Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: Evenbob

Bottom line is, trump just sucked the
life out of the GW fraud movement
by withdrawing our 2 trillion dollar
commitment to it. Without cash the
fraud will eventually dwindle and go
away, as all frauds for money do.

Quote: rxwine

You didn't show any critical thinking skills pretending only one side would be about making money.

Quote: JimRockford

2 Trillion? Where do you get that?

Quote: AZDuffman

Only the pro fraud side makes money when the fraud is allowed to continue. That is why they try to continue the fraud.

I have laid out my reasons to deny GW for years here. The pro-GW people rarely if ever lay out their reasons other than to say, "Listen to the Scientists! FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!"

Quote: rxwine

That has nothing to do with facts. Do you base the relevance of Einstein's theories on how many random people can answer any question you ask about them?

Your answer is about the money issue is just BS, not an answer to what I said.

Quote: rxwine

That has nothing to do with facts. Do you base the relevance of Einstein's theories on how many random people can answer any question you ask about them?

Your answer is about the money issue is just BS, not an answer to what I said.

Quote: Dalex64

Here are some facts.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Without any CO2 in our atmosphere, the average global temperature would drop from +15C to -21C

Temperature and CO2 concentration is strongly correlated.

During ice ages, the CO2 concentration ranged from 180 to 210ppm.

The average global tempature during the ice ages was 5C lower than it is now.

for 10,000 years, before the industrial revolution, the concentration of CO2 was 280ppm.

In the 150 years since, the CO2 concentration has slowly climbed to 400ppm.

That concentration is the highest it has been in 800,000 years.

At no other time has the concentration of co2 been measured to change as rapidly as it has changed in the past 150 years.

The only known cause of this change in co2 concentration is due to human factors - increases in burning and deforestation.

CO2 disolves into the oceans and is increasing their acidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Quote: kenarman

The scientific community has been producing computer models for a decade or more and they don't all accept the same model. The models are in a constant state of flux since they have not been good at predicting the changes we have seen and generally have overstated the rate of change. Do your research, including looking at the dissent by several Nobel Laureates, and use smell test and you will find the science is not settled.

Quote:

all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years.  CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce.