New posts

Reply to thread

Message

I do not confuse the two concepts.
AGW - the climate component - leads to increased atmospheric energy content that can cause extreme weather events at any end of the spectrum.
The undeniable fact is that annual global temperatures continue to rise and nobody is showing how that will change without GHG levels being reduced.

Yes we do, and that's why we are able to determine that CO2 levels will continue to increase, let alone work out why they got so high to begin with.

No it's not. Where do you get your ideas from?
The ability to reduce CO2 is what is at issue. When we see just 1% of the population accounting for 15% of emissions we know where the problem lies. Indeed, that metric has been in place for several centuries.

Completely inane comment that defies the statistical evidence that has been expounded by the IPCC for over 3 decades.
If the 10% cohort of higher income earners reduced their CO2 footprint to that of middle income earners we would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one third.

<blockquote data-quote="rederob" data-source="post: 1234413" data-attributes="member: 2837">I do not confuse the two concepts.AGW - the climate component - leads to increased atmospheric energy content that can cause extreme weather events at any end of the spectrum.The undeniable fact is that annual global temperatures continue to rise and nobody is showing how that will change without GHG levels being reduced.&nbsp; Yes we do, and that&#039;s why we are able to determine that CO2 levels will continue to increase, let alone work out why they got so high to begin with. No it&#039;s not.&nbsp; Where do you get your ideas from?The ability to reduce CO2 is what is at issue.&nbsp; When we see just 1% of the population accounting for 15% of emissions we know where the problem lies.&nbsp; Indeed, that metric has been in place for several centuries.Completely inane comment that defies the statistical evidence that has been expounded by the IPCC for over 3 decades. If the 10% cohort of higher income earners reduced their CO2 footprint to that of middle income earners we would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one third.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rederob, post: 1234413, member: 2837"] I do not confuse the two concepts. AGW - the climate component - leads to increased atmospheric energy content that can cause extreme weather events at any end of the spectrum. The undeniable fact is that annual global temperatures continue to rise and nobody is showing how that will change without GHG levels being reduced. Yes we do, and that's why we are able to determine that CO2 levels will continue to increase, let alone work out why they got so high to begin with. No it's not. Where do you get your ideas from? The ability to reduce CO2 is what is at issue. When we see just 1% of the population accounting for 15% of emissions we know where the problem lies. Indeed, that metric has been in place for several centuries. Completely inane comment that defies the statistical evidence that has been expounded by the IPCC for over 3 decades. If the 10% cohort of higher income earners reduced their CO2 footprint to that of middle income earners we would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one third. [/QUOTE]

Verification