Quote:
You guys will also want to regulate methane as well, I guess, since it's a more potent GHG. Oh, and how do you plan on regulating water vapor, which is by far the most potent and significant GHG? I guess we'll also have to pay an extra tax on cows and sheep due to their tendency to emit lots of methane via farting and belching. Oh, and extra taxes on any crops, since they emit GHGs when their leftovers decompose. A baby tax, too, while you're at it, since the addition of another person will result in even MORE GHGs.
All the while ignoring the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that each unit of GHGs introduced into the atmosphere causes less warming than the previous unit.
Better forget, too, about the fact that humans account for only about 3% of CO2 emissions and about 5% of nitrous oxide. We account for about 18% of methane emissions, a fact that is bizarrely ignored - why is CO2, one of the most important gases on Earth, the target of the environmentalist left rather than methane? Oh, wait, CO2 is produced by anything and everything we do, which means they theoretically need to REGULATE anything and everything we do. How convenient.
You really think that mankind can have anything resembling an appreciable effect on the climate of a planet that is also influenced by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc.? I'm sorry, I have difficulty believing that. Also, note the trend of climate over the 20th century. Warming occurred at the beginning, then it cooled about halfway through despite significant emissions increases. Then it started warming again, and slowed down after the '90s. We're currently in a moderate warming trend, and this type of period is known as an interglacial period. Let me see... global warming or ice age? What a choice. I think I'll take the warming. Russians and North Dakotans certainly aren't complaining. Sea level rise, if it even becomes noticeable, is so freaking slow that by the time this lovely interglacial period ends, MAYBE some exceptionally low-lying islands and coastal areas would be flooded. The real rise, despite the Goracle's ravings, if it happened at all, would be measured in centimeters. The northern ice certainly won't have any effect - the majority of Greenland's ice, if it melted, would become a giant lake in a massive depression in the middle of Greenland caused by its own sheer weight. Oh, and then Greenland would be habitable as well. Sea ice would obviously have no effect on sea levels. The majority of Antarctica is cooling, however there is a certain infamous peninsula that IS losing ice. There's your "massive sea level rise."
Did I mention that, thanks to the warming, the Sahara desert has been retreating?
Guinea fowl galore, the above is a truly annoying comment.
Anything less than loads of facts dripping with sarcasm isn't anywhere close to annoying.
you know people would take you more seriously if you weren't so sarcastic, belittling and extreme. It is unbecoming on anyone but especially on a young person.
Sarcasm - yup. I love it. It gets a point across with more force, plus it comes naturally to me. Do note that I keep from actually insulting, however. You have no idea just how much of my posts I self-censor.
Belittling - wow. Criticizing others' positions is belittling now? Hmph. Guess that means everyone belittles everyone. I always thought belittling was subtly insulting a person, usually by implying stupidity. Extreme? What does that mean? Does it mean taking a stand on principle and refusing to compromise? Yep, guess I'm an extremist, and I'm proud of it. If it means "fringe ideas," I'll admit, I'm not exactly in the mainstream in a lot of areas. But what I just said? I fail to see how it's extreme in the least.
You guys will also want to regulate methane as well, I guess, since it's a more potent GHG. Oh, and how do you plan on regulating water vapor, which is by far the most potent and significant GHG? I guess we'll also have to pay an extra tax on cows and sheep due to their tendency to emit lots of methane via farting and belching. Oh, and extra taxes on any crops, since they emit GHGs when their leftovers decompose. A baby tax, too, while you're at it, since the addition of another person will result in even MORE GHGs.
All the while ignoring the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that each unit of GHGs introduced into the atmosphere causes less warming than the previous unit.
Better forget, too, about the fact that humans account for only about 3% of CO2 emissions and about 5% of nitrous oxide. We account for about 18% of methane emissions, a fact that is bizarrely ignored - why is CO2, one of the most important gases on Earth, the target of the environmentalist left rather than methane? Oh, wait, CO2 is produced by anything and everything we do, which means they theoretically need to REGULATE anything and everything we do. How convenient.
You really think that mankind can have anything resembling an appreciable effect on the climate of a planet that is also influenced by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc.? I'm sorry, I have difficulty believing that. Also, note the trend of climate over the 20th century. Warming occurred at the beginning, then it cooled about halfway through despite significant emissions increases. Then it started warming again, and slowed down after the '90s. We're currently in a moderate warming trend, and this type of period is known as an interglacial period. Let me see... global warming or ice age? What a choice. I think I'll take the warming. Russians and North Dakotans certainly aren't complaining. Sea level rise, if it even becomes noticeable, is so freaking slow that by the time this lovely interglacial period ends, MAYBE some exceptionally low-lying islands and coastal areas would be flooded. The real rise, despite the Goracle's ravings, if it happened at all, would be measured in centimeters. The northern ice certainly won't have any effect - the majority of Greenland's ice, if it melted, would become a giant lake in a massive depression in the middle of Greenland caused by its own sheer weight. Oh, and then Greenland would be habitable as well. Sea ice would obviously have no effect on sea levels. The majority of Antarctica is cooling, however there is a certain infamous peninsula that IS losing ice. There's your "massive sea level rise."
Did I mention that, thanks to the warming, the Sahara desert has been retreating?
Guinea fowl galore, the above is a truly annoying comment.
you know people would take you more seriously if you weren't so sarcastic, belittling and extreme. It is unbecoming on anyone but especially on a young person.
Sarcasm - yup. I love it. It gets a point across with more force, plus it comes naturally to me. Do note that I keep from actually insulting, however. You have no idea just how much of my posts I self-censor.
Last edited:
