Not only that but the clamis he's attributing to me are false. As far as I can tell he's talking nonsense. He's convinced with an absolute religious ferver of the fanatic that he's right.
His argument is based on the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack.
He doesn't like the conclusion of science, which is so obvious any idiot can see the relationship. Emitting a 100 billion tons annualy of air pollutants has impacted climate.
So instead he attacks the scientific community, scientist and the science in order to defend a view point that he tries to defend with data that fits his predetermined conclusions of which much of it comes from high questionable sources, that is, those with an economic vested interest who oppose change as it may hurt their industry.
So because of that he's unwilling to admit that the causal relationship between air pollution and ACC has been met and established and a wide consensus built around it. He's concerned about splitting hairs on minutae that only supports his argument. It's intellectually dishonest and is therefore a waste of time even discussing it with him.
It's a little vague, but I'll play. How much to you want to reduce them by? With population increasing, how much do you think would result in a significant change in atmosphere?
Just for some history on the topic, Kyoto - a fairly ambitious endeavor - didn't slow worldwide emissions one iota, mainly due to China's growth and that of other lesser developed countries. It had a few successes, particularly in Europe - but otherwise failed to stem the tide at all.
So, what would you do? And how would you do it in a way that wouldn't crash the already fragile domestic as well as worldwide economy?
LMAO... tell us Mutt, did you or did you not state that AGW has over whelming evidence to support it?
Did you or did you not create straw men rather than address what I stated? Or are you just an idiot?
My position is that there isn't evidence to support chanting consensus. You on the other hand pretend evidence is there. Which is false. Which again is why you refuse to provide said evidence.
ROFLMAO... pure irony. What ad hom did I use Mutt?
Seriously... another straw man. I have NEVER, not ONCE stated that pollution doesn't affect the climate. Not once Mutt. So why do you continue pretending otherwise?
Now tell us Mutt... is that the argument the fear mongers have been hyping? No, it is not. The fear mongers have been stating that it is CO2 that is the primary driver and that man is primarily responsible. It is CO2 that they keep harping on, not all pollutants.
Poor Mutt, so desperate as to use the exact same bullshit you just tried? I am not attacking the scientific community... I am attacking idiots like you that refuse to look at the actual science behind it. You then once again fall back to your ignorant disingenuous bullshit of attacking the sources... who happen to be actual scientists. You pretend that they are all linked to some grand big oil/coal conspiracy and that they are bought and paid for. Typical of you fear mongers.
1) Again, there is not a wide consensus... two thirds of the papers on the topic have not come to a conclusion one way or the other.
2) You again pretend that the discussion has been about air pollution in general. It has not. So tell us again who is being intellectually dishonest.
To an extent it may be...
but Warming is just one aspect of climate change. What about increased desertication? What about sea level rising? What about Shrinking ice sheets? What about declining Arctic sea ice? What about glacial retreat? What about the increased frequency of extreme weather events? What about ocean acidification? How do you explain this evidence climate change?
Again, you're the one with the religious fanaticism on "global warming". You're lack on understanding of both how science works and the nature of this issue are both appalling.
As I said earlier......over 100 billion tons of air pollution, that's a trillion tons per decade, are emmitted annually. Nearly 40% of that is Carbon Dioxide emmisions alone. Please explain to me, who could those emmision levels not impact climate?
why don't you read your own links you fucking moron? Your own link proved you wrong... AGAINwhy does the vast majority of the best educated people in the field think your an idiot super duper?
Sorry, didn't have time to address this earlier. I was too busy laughing at Superfreak's bullshit.
Kyoto doesn't mean shit. We didn't even sign it. Despite that our use of coal to generate electricity has dropped from 50% to 45% and continues to drop rapidly.
Electric cars are slowing becoming mainstream, despite the Bush Administration's cancelling of the increased CAFE standards put in place by the Clintons (which set the electric car industry back a solid 10 years.
Meanwhile windmill construction is flourishing across the country, photovoltiac installations are all the rage, both residential and commercial, there is room for many more hydropower installations in this country, including but not limited to re-utilising existing inactive systems, giant solar-thermal generating plants are being built world-wide, progress is being made in tidal and ocean current power generation, and conservation, the lowest hanging fruit is being pursued aggressively.
Building hydropower, and thermal solar installations would contribute jobs.
Even considering future population growth, the US could be entirely free of fossil fuel dependence by 2030 if the will were there. With attitudes like yours, supposedly of the correct side of the fence, it is not likely. I suggest you educate yourself about alternative energy and then work to spread the good news rather than be a part of the problem.
Quit asking to be humiliated and accept FACTS
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-earth-mantle-contributes-greenland-ice.html
something else for you to add to your reading list mutt.