Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:33:59 +0100, Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-05 kl. 04:36, skrev Roger Blake:
On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote:
Might I say that was an awesome post, sir.
His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period.

No, it is a natural part of the atmosphare, but it is a balance.
It has to be in the right proportions. To much (and in particual
if we continue to burn fosile fuels that ads carbone that was
bound millions of years ago) and the climate will be hurt.
You can't _hurt_ climate. The Earth always balances itself out and
there are thousands of years of data showing this. Some periods are
cold; some periods are warm. In the end, there is a balance regardless
of what its living creatures do.

Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at
its worst. Even Reid Bryson, the scientist who was the father of
modern climate science, stated that it is "a bunch of hooey."

I could probably name the scientist that has the opposite view, but
the space in one posting would not be enough.

And why pick one that has been dead for 10 years? The views on global
warming has changed over the years and a lot has happend the last decade.
Please demonstrate how.

As I said, I absolutely refuse to reduce my own carbon emissions and
in fact continue to see ways to increase them.
OK. fine. You'll be sorry and your children will be hurt. But then, if
you could reduce your C02 emission, what would be the issue?
Reducing CO2 emissions should be voluntary in the same way that
companies having a $15 minimum wage should be voluntary. In the United
States, some companies did so and as a result show that they can
afford to pay people that well without there being any kind of
consequences. In Ontario, for instance, the $15 minimum wage was
forced and companies now have to cut back somehow to afford to pay
people that well. The liberal approach to CO2 emissions involves
forcing companies and the people to make significant sacrifices and
the end result is that it will do damage to the economy and the
standard of life in the _hope_ that we will somehow be able to slow
the evitable in a very insignificant way at a time when none of us
will still be alive. The best governments _should_ hope for is to
raise awareness about the potential problem and encourage people to
make whatever changes they can which is not at all what they've been
doing with schemes like the Paris Climate Accord.

(Do you dumbass hippies
really believe that your stoopid windmills are solar panels are capable
of keeping people warm and alive in the deep freeze that so much of the
U.S. is currently experiencing?)
That weather phenomenon is probably also caused by the disturbed climate
caused by the CO2 emissions. So in the case of the current US weather
issues, you could say that it is, in a way, self-inflicted.

Anyway, you could probably start with more efficient cars, shutting down
all AC equipment and so on. This cold is just a temporarily storm and
has little to do with the overall climate issues. One can not use the
amount of snow on the back garden to judge about the climate at large.
Just watch this:

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
Wonderful video. He made us believe the sea level isn't rising.The only
problem is that the sea level is rising, that is measurable.

However, it is true that the earth has known warmer and colder periods,
even in the past 2000 years. The problem is we can determine this from
descriptions about what was going on, but people didn't have
thermometers to record the temperatures.