Get used to it.

Try looking at the real numbers for a change. Total man made CO2 amounts to 40 billion tons per year. The total weight of the atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons. Divide 40 billion by 5.5 quadrillion, and you get 7 parts in a million. Is 7 parts in a million worth destroying jobs and the economy, and destroying our standard of living for??? I think not. I suggest the global warmers look else where other than man made CO2.

 

What the warmest don’t realize is that all the true dire predictions don’t even happen this century. They find a weather created issue today then conflate it worldwide with zero proof but plenty of emotion.

 

Denial of data/observable evidence-check.

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.
...................................................................................................
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_lessons.html

 

Yes, and . . . ? I certainly don't deny that atmospheric CO2 has increased. I dispute the notion that this has any particularly dire climate consequences.

 

Typically these threads devolve when climate change deniers do their......you know.......denial thing.

 

Due to being in a 2.5 million year ice age earth has been in an almost critical CO2 deficit. Higher CO2 allows plants to grow faster and bigger and decrease the quantity and size of stoma allowing plants to require less water, something critical for food production and water use. The lowest level plants can thrive at is around 170ppm. CO2 has been much higher than today for most of earths history.

 

Typically these threads start when warmists do their……you know…..fear mongering thing.

 

Let us know when the IPCC has a model that makes accurate predictions instead of politicized unscientific fearmongering claims.

 

If you go back millions of years CO2 concentrations were routinely above 1000ppm and as high as 4000ppm with some but low correlation with global temperatures (a couple of times with negative correlation). It is interesting to note that the global temperature varied by no more than 5 degrees C over 400 million years, the same that the extreme predictions say might occur now within 100 years.

 

The disingenuous part of the graph is tacking two completely different measuring formats together to push an agenda.

 

Therein is the real crux of the issue.

 

There are no naturally occurring events (like volcanic eruptions) to account for this.




It's been caused by man's burning of fossil fuels.

 

If you go back far enough, the Earth is just a swirling gas cloud, so what is your point? The Earth was once just a hot swirling cloud, so what the heck, pollute the heck out of it. We have a long way to go to get back to a hot swirling gas cloud.

 

It’s based on a theory not evident in the historical record.

 

There is a man made explanation for your graph tacking two disparate measurements together to push an agenda that the uninformed are susceptible to believing.

 

You know, God made the planet just for people. God is so great that there is no way in hell that we could ever destroy the planet. If it gets too polluted, do not worry, God will fix it, like he always does. (sar)

 

Science not your thing eh?

 

That is very probably correct. But the important question is, "So what?" which is usually answered with emotional doomsday speculations, not statistics or science.

 

You highlighted one of the many ways in which the position of the deniers falls apart.

 

Statistics, science, and the observable effects of climate change are usually answered with emotional denials as a reflexive response in opposition to anything Dems are trying to do.

 

My point was not nearly that elusive and unrelated. My point was that the earth has had, for very long periods of time, CO2 concentrations 3 to 10 times or more greater than today with no discernible disastrous temperature consequences.

 

At that same time, where were humans farming out in the open and living exactly...?

We are a species born of the climate post ice age. We are not a species that thrived under the conditions you are describing above. So while we may survive it, there will be a cost. A significant one, in dollars to such a climate change. We shouldn't spend money contributing to it. That is, money on increasing the chemicals that are known to trap heat in our atmosphere. We should spend money ensuring we do nothing to accelerate such a change even if it's natural. Otherwise it will cost money and lives. Though you seem OK with spending money on it...which is weird.

 

Naturally occurring fluctuations in CO2 levels have resulted in average temperatures on earth being 10 degrees higher than current ones as well as ice ages. Both of which would be disastrous to life on Earth.

 

A difficult post to parse, but, can you point to any observable effect from climate change other than a small seemingly increase in global temperature?

It's unrelated to global warming, but reflexively opposing anything today's Democrats want to do is extremely rational.

 

These are softball questions you should be aware of the answers to already.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/...ojects that climate,more at 2 degrees warming.

If there was any factual pretense for opposing efforts to slow climate change (or any position Dems take) that haven't been thoroughly debunked you'd have presented them by now. You haven't.