Reducing pollution is contributing to global warming?

[HawkinsHollow]

Oh wait should I lay on top of that graph population change over that same time?

You must be one of those folks that thinks all scientists (except the ones that deny climate change) are in on the hoax to screw you out of your cheap gas and right to pollute how you see fit.

This seems to me to prove more than speculation or subjectivity.

 

[workinonit]

That's a purdy little graph. Did you throw that together?

 

[Tinhack]

Yeah, all the "I smell something" crowd keep blaming humans for the rise in temperatures. That made sense by all the graphs but what they don't tell you is ALL the planets in our solar system are rising in temperature. Are we moving people there now? Who's to blame for that.

 

[ljgordon]

1 degree C, 1.8 F since 1888, yes, 1888 is not a great deal of global warming.

 

[Doughknob]

 

[Cub 7275]

LoL...So if you believe the crap about AGW,,,WHERE IS THE PROOF???...
FYI...just because something is believed by a majority does not make it so...where is the proof???...where's the beef...?..
Sorry to inform you that it simply does not exist...it is nothing but pure speculation and subjectivity...

Since you keep asking, watch Dan Britts video "Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate" which discusses climate history going back 500 million years. He explains how they determine the climate of the past, the trends it has followed and covers just about everything imaginable including the effects from orbit, volcanoes, sun spots, rock weathering, agriculture, etc. It is actually quite interesting:

 

[Cougsfan]

It is absolutely amazing to me how people think that scientist are all part of a secret evil underground society that is conspiring to trick people into thinking climate change is real. The purpose for them doing this is part of liberal plan to force us all into doing things that are highly inconvenient and will only have the effect of destroying our economy as we know it. To support this belief, these people cherry pick anomalies that can be construed in a context that supports their belief, while choosing to ignore the overwhelming data that discredits their beliefs.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what any one of us believe, what is going to happen is going to happen. Nor does anyone of us know the true extent of the effects (good, bad or indifferent) of dumping vast amounts of each particular human made ingredient into the environment. To bet that some of those ingredients won't eventually have significant dire effects on humanity seems like a rather poor bet to me.

 

[Snobdds]

View attachment 757772
Oh wait should I lay on top of that graph population change over that same time?

You must be one of those folks that thinks all scientists (except the ones that deny climate change) are in on the hoax to screw you out of your cheap gas and right to pollute how you see fit.

This seems to me to prove more than speculation or subjectivity.

Ice is great about keeping CO2 locked away.


Neat graph though...I'm sure many bad arguments have been made from it.

 

[/pine]

All you have to do is follow the money...simple as that...
There is no belief that "all" scientists are part of some conspiracy etc...
And FYI...the only cherry picking that is being done is by the liberal side of the equation...
Again...There is no "overwhelming" evidence unless of course you use convoluted, misconstrued and purposely tainted data...which they have....which is why there are so many gullible people...!

 

[HawkinsHollow]

OK, because all climate deniers are the smartest, most well educated of our society. . YES!! Follow the money!! Who made more this past year, oil and gas producers or wind turbine manufacturers? If you think there is more money in helping the environment than destroying it,YOU my friend are the gullible one.