Climate Science 101 V2.0

[Guest TrueMetis]

When we use proxies like tree tings, and climate from millions of years ago something is wrong because it's not accurate enough. But when lukin uses it apparently they have gotten more accurate.

[Shady]

oh ShadyOne... and you were doing so well... fresh from the cooler, your humbled self gave the impression of posting like a semi-literate... as opposed to your typical knuckle-dragging self. It's a shame to see you so emboldened as to return to your former ShadyPostingWays. BTW, do you actually have anything of substance to add... or are you just spoiling for a lil' attention - hey?

Actually, it was quite warm in Mexico.

[Pliny]

the scales are fine, lil' buddy... you just don't like the presentation... why do you want to 'hide the incline', Pliny?

I would rather it be presented in a real sense and not propagandized. They may be fine for your purpose, the illegitimate use of science to further a political agenda.

perhaps this pic of decreasing ice extent is more to your (and Simple's favour)... it certainly lines up with the past MLW "it's cooling" idiocy - hey, Pliny? Hey now, Pliny - with this one, you'd be "hiding the decline"!!!

Let's not deflect from the fact that claiming the signatures of carbon isotopes from volcanic activity and fossil fuel burning cannot be differentiated is ignorant. If I am confused then the person making that claim must be totally confused.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

As for the scale... Pliny... are you suggesting you'd like to, "hide the incline"? Oh my!

No. I would like it to be scaled properly and not to the benefit of creating alarmism.

the scales are fine, lil' buddy... you just don't like the presentation... why do you want to 'hide the incline', Pliny?

I would rather it be presented in a real sense and not propagandized. They may be fine for your purpose, the illegitimate use of science to further a political agenda.

the data shows... what the data shows. So we're clear and not entering into purposeful Pliny vagueness, the focus of discussion had been CO2 atmospheric measurement... somewhat out of the blue you dropped a reference to 'temperature' measurement. In either case, the scales of presentation are simply de facto; i.e., temperature degree or CO2 ppm. I appreciate you would like to flatten out the scales on either of those... flattened to the point no discernible result/effect could be visually ascertained. But again, Pliny... why do you favour a presentation that, "hides the incline", hey? Why does your denier self favour a graphic presentation that hides any discernible rise/trend in either temperature or CO2 ppm? Why be hiding the incline Pliny? Why use, as you say, an illegitimate graphic presentation to hide the incline and further your denier agenda - hey?

[waldo]

Pliny, was your bravado... false? After all your bluster, aren't you up to actually challenging the world-wide CO2 monitoring 'network'... or even the Mauna Loa location/results?

you appear to have something to say about volcano isotopic signatures... if you really have a bone to pick, perhaps you should properly direct your stated uncertain confusion. Given the standard Pliny pattern, I suspected this was simply another trail of Pliny false bravado, wrapped in uncertainty and couched in questioning and indirect challenge/claim. To that end, let me broker the exchange for you; let me help - hey, Pliny? Now Pliny... I don't really have a dog to hunt in this here exchange... remember, I'm simply the broker! Per the quote string, as follows, your initial confidence was tempered with your follow-up question on your own certainty; in turn, followed up by your latest statement highlighting your uncertain confusion (notwithstanding the basic confusion in your own wording... did you mean to say, "claiming the signatures of carbon isotopes from volcanic activity and fossil fuel burning cannot be differentiated is ignorant"... would that be a cannot... or a can?)

now, as I say Pliny, I don't have a dog to hunt in this, your latest fixation... from my perspective, when you challenged the location of Mauna Loa, I presented you with the methodology behind eliminating volcanic CO2 impacts (from ongoing fissure leaks) related to the relatively rare temperature inversions at Mauna Loa. I expect if you really wanted to make your claim (?) concerning isotopic signature, you would step forward with something substantive that presumes to suggest the like ratios of 13C/12C between CO2 fossil fuel burning and volcanic eruptions (where volcanic CO2 is mostly from buried carbonate rocks and/or (sea)water). You could do that, hey Pliny? As well, if they'll help for reference purposes, I have ready bookmarks to earlier Pliny CO2 isotopic misunderstandings, ala your Mr. Wizard persona... let me know, hey Pliny? I'm here to help Pliny.

The graphs used in the example were taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There is no mention of compensation for any volcanic activity that may have occurred in the area. Why would they use Mauna Loa? Convenience?

A true representation of global CO2 emissions?

It doesn't really matter, because carbon dioxide from a volcano will have a different isotopic signature than carbon coming from fossil fuels. The atmospheric carbon isotopic composition is changing, and this change matches the isotopic signature that would be expected if the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Wrong. The burning of a volcano or burning of fossil fuels will both have a similar isotopic signature.

Is the isotopic signature of volcanic activity not similar to the burning of fossil fuels?

Let's not deflect from the fact that claiming the signatures of carbon isotopes from volcanic activity and fossil fuel burning

cannot

be differentiated is ignorant. If I am confused then the person making that claim must be totally confused.

[waldo]

please read my lukinWay™-A-Paloozafest!

you're an insignificant gnat that hasn't engaged in a single formative argument/debate... all you've done, all you ever do, all you ever will do, is blindly link to references without offering any of your own comment, save an occasional one word grunt... ala, the

lukinWay™

. You clearly haven't the intellect to articulate your own thoughts (presuming you have any!) - obviously, you do the best with what you've got!

[WIP]

I would rather it be presented in a real sense and not propagandized. They may be fine for your purpose, the illegitimate use of science to further a political agenda.

Which science is illegitimate: the scientific consensus of 97% of climatologists, or the science of a tiny agenda-driven minority, who have either sold out to the oil companies that fund them, or have put ideology ahead of science because they see global efforts to address climate change as an attack on capitalism? Some like Richard Lindzen, are difficult to figure motivations, because he makes economic arguments for the status quo, while also collecting big money from the oil companies that employ his services.

Let's not deflect from the fact that claiming the signatures of carbon isotopes from volcanic activity and fossil fuel burning cannot be differentiated is ignorant. If I am confused then the person making that claim must be totally confused.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a contrary example! I'm not a chemist, but if the experts on carbon isotopes tell us that carbon degrades over time, and loses the heavier isotopes (carbon 14 is apparently absent from fossil fuels and carbon 13), then that means that if atmospheric CO2 increase is coming primarily from burning coal, gas, and oil; then carbon 13 levels should be dropping....and if that's what's happening, then that should serve as proof that the increase is not from volcanoes etc. If there is a contrary argument, let's hear it!

As for Mauna Loa: the CO2 readings have been steadily increasing year after year ever since CO2 measurements began over 50 years ago...how does that match volcanic activity? And if Mauna Loa's CO2 readings match measurements gathered around the world, then the claim that this volcano is interfering with results has no basis in fact.

[WIP]

Do we really need to prove that modern human activity is changing the environment? If the rapidly increasing rate of species extinctions isn't enough, how to deniers deny the !@#$%^& obvious: The Northwest Passage just re-opened a couple of years ago, creating a kerflufle of activity about security and the probability of having U.S. and Russian warships, plus oil tankers, sailing through in the summertime...have the deniers forgotten already? Global warming has provided navigators with an opportunity that many explorers lost their lives searching for since the 11th century....but that's still not proof enough to those who are agenda-driven to deny the obvious! Many of us would have assumed that the corporate leaders who run oil, gas and coal companies would eventually realize that a dying planet threatened their longterm interests enough to put greed aside...at least temporarily, but after reading some briefs about the BP Gulf Disaster, and the reckless conduct of British Petroleum, Haliburton and Transocean, leading up to the disaster -- the conclusion is that these are men who put greed above all else, and will risk complete disaster for the chance to gain more profits....and that's why corporations need to be severely restricted and monitored, if allowed to function at all.

[Shady]

The Northwest Passage just re-opened a couple of years ago

Why was it open in the past? And what caused it to close? Also, what was the cause of the MWP? You geniuses still haven't answered that question. It's a fairly straight forward, non-political inquiry.

[waldo]

Also, what was the cause of the MWP? You geniuses still haven't answered that question.

same ole, same ole - hey, lil' buddy... as I said, "it's a ready bookmark each and every time you trot out your favoured MWP premise... just additional questions you refuse to answer... scratch that... can't answer!" March 15, 2010... Shady is still, uhhh... processing! We're still on hold... waiting on ShadyProcessing!

equally, as I (also) said, "care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?"

Still no answers on the causes of the MWP huh? Sad.

yes, as I keep asking you, lil' buddy... you made the statements, you asked for confirmation. Substantiate your statements or continue to play your charade for all it's worth. Is there a problem you can't/won't substantiate your statements?

