Is it possible to change perception?

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah sure, let's just completely ignore that

93% of GHG is released through natural processes Source? Define "Natural"

CO2 has the lowest greenhouse effect of any of the GHG's No one is arguing that CO2 is the least potent GHG, but thanks? What you're potentially alluding to is a major concern pertaining to methane previously trapped in polar ice -- that ice is now melting as a result of rising global temperatures and subsequent methane is being released into the atmosphere https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24670769

Water vapor by and large is the biggest greenhouse effect culprit https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around See above

The only graphs showing temperature following CO2 do not include a few major climatic events What graphs are you referring to? What events are missing?

But please tell me again how humans are the sole cause of rising temperatures. Here's what you actually said:

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just look at "global Warming", how many people believe whole heartedly in that nowadays despite the lack of scientific evidence

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

93% of GHG is released through natural processes Source? Define "Natural"

CO2 has the lowest greenhouse effect of any of the GHG's No one is arguing that CO2 is the least potent GHG, but thanks? What you're potentially alluding to is a major concern pertaining to methane previously trapped in polar ice -- that ice is now melting as a result of rising global temperatures and subsequent methane is being released into the atmosphere https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24670769

Water vapor by and large is the biggest greenhouse effect culprit https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around See above

The only graphs showing temperature following CO2 do not include a few major climatic events What graphs are you referring to? What events are missing?

But please tell me again how humans are the sole cause of rising temperatures. Here's what you actually said:

Uh oh, another climate conspiracist is among us!

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's what you actually said:

I'm well aware of what I said. You're trying to play the lefts little game though. The argument about global warming is not about whether it is happening, but about whether humans are the main driver. If you make any attempt to debate that humans are not the main culprit, then you're inundated with temperature readings as if to insinuate that you do not believe the temperature is rising, and therefore a fool.

Anyway, enjoy the climate circle jerk. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind, nor do I have any interest in changing your mind. And why would I? I'm not even saying that humans aren't the driver of climate change, we could very well find some smoking gun or non conjecture based science in years to come that proves it. However there is far too much information that has to be outright ignored to believe in this concept that the mainstream just accepts as gospel at present time.

[msommers]

I literally asked you for some evidence to support what you're saying and you won't do it because you're not going to "play the Left's little game." Dude this is how science fucking works. If you genuinely have something to share, then share it because I'd like to read it.

Not some bullshit cop-out of:

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I literally asked you for some evidence to support what you're saying and you won't do it because you're not going to "play the Left's little game." Dude this is how science fucking works. If you genuinely have something to share, then share it because I'd like to read it.

Not some bullshit cop-out of:

I would love to share links with you, but I don't make a point to set bookmarks everytime I get far enough down a rabbit hole to find some real information. And as I mentioned I'm not n a mission to convince the world about anything. But here is one that didn't take a ton of searching. Relating to CO2 lagging temperature increase.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warm...ce-core-graph/

If you're honestly curious, then consider what you just said "This is how science works"!! If you have a basic understanding of scientific method, then this entire man made climate change idea leaves a shit ton of questions unanswered. The number one rule for good science, is that Correlation does NOT equal Causation. And looking at the climate change hypothesis, it is all correlative data being used to make the claim. When global temps fluctuate closer with solar activity than they do with CO2, that leaves some unanswered questions before a claim can be made that humans are the main factor driving global warming.

I find it weird that nobody seems to recall what was kind of a big news story about 10-13 years ago, when the main panel that tracks temps and builds models had their email hacked, and it was found that they purposely manipulated data by omitting areas that had cooler temps, and including areas that had exceptionally warmer temps. Which was done to ensure their models would demonstrate the rising temperature claim. For some reason it is next to impossible to even find articles about this nowadays. But the fact that someone had to physically manipulate data to demonstrate a thesis everyone just blindly accepts as fact raises more questions.

Even on NASA's link that dipshit provided, they post the falsified claim about 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is mainly caused by humans. Even if the number is only 80%, that's still pretty telling. So why was this deceitful questionnaire ever created in the first place that was sent to scientists who wrote papers on climate change? Side note on the NASA link, it's also ironic that the tab he linked to is labeled "evidence" but doesn't contain any actual evidence, just a long written opinion piece with virtually no data. Another side note on NASA, the latest article I saw recently was claiming that NASA's satellite images are showing increased ice formation in the poles despite our higher global temperature.

Honestly this goes on and on. Like I said, I'm not by any means saying that humans are not in any way responsible. I'm a man of science, and what I see from a scientific perspective doesn't lend a lot of proof to the claim currently. As I said, perhaps in the future we will have some concrete science, but right now there is too many other variables that have to be ignored for this to be correct. It raises even more questions when you start accounting for the weird anecdotal coincidences as well.

Like how all the scientists that refute the claim have nothing to gain and a lot to lose, yet all the scientists in favor of the claim have a lot to lose by the claim being refuted.

CO2 is actually required for life, and if drops below 180ppm that stops, crops also increase in yield at higher CO2 levels. But you don't hear much about the risks of a man made decrease in atmospheric CO2.

Even with temps rising, the likelihood is that we are going to be wiped out by an ice age due to a natural environmental factor like a super volcano.

Lots of talk about how detrimental increased temps would be.......................for certain parts of the planet. Don't hear much about the benefits that would happen in other parts of the world. Increased global averages doesn't just make the earth uninhabitable. A good portion of it is already too cold for habitation. Increased temps actually increase our temperate zone.

Anyway, I'm off for the day. Keep it real.