@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Quote:I never posted anything about any 'consensus
You are starting from a place of "I am right, and therefore what is wrong with doing something about what I am right about?" Let's see how that pans out.
No, I'm starting from a place of, "100% certainty is impossible, but we should understand the relationship between climate and the biosphere; and the natural biosphere absorbs CO2 and stores it up underground together with energy as fossil fuel, so it makes sense to restore to and adhere to that natural carbon/energy cycle as much as possible."
It isn't that difficult to narrow roads and grow more trees to shade pavement. It isn't that difficult for more people to use transit and have more mixed residential/commercial developments so people don't have to drive. It isn't that difficult to reduce energy use and gradually install more solar panels and wind generators while phasing out fossil fuels and nuclear.
The only thing that's difficult about these reforms is that more sustainable economic activity involves less production and sales, and people don't want to get and spend less money. Otherwise, it's just a question of reducing waste and restoring land to trees and nature within and outside of cities as much as possible.
Quote:You are being asked to provide the number of scientists who make up the 97% consensus concerning dangerous global warming. Can you cite a source to validate the notion that anthropogenic Co2 is dangerous? For instance, link me to scientific studies that lay out how the predicted dangers are occurring.
Do you understand how CO2 reflects infrared light? Do you understand the relationship between infrared light and heat? It's unclear when you talk about scientific consensus, whether you even understand basic science. You're arguing over something you haven't even bothered to understand how it works.
Quote:The fact is that none of the dire predictions from climate alarmists throughout the decades have come to pass. Reconcile that.
Vehicle exhaust has gotten cleaner due to emissions controls, but CO2 and H2O (and waste heat) are the waste products of combustion that can't be abated except by reducing fuel consumption. CO2 is invisible but reflects infrared light, and H2O causes mist/fog at night that blankets heat. Ever more land is being cleared of trees and replaced with pavements and buildings that can't absorb CO2 and only absorb sunlight and heat up the air.
Quote:Also, are you of the opinion that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming? Conversely, are you of the opinion that global warming does not precede increases in Co2?
The climate and biosphere are co-determinant. That means that the climate affects how species in the biosphere grow and evolve, and that how species live affects the climate. All the fossil fuels underground are there because carbon and energy were absorbed in the biosphere and allowed to naturally settle over time to become dense oil/coal/gas. To maintain that natural carbon-cycle, we have to allow the land to continue to host trees and other organisms; and we have to ascertain what the natural function of underground fossil fuel is when humans don't dig/pump it up and burn it on the surface. Geological climate has evolved together with the biosphere, so we shouldn't just assume fossil fuels and nuclear fuels are just sitting underground doing nothing waiting for humans to bring them to the surface and use them to drive around and cool/heat buildings.
