I have not. I've posted far more proof here on a dozen threads than anybody. You forget it as soon as I post it and "Doctor" Dave won't read any of the other threads. I'm tired of repeating myself time and time again to people who refuse to listen. If you have an argument to deny the scientific case for global warming then make it. That's what I thought.
The quantification of AGW claims for warming due to CO2 is a moving target. That, in itself, shows that the science for AGW is at best uncertain. And, it is a fact that CO2 level has increased from 280 to 380 ppm in the atmosphere. That is an increase of >25%. What % has the Earth's temperature increased during the same time? If it is NOT uncertain, then let's hear was the consensus quantified contribution is. BTW, the Maldives still exist, record early snowfall is occurring in Pa. and plants are more prolific than they have been in a long time around the Earth, due to life-giving CO2.
if you are not calling for political action, then why not? is the future of human kind not at risk? my case is simple. the earth has always violently changed. to expect anything different would be crazy.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Dude, if you are trying to make a point, then go find the numbers, don't expect me to fill in the blanks in your knowledge. And this is relevant, how?
Level one is to get you to accept science and logic instead of mythology. You don't get to go to level two until you finish level one. Your case is simply wrong. Natural geologic and climatic changes are immensely slow. The very rapidity of the AGW curve is what is alarming.
again, if you think humanity is really at risk, shouldnt you favor political solutions? methinks you afraid of the question. is the species at risk or not? isnt that what the science shows? you are simply incorrect. climate changes have been severe and speedy in the past. we should expect nothing different. "abrupt climate changes have occurred throughout the Earth's history" "studies of the Earth's previous climate suggest periods of stability as well as periods of rapid change." Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA that article is by the EPA. perhaps they are a right wing front for the oil industry?
We had a long discussion on this subject in a recent global warming thread. Your attention span is short. Not my problem. Yes, they have occurred but they are not the norm. Those "natural cycles" that you keep referring to are not rapid changes, they are very slow changes. On occasion a supervolcano or a meteor impact can cause a rapid change event. Significantly those events are accompanied by mass extinctions . . . like the one that is already occurring now, the one associated with rapid anthropogenic global warming. The Current Mass Extinction: Scientific American
your non-political solutions are completely pointless. you cant just say "we should do this". you might as well say that the solution to crime is that people should just quit being criminals. i thought i just told you you were wrong. have you been smoking?
That article 'The Current Mass Extinction' is dated 2000. Do you know if there has been a follow up examination of the data?
