patrick.net

I never said other pollution wasn't important. The middle east peace process is important too, as is keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terroists, and I think fighting malaria and aids are also noble causes; I would like to see world peace and a fairer distribution of profits in this country, raise the minimum wage, but we were talking about global warming and climate change.

marcus says

we were talking about global warming and climate change.

Yes, and I'm opening the door to the notion that we need to examine the ENTIRE BODY of evidence, organic emissions, CFCs, etc, not just one molecule, CO2.

Rin says

not just one molecule, CO2

I never said focus on one molecule. You obviously havent read any of the links or quotes I posted.

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

If you do some reading you would see that most climate scientists put c02 at something like 25 to 30% of the problem.

Yes, I already agreed on the chlorofluorocarbons & nitrous oxide because I know about their reactivity in photochemical states and the fact that they're pollutants.

And yes, increased solar activity will increase the above's activity.

marcus says

Here are two sources for info on greenhouse gasses. One doesn't include nitrous Oxide (why ?). The other puts it at 6%. The EPA says 5%

https://www.ameslab.gov/sustainability/where-greenhouse-gases-come

http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/climate_change/?651/ten-sources-of-greenhouse-gases-gallery

c02 is just the biggest single contributor. The fact that it is a natural part of our atmosphere and not toxic, doesn't negate the effects of having too much of it in the atmosphere.

The climate models were held aloft by the scientists themselves as portents of doom - illustrations of the predictability of the science, without which any theory falls to the status of hypothesis. And the models have almost universally been wrong in that regard. We are being told to panic on the basis of flawed models. We are giving away Nobel prizes on the basis of highly manipulated statistics from biased sources. The science behind meteor/earth collision on the other hand is not in doubt. The predictability of those models is highly accurate and statistically significant within the same 100 year time frame in which the climate alarmists frame the debate. Why not panic over that?

To answer your question on my political preference...I'm as independent as they come. (why would a republican be arguing to feed the poor and clean the air, anyway :-))

The panic is misplaced. We have better scientific evidence regarding perils to civilization than AGW can possibly muster. The fear factor isn't working this time. Try something else.

Only on the extreme end are they predicting doom, and those are the ones who say we are past the point of no return. But the consensus among over 90% in the science community is that it's a real threat and it is the result of greenhouse gases.

Many will not panic about it, including myself. But this is more of a flaw in human nature than anything else.

One could get more general about this and argue simply that we as a species and as a planet need to be more unified, for the eventuality of being able to tackle such problems as global warming or a meteor headed for collision.

In my opinion, threats of terrorism, pollution (and other environmental concerns such as overfishing) and violent rogue leaders, are all reasons why we would be well off to have a world government in the not too distant future. Something like the united nations, but an association with more power that is more effective than the UN is.

Nice cartoon. Without naming names, this is about the intelligence level of some of patnet's active right wing commentators.