#ClimateChange Challenge: Review both sides of the argument (2 links each) and tell me which side of the climate debate is more PERSUASIVE.
NASA: https://go.nasa.gov/2la2ISR
Tony Heller: https://bit.ly/2LFpcct
Bloomberg: https://bloom.bg/2hxsT7D
Forbes:https://bit.ly/2LFhajR
-
-
The rest is all obfuscation by the fossil fuel industry https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science/discussion …
-
Thanks for posting this. Very illuminating.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, that is not something all skeptics, me and
@Piers_Corbyn for example, agree with. The energy from the Earth will get out via convection regardless of what gases there are in the atmosphere. I argue that the Earth will however warm, because CO2 makes the planet greener. -
And you can add
@NikolovScience to that list. He has really good arguments and data, and attacks skeptics too, which we love because that at least (maybe) shows that he isn't only partisan.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Scott, you just agreed with the entire global warming thesis -- that increased carbon in the atmosphere from fossil fuels and other sources leads to global warming. Congratulations!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But only to a point Scott. The absorption spectrum of CO2 (its ability to trap heat) is nearly saturated at about 200 ppm. It is the latent heat of water that drives temperature increase.pic.twitter.com/b9cgici6Yw
-
Not a valid point unless it also explains the rapid recent rate of warming. Did we get more water from someplace?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yet, more carbon, lower temperatures based on Antarctic Vostok Crater sampling.pic.twitter.com/gRUgvxFOyQ
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.