... it's a ready bookmark each and every time you trot out your favoured MWP premise... just additional questions you refuse to answer... scratch that... can't answer!

And what unknown factor caused the medieval warming? Don't you think that's important to know? Or do you just want to ignore the previous 6 million years and take a snap shot of a hundred and pretend that it encompasses history?

wheeee... the return of the missing-in-action SMWP - Shady Medieval Warming Period... still waiting, buddy... still waiting on your March 15th advisement that, "it will take some time to process"

the MWP related questions Shady continues to ignore... refuses to answer... while he continues to bluster about the MWP. Yes, most certainly... Shady <=> intellectually dishonest

And regarding timestamps, in my universe,

March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM

is earlier than

March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM

. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

in your best anal parsing, you fail to acknowledge you're not asking questions. You're making statements and asking for confirmation of those statements.

-

you stated

: And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer!

-

you asked:

can you tell us why?

-

you stated

: And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today

-

you asked:

Right?

-

you stated

: Even though it's statistically insignificant warming.

-

you stated

: And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

so... in your world... you're asking 2 questions: (1) Can you tell us why? & (2) Right?... both of which, as I stated, are simply asking for confirmation of your preceding statements. Shady, back-peddler extraordinaire. C'mon, Shady... you said you've been accumulating, as you said, "a vault of information".

Here's gentle reminder #4 for you:

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

[WIP]

Why was it open in the past? And what caused it to close? Also, what was the cause of the MWP? You geniuses still haven't answered that question. It's a fairly straight forward, non-political inquiry.

Read your history! It has never been open in recorded human history. The quest to find the Northwest Passage was a fool's errand like the search for El Dorado, the Fountain of Youth etc. The simple fact is that the Arctic Ice Cap has shrunk to about half the size it was in the 1950's.

[Shady]

It has never been open in recorded human history.

Your link suggests otherwise.

The Northwest passage may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 1000 and 1300 AD.

Btw, what caused the Medieval Warming Period?

[GostHacked]

Do we really need to prove that modern human activity is changing the environment?

Not one bit. Human activity has changed the environment, but in many more ways that need immediate attention. Like the proper long term storage of nuclear waste. The landfills, the garbage patch in the ocean, along with the items you mentioned. Other toxic chemicals and pollution ect ect ect ... i've mentioned these things in other threads relating to global warming AWG climate change weather.

We do need to clean up our environment, and so long as we are focused on only one area of the problem, we will never solve it. Combating CO2 issues to me is a distraction and the extent of it way overblown.

Edited January 21, 2011 by GostHacked

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not one bit. Human activity has changed the environment, but in many more ways that need immediate attention. Like the proper long term storage of nuclear waste. The landfills, the garbage patch in the ocean, along with the items you mentioned. Other toxic chemicals and pollution ect ect ect ... i've mentioned these things in other threads relating to global warming AWG climate change weather.

We do need to clean up our environment, and so long as we are focused on only one area of the problem, we will never solve it. Combating CO2 issues to me is a distraction and the extent of it way overblown.

Long term nuclear waste isn't that dangerous, a properly built landfill is neutral in terms of the environment but there are incinerators that can be used if you want to go that route, the garbage patch in the ocean is an issue but not a very big one when compared to the acidification of the ocean.

Other pollutants and toxic chemicals actually help cool the earth so if we were to deal with them before CO2 the problem of CO2 would become much much worse.

[dre]

We do need to clean up our environment, and so long as we are focused on only one area of the problem, we will never solve it. Combating CO2 issues to me is a distraction and the extent of it way overblown.

I totally disagree. The hype around global warming has resulted in a sea change when it comes to energy development. Not just for advancing renewable technologies but for making existing technologies better and cleaner. Before that we were doing almost nothing.

One of our biggest problems is our short sightedness. When oil prices spiked in the 70s and 80s we started doing lots of good work on energy development, but we stopped as soon as prices came back down. Climate change has resulted in more of a focus on it, and resulted in a lot of new resources being brought to bear.

Even if we find out in 30 years that the whole CO2 scare was completely bogus, it still may be what saved our asses.

[waldo]

uhhh... a reduced subset of the ShadyObsession:

Btw, what caused the Medieval Warming Period?

Also, what was the cause of the MWP? You geniuses still haven't answered that question. It's a fairly straight forward, non-political inquiry.

And what unknown factor caused the medieval warming?

Yep. All I'm asking for is the cause of the warming.

But the most important issue for me is the explanation for the medieval warming period, or other such periods.

I'm still waiting for the alarmist explanation for the medieval warming period.

I'm still waiting for the AGW true-believers to explain the causes of the medieval warm period.

huh? What's that Shady? Your MWP obsession has been answered many times over... are ya deef man? Most recently:

Even if you could show the MWP was more than a regional phenomenon (which you can't), even if you could show the MWP temperatures were warmer than global temperature today (which you can't)...

there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas

. Obviously MWP warming can't be attributed to man. Alternatively, no natural variations can account for the warming... the accelerated warming... of the relatively recent post 1850 period. Current warming can only be accounted for when CO2 radiative forcing is factored - current increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are most definitely, most absolutely, attributed to mankind's burning of fossil-fuels.

now, is there a reason you refuse to answer the following - the same sequence you've been presented a brazillion times over? C'mon Shady... way back on March 15, you advised you would, "substantiate your statements"... but that it would, "take some time to process"! How much longer, Shady? Soon?

Also, what was the cause of the MWP? You geniuses still haven't answered that question.

same ole, same ole - hey, lil' buddy... as I said, "it's a ready bookmark each and every time you trot out your favoured MWP premise... just additional questions you refuse to answer... scratch that... can't answer!" March 15, 2010... Shady is still, uhhh... processing! We're still on hold... waiting on ShadyProcessing!

equally, as I (also) said, "care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?"

Still no answers on the causes of the MWP huh? Sad.

yes, as I keep asking you, lil' buddy... you made the statements, you asked for confirmation. Substantiate your statements or continue to play your charade for all it's worth. Is there a problem you can't/won't substantiate your statements?

... it's a ready bookmark each and every time you trot out your favoured MWP premise... just additional questions you refuse to answer... scratch that... can't answer!

And what unknown factor caused the medieval warming? Don't you think that's important to know? Or do you just want to ignore the previous 6 million years and take a snap shot of a hundred and pretend that it encompasses history?

wheeee... the return of the missing-in-action SMWP - Shady Medieval Warming Period... still waiting, buddy... still waiting on your March 15th advisement that, "it will take some time to process"

the MWP related questions Shady continues to ignore... refuses to answer... while he continues to bluster about the MWP. Yes, most certainly... Shady <=> intellectually dishonest

And regarding timestamps, in my universe,

March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM

is earlier than

March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM

. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

in your best anal parsing, you fail to acknowledge you're not asking questions. You're making statements and asking for confirmation of those statements.

-

you stated

: And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer!

-

you asked:

can you tell us why?

-

you stated

: And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today

-

you asked:

Right?

-

you stated

: Even though it's statistically insignificant warming.

-

you stated

: And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

so... in your world... you're asking 2 questions: (1) Can you tell us why? & (2) Right?... both of which, as I stated, are simply asking for confirmation of your preceding statements. Shady, back-peddler extraordinaire. C'mon, Shady... you said you've been accumulating, as you said, "a vault of information".

Here's gentle reminder #4 for you:

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

[dre]

uhhh... a reduced subset of the ShadyObsession:

huh? What's that Shady? Your MWP obsession has been answered many times over... are ya deef man? Most recently:

now, is there a reason you refuse to answer the following - the same sequence you've been presented a brazillion times over? C'mon Shady... way back on March 15, you advised you would, "substantiate your statements"... but that it would, "take some time to process"! How much longer, Shady? Soon?

yes, as I keep asking you, lil' buddy... you made the statements, you asked for confirmation. Substantiate your statements or continue to play your charade for all it's worth. Is there a problem you can't/won't substantiate your statements?

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

[/indent]

[/indent][/indent]

Do we have to quote the entire freaking thread over and over again?

[waldo]

Do we have to quote the entire freaking thread over and over again?

accepting to your exaggeration, so long as ShadyPractices are adhered to... yes! So long as the ShadyOne continues with his MWP obsession, repeatedly beaking off with the same ole, same ole... yes! So long as the ShadyOne continues to ignore answers previously provided... yes! So long as the ShadyOne refuses to answer the related, relevant questions he previously acknowledged and committed to provide substantiation for his statements... yes!

[dre]

accepting to your exaggeration, so long as ShadyPractices are adhered to... yes! So long as the ShadyOne continues with his MWP obsession, repeatedly beaking off with the same ole, same ole... yes! So long as the ShadyOne continues to ignore answers previously provided... yes! So long as the ShadyOne refuses to answer the related, relevant questions he previously acknowledged and committed to provide substantiation for his statements... yes!

