Another diversion, but so it goes. My YouTube profile must be growing, as reflected by the creepy clowns crawling out of the woodwork to take pot shots at me, reminds me of some cheap zombie horror movie.
A favorite meme is: CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past, as though that has anything to do with today's world and the reality of adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2 on top of the natural flux into our climate system every month after month. One would think Republican types would know all about accumulating compounding interest and what that can do to numbers in a hurry - it doesn't just work that way in the financial world. Why they ignore such simple rational fundamentals, is beyond me.
Another favorite, goes like this:
CC writes:
Great so you object. Now do you have any objective evidence to support what you believe.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dude (I'll going to start using the generic Dude for multiple YouTube characters) writes:
A lot, actually.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php
Here's a small (but informative) collection of evidence. If needed, I can provide a lot more.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CC writes:
All you folks seem to point to co2science, watts up with that, has it become your bible or something? It's run by the Idso Clan who are paid spokesmen for Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil - it has been shown to dishonestly represent the science. But that's all you got - and you refuse to look beyond your smug little certitude.
But, learning requires some times getting out and assessing the reality going down on this one and only planet of ours - that we depend on for everything. A bit of healthy self-skepticism would go a long way too.
~ plus~
What about all the information and detailed explanations and the hundreds of referenced papers that are collected in there???
also see:
Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test
September 9, 2013
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dude writes:
The IPCC? You are really going to reference people who still believe in the hockey stick graph and a 97% consensus? OK.
Here's a lot more papers (1,350+):
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
