InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 65
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/28/2014

Re: brainiac54 post# 29667

Friday, 11/21/2014 3:38:37 PM

Friday, November 21, 2014 3:38:37 PM

Post# of 85954
I have zero desire to debate climate science. You point to your website, then I point to my website and everybody gets to find something they already agree with.
I was simply explaining what convinced me. To that end: this is a reference to the ice core samples.:800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

Contrary to your claim that "CO2 levels have been as high as 400ppm many tumes" Here is a quote:

"Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year."



It is my understanding that the amount of CO2 being produced by us is unparalleled in history. It is foolish to keep this up. What if you're wrong? How do you fix it? Why not produce clean energy if we can? Why not produce clean industries if we can? Let the energy markets compete without favoritism or advantage from government. Companies like MVTG promise to help make some of the dirtiest industries less dirty.

BTW: There is bad science on both sides. Too much money and too much politics on both sides. I remember when those critical of the theory where getting railroaded out of academia, and research positions, etc. So I am sympathetic to the argument that the reason there is such a huge consensus is that there is nobody left to take the other side. Pure science is a wonderful thing, unfortunately, there is little of it on this topic.
But believe what you want.