Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I believe you could do with a nap.

---

So, no information?

---

Plenty, just nothing to support the paranoia against carbon dioxide.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s? Maybe your scared to answer the question

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

---

No freak out since you don't know if CO2 is up. Nothing to see, I guess.

I am enjoying watching people run from the question, though. Why does it scare y'all?

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I believe you could do with a nap.

---

So, no information?

---

Climate change may be controversial, but one thing is for sure...we're all gonna die before you get an answer.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

---

No freak out since you don't know if CO2 is up. Nothing to see, I guess.

I am enjoying watching people run from the question, though. Why does it scare y'all?

---

i didnt run from the question, I asked why the answer to the question was important for a call to action.

If the answer is yes but it isnt harmful.. nice trivia question infor

If the answer is no and its not harmful then who gives a sh..

Now, answer the question I asked but you have been dodging

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

---

No freak out since you don't know if CO2 is up. Nothing to see, I guess.

I am enjoying watching people run from the question, though. Why does it scare y'all?

---

i didnt run from the question, I asked why the answer to the question was important for a call to action.

If the answer is yes but it isnt harmful.. nice trivia question infor

If the answer is no and its not harmful then who gives a sh..

Now, answer the question I asked but you have been dodging

---

I know CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s and are twice as high than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
I don't know if it is significant. I'm not making any policy recommendations

You still haven't answered my question: Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

They're still quite low. Nurseries buy CO2 to saturate the air in their greenhouses to get max plant growth.

The war on carbon is one of the most ironic aspects of climate hysteria. We are far closer to "too little" carbon than "too much."

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

I can't tell you off the top of my head what were CO2 levels in the 50's. I do know the science is pretty clear that they're increasing, in the low end of their historic range, that mankind has a very small effect on them, that their cause-effect with climate is not exactly settled science, and that mankind would flourish more with higher global temps than lower relative to today.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

---

No freak out since you don't know if CO2 is up. Nothing to see, I guess.

I am enjoying watching people run from the question, though. Why does it scare y'all?

---

i didnt run from the question, I asked why the answer to the question was important for a call to action.

If the answer is yes but it isnt harmful.. nice trivia question infor

If the answer is no and its not harmful then who gives a sh..

Now, answer the question I asked but you have been dodging

---

I know CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s and are twice as high than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
I don't know if it is significant. I'm not making any policy recommendations

You still haven't answered my question: Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

sure, lets go with yes. I believe they have.. i also believe it doesnt matter all that much and fossil fuel emissions are not the main problem.

But you already knew all of that..

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

It is odd you're citing sources from agencies that were not around in the 1950s, and not obvious why NASA would be monitoring CO2 levels as part of its mission to put a man on the moon.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

---

No freak out since you don't know if CO2 is up. Nothing to see, I guess.

I am enjoying watching people run from the question, though. Why does it scare y'all?

---

i didnt run from the question, I asked why the answer to the question was important for a call to action.

If the answer is yes but it isnt harmful.. nice trivia question infor

If the answer is no and its not harmful then who gives a sh..

Now, answer the question I asked but you have been dodging

---

I know CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s and are twice as high than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
I don't know if it is significant. I'm not making any policy recommendations

You still haven't answered my question: Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

sure, lets go with yes. I believe they have.. i also believe it doesnt matter all that much and fossil fuel emissions are not the main problem.

---

Thanks for the answer.

What is the main problem?

"What is the main problem?"

The assumption that I owe you anything just because you are ruled by fear.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

---

If atmospheric CO2 levels were 1,000 times higher than 1959 what would you breathe (what would the effects on oxygen levels? I think that would matter.

If all man-made carbon emissions ceased I don't know what the effect on global temperatures would be in 100 years.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

---

so you cant point to any significant reason that rising CO2 is bad but we need to freak out that CO2 has risen? Alright..

---

No freak out since you don't know if CO2 is up. Nothing to see, I guess.

I am enjoying watching people run from the question, though. Why does it scare y'all?

---

i didnt run from the question, I asked why the answer to the question was important for a call to action.

If the answer is yes but it isnt harmful.. nice trivia question infor

If the answer is no and its not harmful then who gives a sh..

Now, answer the question I asked but you have been dodging

---

I know CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s and are twice as high than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
I don't know if it is significant. I'm not making any policy recommendations

You still haven't answered my question: Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

sure, lets go with yes. I believe they have.. i also believe it doesnt matter all that much and fossil fuel emissions are not the main problem.

---

Thanks for the answer.

What is the main problem?

---

deforestation and pollution are great problems to tackle. Gross pollutants, especially those happening in foriegn countries betond our ability to control.. It would be great if our government actually worked with those other countries to have them bring their standards equal to ours and stop making ours overly strict in order to offset their gross pollution.

As for rising CO2, that would probably take care of itself if we tackeld the real problems

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

---

If atmospheric CO2 levels were 1,000 times higher than 1959 what would you breathe (what would the effects on oxygen levels? I think that would matter.

If all man-made carbon emissions ceased I don't know what the effect on global temperatures would be in 100 years.

---

That should be the starting point of the discussion. If we accept all of this authoritarianism what crisis will be averted and is their another mitigation strategy that does not involve authoritarianism.

Honestly, we are all going to die. Sadly, without Joey at the helm.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

---

If atmospheric CO2 levels were 1,000 times higher than 1959 what would you breathe (what would the effects on oxygen levels? I think that would matter.

If all man-made carbon emissions ceased I don't know what the effect on global temperatures would be in 100 years.

---

That should be the starting point of the discussion. If we accept all of this authoritarianism what crisis will be averted and is their another mitigation strategy that does not involve authoritarianism.

---

I agree

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

---

If atmospheric CO2 levels were 1,000 times higher than 1959 what would you breathe (what would the effects on oxygen levels? I think that would matter.

If all man-made carbon emissions ceased I don't know what the effect on global temperatures would be in 100 years.

---

The trend is your friend. They'd continue rising like they were before man tamed fire.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

It is odd you're citing sources from agencies that were not around in the 1950s, and not obvious why NASA would be monitoring CO2 levels as part of its mission to put a man on the moon.

---

Their mission is now to Promote Muslim contributions to American history. At least per Obama

Fre3dombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

It is odd you're citing sources from agencies that were not around in the 1950s, and not obvious why NASA would be monitoring CO2 levels as part of its mission to put a man on the moon.

---

Their mission is now to Promote Muslim contributions to American history. At least per Obama

---

That returns to the hypothesis that global warming / cooling has nothing to do with actual climate change.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

It is odd you're citing sources from agencies that were not around in the 1950s, and not obvious why NASA would be monitoring CO2 levels as part of its mission to put a man on the moon.

---

Their mission is now to Promote Muslim contributions to American history. At least per Obama

---

That returns to the hypothesis that global warming / cooling has nothing to do with actual climate change.

---

What hypothesis?

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

It is odd you're citing sources from agencies that were not around in the 1950s, and not obvious why NASA would be monitoring CO2 levels as part of its mission to put a man on the moon.

---

Their mission is now to Promote Muslim contributions to American history. At least per Obama

---

That returns to the hypothesis that global warming / cooling has nothing to do with actual climate change.

---

What hypothesis?

---

I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

It's amazing they can get otherwise seemingly somewhat educated people to believe it while dorks like Al Gore are worth > $100m

Useless eaters these fools.

Some I've heard even use Vostok to try to support their theories of global warming

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

---

Do you believe NASA & NOAA when they say CO2 rates have doubled since the 50s? This question seems to scare a lot of people on this board.
If atmospheric CO2 has not increased there is no reason to do anything.

Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Your explanation seems complex, not simple and straight forward

---

I do not know, but sure let's say they are 1,000 times higher than 1950s. The question is why does it matter and can man really do anything about it that would make any impact.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emission today, what impact would it have on global temperatures in 100 years? That is the question that we should be asking. If it is not significant then why bother with any of this authoritarianism?

It is odd you're citing sources from agencies that were not around in the 1950s, and not obvious why NASA would be monitoring CO2 levels as part of its mission to put a man on the moon.

---

Their mission is now to Promote Muslim contributions to American history. At least per Obama

---

That returns to the hypothesis that global warming / cooling has nothing to do with actual climate change.

---

What hypothesis?

---

I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

---

Naw, you can't explain it because you don't understand it

Fre3dombear said:

---

It's amazing they can get otherwise seemingly somewhat educated people to believe it while dorks like Al Gore are worth > $100m

Useless eaters these fools.

Some I've heard even use Vostok to try to support their theories of global warming

---

Do you deny that CO2 levels are twice what they were in the 1050s?
This question is so scary that most on here won't even answer it. Are you one of those?

Osodecentx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

It's amazing they can get otherwise seemingly somewhat educated people to believe it while dorks like Al Gore are worth > $100m

Useless eaters these fools.

Some I've heard even use Vostok to try to support their theories of global warming

---

Do you deny that CO2 levels are twice what they were in the 1050s?
This question is so scary that most on here won't even answer it. Are you one of those?

---

scary.. you misspelled useless

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

---

Agreed

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

---

Agreed

---

Oso, do you know you just agreed with me on something?

Are you feeling all right?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

---

Agreed

---

Oso, do you know you just agreed with me on something?

Are you feeling all right?

---

Oso is a good one, he does like to set verbal traps though

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

---

Agreed

---

Oso, do you know you just agreed with me on something?

Are you feeling all right?

---

Oso is a good one, he does like to set verbal traps though

---

I'm having roast beef for New Year's. Not sure even how long you cook Verbal, much less how to clean one.

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

---

Agreed

---

Oso, do you know you just agreed with me on something?

Are you feeling all right?

---

Oso is a good one, he does like to set verbal traps though

---

I agreed with Harrison's post, not every post that preceded it.

It's Harrison's reputation I'm ruining

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The strange thing to me, is that Oso has a good grasp of the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s to address water and air pollution, especially removing particulate matter and metals from the water and air.

Clear evidence of harm was proven, and specific, reasonable actions were taken where the damage was clear to correct the problem and improve the environment.

The whole Carbon hysteria is just that, because nothing being done by politicians and media comes anywhere close to scientific proof of harm, reasonable and measure-able corrective actions, or effective debate on the issue. Instead, we see endless screeds of catastrophe, no proof of threat, no effective actions proposed, and anyone who questions the screamers is attacked and harassed as a 'denier'.

It's a mob frenzy, and nothing but.

---

Correct. Real, identifiable, local environmental problems should be addressed. Authoritarian fascism disguised as global warming / cooling should be laughed off by anyone serious as little more than the latest version of Marxism. However, it is alarming how easily they duped idiots with rona disinformation, so this will be worse.

---

Agreed

---

Oso, do you know you just agreed with me on something?

Are you feeling all right?

---

Oso is a good one, he does like to set verbal traps though

---

I agreed with Harrison's post, not every post that preceded it.

It's Harrison's reputation I'm ruining

---

Yes you did.

I made a statement, which Harrison called "correct", and to which you succinctly posted "agreed".:

It's not a bad thing to agree with me when I am right.

Just don't take my advice on sports betting.