Fan of Science wrote:Razbio is stunning in his denial of science. Razio ignores every elite scientific body on this issue. Razio ignores every major western university on this issue. That's because they all state that the planet is warming, due to human activity. That's a fact of science. So, instead of referring to the major scientific bodies, Razio gets his information from unreliable sources who deny the basic facts? That's the position a person takes when they are driven by ideology and not a desire for the truth.
One hundred percent of the warming for decades now is due to humans. All other factors would have cooled the planet. As far as the alleged "tiny" amount of carbon added to the atmosphere, Razio completely overlooks the research that shows that this has caused a huge amount of additional energy in the atmosphere. We are speaking of many multiples of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Anyone can look this up.
Of course, Razio is also a conspiracy theorist, which explains Razio's denial of basic science.
Are you speaking to me or anybody other than me? Notice how my question is constructed to respond directly to you. In other words, why be so rude? I am right here.
-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 2:32 am to add the following --
Greta wrote:The question I'd like to know is why Razbio supports notions by fossil fuel companies to the public? The conflict of interest is obvious. Fossil fuel companies have trillions of dollars' worth of infrastructure that they want to use up before decommissioning. So they concocted a disinformation campaign to buy them more time.
Trump has many fossil fuel interests, as do many, many politicians and their friends. From here it will be interesting to see how long fossil fuel companies can keep gouging us while sustainable energy companies produce cheaper power? The companies are under attack from all sides as other nations are furiously trying to get to what is basically a massive economic honeypot - largely free and sustainable energy.
I wonder if the overseas developers of renewable technology will sell their work to the US at bargain prices when the situation becomes more urgent? More likely the US will pay top dollar for technology that they themselves could have developed. So it goes.
What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?
-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 3:56 am to add the following --
There is actually no proof that us humans are causing warming.
The evidence is actually against the hypotheses that we're causing the warming because there's been warming and cooling cycles all through the history of life, and some of them are longer than others, such as the last ice age before this was 300 million years ago and then it was warm for nearly 300 million years before it cooled again like it is now. So that's a big cycle. But there are smaller cycles, and the ice age we are in now has cycles called 'major glaciations' which there have been over 20 of in the last two and a half million years when the ice age set on in the northern hemisphere. Ice age in the Southern Hemisphere many million years earlier because it is completely different, but the earth has cooled gradually in fits and starts for the last 50 million years.
'Eocene Thermal Maximum'
We are at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period and that is apparently well known, and the graphs are available on the internet to show you that 15 million years after the time of the dinosaurs went extinct the earth was at its hottest in hundreds of millions of years (Eocene thermal maximum). This is apparently well known but it is ignored.
So we've had these 22 major glaciations and for the last million years they've been every hundred thousand years almost in lockstep with the 'Milankovich cycles' which has to do with the orbit of the earth and the tilt of the earth, varying over time. So we know that cycle.
We also know that there was a 'Minoan' warm period, a 'Roman Egyptian' warm period, a 'Medieval' warm period and now the modern warm period. In between each of them were are cooing periods, the last one being the 'Little Ice Age' which began to end around 1700 as the temperature started warming again rather than cooling. Just for example, the last time the River Thames froze over in England was 1814. It had been freezing over regularly for about 3 to 5 hundred years before that, but it stopped then and hasn't frozen over since.
WE DIDN't CAUSE THAT WARMING FROM 1700 TO 1814 ( obviously). And we didn't cause this warming trend to start at all in 1700.
NASA now has so manipulated its temperature curve as to hide the cooling that occurred between 1940 and 1970. They just eliminated it.
Why would they do that?
1.8 billion dollars in public funding.
The same reason NASA keep saying there might be life on Mars 40 years after it's been absolutely certainly proven that there isn't any life on Mars. They just float the 'life on Mars' thing every time they want to send a rocket there so that people will be in favour of it because we might find life there. But they know James Lovelock proved, when he designed the life detection system for the first Mars Lander, which was looking at the atmospheric composition, he proved there was no life there. For example, if he went to another planet and found there was lots of oxygen in the atmosphere, you could be almost certain there was life on that planet even if you couldn't see it, because oxygen wouldn't be in the atmosphere if it weren't for life. There was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere.