to be adjusted almost daily. They make up data. They hide data. They misrepresent Data and on.
I don't need data to show none of the ing predictions these idiots made in the 70's have come true...and that none of the predictions these idiots made in the late 90's is coming true. The snow on Kilamanjaro wasn't melting because of global warming. The glaciers aren't receding. There isn't less ice. There aren't fewer Polar Bears.
It's a ing scam... For what? Money.
SEC Charges Seven in Global Warming Pump-and-Dump Scheme
If Al Gore wasn't the former next President of the United States, his carbon credit scam, off of which he's making bazillions from idiots like you and Justin Bieber, would probably get his ass thrown in jail.
Again, I'll start paying attention to all this nonsense when those who say global climate change is a crisis start acting like global climate change is a crisis.
It's really because I don't think it's about science. The planet warms, it cools, it gets damn cold and it gets damn hot. It's done it since the beginning of time; it's what it does. It's done it since before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line.
So you keep saying.
I don't really pay much attention to you either. Your stupidity and regular dishonesty makes you easy to discount.
Congatulations.
High praise from you.
So, we need to use biomass cook stoves and we need to reduce cow farts to save the planet?
I'm in.
Luckily for us "deniers", more and more people are beginning to wake up to the fact that all this climate change "science" is just a bunch of bull . We are also lucky that our politicians aren't stupid enough (except in CA) to tax the out of our energy use.
RG, keep up the good fight.
I'll get right on that.
In the meantime, you want to prove God or Unicorns don't exist?
I'm gonna need some data.
Luckily for us "deniers", more and more people are beginning to wake up to the fact that all this climate change "science" is just a bunch of bull . We are also lucky that our politicians aren't stupid enough (except in CA) to tax the out of our energy use.
RG, keep up the good fight.
The problem is that you seem to neither understand the paragraph you posted, nor the science as it stands.
I try to be reasonable and fair when asking for things.
If someone says X is a problem, I simply ask for some information on the scope and severity.
, I even admit when someone I disagree with brings up a valid point, such as Yoni bringing up the fact that some poeple abuse en lement programs.
The problem with people with extreme political views is that they take these valid points and magnify them into the realm of ridculousness.
Case in point:
Yoni: If we don't stop sending foreign aid, it will bankrupt us.
He takes a valid point, i.e. we have a short-term deficit problem, and then magnifies that into a huge problem that can only be solved by cutting all foreign aid, something he probably despises anyway. "don't let a good crisis go to waste" or something similar, I guess.
This claim goes into the realm of ridiculousness when it turns out foreign aid, via USAID, is something like 0.27% of the federal budget, the part he either was unaware of, or deliberately left out.
"I thought CO2 was the problem."
It IS the problem, along with all the human activity is dumping into the air, water, land.
"seriously ..."
... You Must Be Joking ... if you, a shill, expect to be taken seriously. Along with WC and Jack, you post in studied bad faith.
I try to be reasonable and fair when asking for things.
If someone says X is a problem, I simply ask for some information on the scope and severity.
, I even admit when someone I disagree with brings up a valid point, such as Yoni bringing up the fact that some poeple abuse en lement programs.
The problem with people with extreme political views is that they take these valid points and magnify them into the realm of ridculousness.
Case in point:
Yoni: If we don't stop sending foreign aid, it will bankrupt us.
He takes a valid point, i.e. we have a short-term deficit problem, and then magnifies that into a huge problem that can only be solved by cutting all foreign aid, something he probably despises anyway. "don't let a good crisis go to waste" or something similar, I guess.
This claim goes into the realm of ridiculousness when it turns out foreign aid, via USAID, is something like 0.27% of the federal budget, the part he either was unaware of, or deliberately left out.
I understand what you are getting at.
Honestly, i get why you would debate Yoni like that; I just grabbed a single line from the thread and posted a quip.
Just call me "Chump, Light"
LOL...
How many times have I pointed to black carbon.... Anyone...
Bueller... Bueller...
Funny how they didn't mention Asia, but mentioned the things we already do.So, we need to use biomass cook stoves and we need to reduce cow farts to save the planet?
I'm in.
LOL...
I can't speak for God, or his unicorns, but I know gremlins are real!
Gremlin:
We chase gremlins away on a daily basis on from our equipment at work."small imaginary creature blamed for mechanical failures," oral use in R.A.F. aviators' slang from Malta, Middle East and India said to date to 1923. First printed use perhaps in poem in journal "Aeroplane" April 10, 1929; certainly in use by 1941, and popularized in World War II and picked up by Americans (e.g. "New York Times" Magazine April 11, 1943). Of unknown origin. Speculations in Barnhart are a possible dialectal survival of O.E. gremman "to anger, vex" + the -lin of goblin; or Ir. gruaimin "bad-tempered little fellow." Surfer slang for "young surfer, beach trouble-maker" is from 1961 (short form gremmie by 1962).
he definitely understands it better than you.
So you guys acknowledge the warming and just dispute the cause now.
Alright.
Yep, I do...
Let me break it down for you RG.
They now say AGW could be halved if we concentrate on those two toxins.
Instead of, not in addition to.
What didn't I understand, they've changed their minds about AGW, once again.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-28-2011 at 06:40 PM. Reason: (removed snark)
What world you live in? Fox News world?
Seriously, are you able to think independently of one source? I find it so hilarious when people are totally convinced they're right about a subject despite actually having no clue. Blind obedience carrying them to their own intellectual bankruptcy.
Yes, the glaciers are receding. Is it everywhere? No, only alpine glaciers are calving at an alarming rate and they hardly account for the surface mass balance of ice. Their disappearance isn't a threat to the global ecosystem, but they are viewed as an indicator for the Earth's atmosphere (almost like a continuous trend in tree line translation). Even if ice sheets were calving quickly it wouldn't become a "crisis" for thousands of years. However, we may be attributing to (notice I didn't say causing) an extinction event that is even worse than what the dinosaurs experienced.
Data from the 70's? Wow. We have technology now using gamma rays, seismic profiling, gps monitoring stations etc.... where data is amazingly sound. If the data isn't credible, the scientists don't use it because there is no grand agenda behind it. It's this new technology that provides your right wing lobbyists with an argument so they can influence weak minded people.
Try talking to someone who actually knows what they're talking about before adopting their opinion.
Have we developed our understanding of our climate since then?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
