[sounding]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by sounding

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

[Normal]

Originally Posted by sounding

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or maybe a storm and saddened people shouldn’t be used for a political agenda? In a month we will have record cold temps, how convenient that will be…

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by sounding

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or....maybe it is somewhat less than scientific to apply a single storm to a 100,000-year climate cycle

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Or....maybe it is somewhat less than scientific to apply a single storm to a 100,000-year climate cycle

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

This would be mildly humorous if you had not already made it clear that you are being serious.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by sounding

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

First, the pandemic was here, it was real, and people were dying----Climate change "calamity" is 20,000 years away, and only the truly indoctrinated would claim people are dying from it (citing storms and droughts---all short-term weather events, not climate change)

Second, we have a pretty extensive knowledge of viruses and vaccines and know how to mitigate a pandemic. On the other hand, we sit here with about 150 years of climate data out of the last 4 million years of climate change, have no perspective, and can only grasp at straws as to what if anything we can do.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by sounding

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.

That's all well and good.
But, what about the price of butter?
Price was never as high as this before CO2 levels started over performing!

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

It is possible that I had that in mind when I used the phrase.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.

Exactly!!!!!

[Byte1]

I could have sworn that I learned in school that CO2 was used by plants to create oxygen. Without plants, humans and animals cannot exist. Seems like CO2 is good. If CO2 makes the weather better, then that is an added bonus.

[daniel200]

Everyone knows you should not store CO2 near hot sources. They tend blow up. As far as the “true or false”; I plead the fifth. Hmm, i used to believe only crooks plead the fifth.