You're a sweet kid. Don't let anyone ever change that about you.
Who funds that foundation?
you've sworn complete allegiance and faith in the mainstream but suddenly cast grave suspicion toward someone with opposing data.
They don't have opposing data. They have a graph from a different website that shows nothing that comes close to contradicting climate change.
You're using a website as evidence, please tell me where that website gets its funding from.
It has nothing to do with faith or allegiance to anything. 9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, intelligent designers, anti vaxers, it's about knowing when you're getting hoodwinked. And youre radar is fucking broken.
I dont know why everyone has always gotta be all Nega-Scientist when talking about anthropogenic global warming... I only ever see articles talking about oceans rising 30 feet, polar bears dying, and shitty island nations disappearing...
why not do a study on the possible positives of the "projected" global warming like higher inland rainfall totals, increased land usage at higher latitudes, year round northern passage shipping lanes, longer growing seasons, and the destruction of Miami and New Orleans for starters
not everything is bad, from a biology and human survival standpoint an ice age (or cooling by a few degrees) is much more dangerous than global warming
I dont know why everyone has always gotta be all Nega-Scientist when talking about anthropogenic global warming... I only ever see articles talking about oceans rising 30 feet, polar bears dying, and shitty island nations disappearing...
why not do a study on the possible positives of the "projected" global warming like higher inland rainfall totals, increased land usage at higher latitudes, year round northern passage shipping lanes, longer growing seasons, and the destruction of Miami and New Orleans for starters
not everything is bad, from a biology and human survival standpoint an ice age (or cooling by a few degrees) is much more dangerous than global warming
Obviously the last point is a matter of scale. Recent glacial maxima only made some places unlivable, much like how (anticipated) global warming will only make some places unlivable. Due to the much smaller circumference near the poles than at the equator the balance of land that becomes accessible to agriculture may not offset the increased desertification of current marginal farm land, but ultimately those are the sorts of matters that are currently actually debatable.
Conditions of the Little Ice Age are much more favorable than many of the possible outcomes of continued global warming. As I said before, the questions are a matter of "how much". Not "if".
Comments
Leave this to the pros.
You're using a website as evidence, please tell me where that website gets its funding from.
It has nothing to do with faith or allegiance to anything. 9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, intelligent designers, anti vaxers, it's about knowing when you're getting hoodwinked. And youre radar is fucking broken.
four yr old article
nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1874.html
science20.com/news_articles/are_loss_projections_ice_sheets_greenland_and_antarctic_high_or_low_yes-116357
Either way, it will be interesting.
why not do a study on the possible positives of the "projected" global warming like higher inland rainfall totals, increased land usage at higher latitudes, year round northern passage shipping lanes, longer growing seasons, and the destruction of Miami and New Orleans for starters
not everything is bad, from a biology and human survival standpoint an ice age (or cooling by a few degrees) is much more dangerous than global warming
Conditions of the Little Ice Age are much more favorable than many of the possible outcomes of continued global warming. As I said before, the questions are a matter of "how much". Not "if".