|
| farmer4321 - 11/23/2018 21:13
Even trump & all the oil company lobbyist money in the world can't stop the message from getting out, from his own government no less.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
A hundred years ago, the Nobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius made the basic calculations that predicted anthroprogenic global warming due to burning fossil fuels and he has been proven right. People can deny it all day long and twice on Sunday but it will happen, count on it.
This post is illustrative of the ignorance about this matter. It assumes that Arrhenius' calculations, when used in calculations for projected future temperatures, are all that's needed to prove that there is a serious problem. Think about this for just a moment. If this were the case, there would be no debate about whether or not global warming is going to be a problem - and, of course, this is what farmer4321 wants us to believe. The inconvenient fact, however, is that the known warming from Arrhenius' calculations only imply a fraction of the warming that alarmists are saying will occur. And, it is generally agreed that the warming caused by those calculations will not create any serious problem. In fact, it might very well be beneficial.
So, farmer4321, I would ask you a very simple question. In your own words, with no scientific terms to complicate it, please tell us what the science consists of that shows where man-made CO2 is a significant factor in any catastrophic global warming. This is a very simple question, and one that is basic to whether or not we should base any policy decisions on the "science" of global warming. It is not a trick question, and it should not be a difficult question for anyone with any knowledge of this matter. And, yes, this is a market related question, since ethanol production is involved.
Farmer4321, I'll wait for your answer before I follow-up on this. After all, you are SO SURE of yourself when you post "People can deny it all day long and twice on Sunday but it will happen, count on it." | |
|
Ethanol and food vs fuel debate