Alright alright. Sorry, its just a pet peave of mine But carry on. Nothing personal at all.

BTW... dont you find it kind of embarrassing that youre trying to reason with Shady? What possible point could there be to such an endeavor? Are you like independantly super wealth with time to burn?

You might wanna give that some though

Edited January 22, 2011 by dre

[GostHacked]

Long term nuclear waste isn't that dangerous, a properly built landfill is neutral in terms of the environment but there are incinerators that can be used if you want to go that route, the garbage patch in the ocean is an issue but not a very big one when compared to the acidification of the ocean.

Nuclear waste is very dangerous in the short term, and that is where you are going to have the most problems. Sure after some time the radioactivity dies down, however, it can take hundred or thousands of years before it is no longer dangerous. That is a lot of resources to monitor and deal with the problem long term.

Landfills are garbage heaps that end up getting dirt piled on top of it, maybe some grass. We are just burying the garbage.I guess if we decimate another forest, we can use it as a landfill which eventually can be neutral to the effect on the environment.

Incinerators use a lot of energy, burning fossil fuels that create CO2. And burning stuff create some of it's own toxic pollution?

The garbage in the ocean is affecting the eco systems of the ocean, which is really the food you eat.

Other pollutants and toxic chemicals actually help cool the earth so if we were to deal with them before CO2 the problem of CO2 would become much much worse.

This is madness! The pollution we are creating is mitigating the actual warming of the earth due to CO2 through human activity (aka pollution and most of it toxic) by burning fossil fuels.

[GostHacked]

[/indent][/indent]

[/indent][/size]

Do we have to quote the entire freaking thread over and over again?

I just tend to glaze over them now.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nuclear waste is very dangerous in the short term, and that is where you are going to have the most problems. Sure after some time the radioactivity dies down, however, it can take hundred or thousands of years before it is no longer dangerous. That is a lot of resources to monitor and deal with the problem long term.

Short term radiation is dangerous and our facilities deal with it just fine. You would have to sleep on top of a long term radiation source for years before it had any effect. Long term radiation sources give of barely anymore radiation than normal background radiation. There are also new reactors that can burn that waste so problem solved.

Landfills are garbage heaps that end up getting dirt piled on top of it, maybe some grass. We are just burying the garbage.I guess if we decimate another forest, we can use it as a landfill which eventually can be neutral to the effect on the environment.

Or we can use a place that is already empty, like Saskatchewan.

Incinerators use a lot of energy, burning fossil fuels that create CO2. And burning stuff create some of it's own toxic pollution?

Actually new incinerators produce energy and almost no pollution. Technology is awesome.My link

The garbage in the ocean is affecting the eco systems of the ocean, which is really the food you eat.

Still more worried about acidification.

This is madness! The pollution we are creating is mitigating the actual warming of the earth due to CO2 through human activity (aka pollution and most of it toxic) by burning fossil fuels.

Yep pretty messed up.

[wyly]

i've mentioned these things in other threads relating to global warming AWG climate change weather.

what ...you still don't understand the difference between weather and global warming/awg/climate change

We do need to clean up our environment, and so long as we are focused on only one area of the problem, we will never solve it. Combating CO2 issues to me is a distraction and the extent of it way overblown.

ignoring CO2 reduction in order to prioritize environmental clean up would be like ignoring the flesh eating disease that'll absolutely kill you dead because you rather go on a weight loss program first...

a clean environment won't matter anymore if the planet suffers an ecological collapse due to AGW...

[Shady]

BTW... dont you find it kind of embarrassing that youre trying to reason with Shady? What possible point could there be to such an endeavor? Are you like independantly super wealth with time to burn?

You might wanna give that some though

How am I being unreasonable? I just asked what the reasons were for the Medieval Warming Period. I'd just like to know the answer.

[GostHacked]

what ...you still don't understand the difference between weather and global warming/awg/climate change

ignoring CO2 reduction in order to prioritize environmental clean up would be like ignoring the flesh eating disease that'll absolutely kill you dead because you rather go on a weight loss program first...

a clean environment won't matter anymore if the planet suffers an ecological collapse due to AGW...

But messing up the environment is how we got here in the first place it seems. So seems like the best option so far, which has been stated before is to do nothing.