Rubio says he doesnt believe scientist. Let us stake the very survival of humanity on his uneducated

originally posted by: dieseldyk


If increased CO2 causes temperatures to rise, then this should not be true. But it is true and the reason why its true is because CO2 is an effect of temperature change, CO2 is not a cause. In the graph you can plainly see that CO2 lags temperature change. These "scientists" have violated the most basic scientific rule, cause and effect. And if the topic were not so politicized, more scientists would step forward and decry this sham.

Well if you want a real example of the effects of carbon dioxide and heat exchange look at the planets Mercury and Venus which is actually the scientific genesis of "global warming" prior to examining the impact here on Earth; or Al Gore and all the rest..

In short, Science and scientists had to explain why Mercury is considerably closer to the sun, but Venus is considerably hotter despite the fact that one is over a million miles closer to the sun. The answer is the run away green house effect on Venus, most notably CO2 which is now over 95% of the atmosphere.

The Earth is subject to the exact same scientific principles

It has the densest atmosphere of the four terrestrial planets, consisting of more than 96% carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 92 times that of Earth's. With a mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C; 863 °F), Venus is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. It has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor does it seem to have any organic life to absorb it in biomass. Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light. Venus may have possessed oceans in the past,[13][14] but these would have vaporized as the temperature rose due to a runaway greenhouse effect

en.wikipedia.org...

Here we go

I wonder how much opposition climate science would have in America if it wasn't for Al Gore's involvement. Other countries don't seem as politically divided on it.

Once Gore threw his hat in, half the country automatically denied it. Every snow storm made fox news and conservative radio flip out. If it wasn't for the chance to mock Gore, would they handle it different? Would they be as invested?

I can guess a persons climate beliefs with high accuracy just by knowing their political party. I think that sucks.

I almost never see counter arguments that take on the data either, it's always points about political interests and money.

a reply to: boymonkey74

so you agree with man made climate change? My sig is for you!

I admit climate change is the perfect excuse to point a finger at big oil and heavy polluters but are you aware that this excuse might be used to control the opinions and actions of people like you? Gullible to the point of pity. In fact thats exacly whats happening. I never needed climate change to be aware of the utter madness of these big corps. But the oil industry is not alone, there is the plastic industry too. So if you really wanted change, you would have to give up plastics which are a curse to this world. But which hypocrite here would dare to put his dear comfort away even for the sake of reversing the damages? Uh?

Look around, there are no real changes made in high polluting countries, they keep polluting more whatever these doom loving scientists say. Like they know the truth of it, a scam. But not only that, this whole scam is used to enforce more taxes and laws to control more and more the serfs population. And if you go deeper, you can imagine that man made climate change (or global warming for those that are still way behind..) is just a façade to hide something controversing and annoying and inescapable. Man made climate change gives the illusion that it still can be countered, by changing. But what about a cyclic unavoidable event? It doesnt leave any room for prevention or preparation since it is supposed to lead to a global catastrophe no matter what. Who would accept this? who would disclose this? It wouldnt benefit to anyone at all but true truth seekers.

But you know better, you saw "an inconvenient truth" by the great al gore, who got a nobel peace prize, like obama, who is a true blessing to america, aint it? Lol the hypocrisy is everywhere.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

It's really bad when people just flat out disbelieve science. Every scientist, except the few in the pocket of big fossil fuel companies knows that Man Made Global Warming is real. They just do, it's not a debate. Only in the US are we debating this.

a reply to: schuyler

That is the problem right there... People like you who think they know how to read a graph.



Just because the red line is often in front of the blue line when scanning the graph left to right, does NOT mean that the blue line is lagging behind the red line. It does not mean temperature changes are causing CO2 changes...



As shown above, 130000 years ago, it is actually the temperature that is lagging behind the CO2, if you read the graph correctly.

Another good example is 330000 years ago (almost the beginning of the graph) you see a huge spike in CO2 (blue), and then later temperature (red) increases. It keeps that same lag throughout the graph.

You have been reading the graph completely wrong.

You are still correct that warmer temperatures causes oceans to release trapped CO2, but it is also true that CO2 causes warmer temperatures. That causes what is known as the "CO2 Positive Feedback Loop" which is what the main concern is.

www.abc.net.au...

Even then, the existence of man-made climate change does not reply on graphs. It relies on scientific facts.

1: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Meaning it lets a certain wavelength of light in, but doesn't let a certain wavelength of light out. So it traps light / heat.

2: Humans are constantly increasing CO2 levels on Earth.

Those are the only two scientific facts you need to know are true to prove man-made global climate change is real. Yes, it is as simple as that.

Just saw on ED show that Rubio's district is probably going to be under water by 2100. LOL. Also there are many non political scientist around the world saying we are in trouble due to human CO2 emissions. Even conservative scientist...stop the political bull on such an important reality. Critical thinking a research is a must. Again not saying we need more taxes but our Government needs critical thinking leaders that will fund research into our environment.

a reply to: Xeven

Rubio is correct.
No, I'm not voting for him (if he runs).

a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

earth is NOT subject to the same principles, because earth and venus are different enough to assert that there are different rules as to how the two planets "function"

furthermore, if CO2 causes the "greenhouse effect", and we're producing all the CO2 here on earth, where did the CO2 come from on venus? what's causing it there?

a reply to: amazing

my god, man...an nonuple post....

as to what you said...you make it sound as if there is a scientific consensus regarding man-made global warming...there isn't.

you make it sound as if it's just a few radical scientists on the fringes, funded with oil money, who are the only ones saying that man-made global warming is bunk...that's not the case.

in the U.S. we're debating it, because we see what the con is....they want to make us feel guilty for drawing breath, and want to tax us into oblivion for it...

it's the holy grail of government control...tax people simply for being alive.

open your eyes, man....

i don't think there's anyone on here who's gonna tell you that man isn't polluting, and that it's not screwing some things up, but the idea that we are single-handedly responsible for climate change, is absolutely preposterous.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

then how do you explain rises in CO2, before we were producing all this CO2?

So Rubio doesn't trust the climate scientists, and we are supposed to stake our survival on that, eh? Let us first consider:

en.wikipedia.org...