I watched your entire TEDxAtlanta speech and blogged about it here.
I noted that you said that temperatures "went through the roof, relatively speaking" starting in 1850, when you said that we figured out how to burn fossil fuels.
But in 1989, well-known warmist Stephen Schneider wrote: "I strongly suspect that by the year 2000 increasing numbers of people will point to the 1980s as the time the global warming signal emerged from the natural background of climatic noise".
My question to you is: How do you reconcile these two very different statements? If the alleged human-induced warming signal emerged from the noise in 1850, why did Schneider suggest that the signal didn't emerge until 130+ years later?
A follow-up question would be this one: How do we know that the two warming periods starting around 1850 and 1980 weren't caused by something other than trace amounts of carbon dioxide?
I noted that you said that temperatures "went through the roof, relatively speaking" starting in 1850, when you said that we figured out how to burn fossil fuels.
But in 1989, well-known warmist Stephen Schneider wrote: "I strongly suspect that by the year 2000 increasing numbers of people will point to the 1980s as the time the global warming signal emerged from the natural background of climatic noise".
My question to you is: How do you reconcile these two very different statements? If the alleged human-induced warming signal emerged from the noise in 1850, why did Schneider suggest that the signal didn't emerge until 130+ years later?
A follow-up question would be this one: How do we know that the two warming periods starting around 1850 and 1980 weren't caused by something other than trace amounts of carbon dioxide?
Posts
2 comments:
If the planet really was at risk why didn’t the scientists say it WILL be a crisis not just MIGHT be a real crisis? How close to unstoppable warming would they have taken us before they said their crisis was inevitable instead of just possible? Not one IPCC warning isn’t swimming in “maybes”.
97% of scientists have agreed for 28 years now that it only COULD be a crisis not WILL be.
If Marshall Shepherd wants to change the temperature of the globe, what is that optimum temp? And what happens if that changes?
Furthermore, considering we're spending literally $trillions attempting to adjust the thermostat to find that ideal temperature, can Marshall guarantee for spending all our money on his nob(e)l cause, that we won't have any more Oklahomas or Sandy's or Katrina's or even the record 100 year freeze that Europe has just endured?
P.s. Perhaps Marshall could setup a website where people from all over the world can have their say on what kind of Climatic condition they would prefer in their neighbourhood? He could then tally up the results and average out to get the ideal temperature and environment for all mankind.
Makes it kind of democratic that way too....
Just a thought
Post a Comment