Global Endeavors:- 10:10:10
I commented as follows at http://global-endeavors.com/2010/09/30/101010/
I hope she has some evidence actually, because nothing gets up my nose more than someone influencing people to change their lives when there is no reasonable evidence to support what they are saying.
Puts them in the same league as these religious people who come around the house occasionaly to tell me about their newfound religion!
Why stop at 350? of which I presume means 350ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Do you know, a better optimum is 1000 ppmv which is the optimum for agriculture, plant growth and all living things actually especially considering that life operates quite well over 10,000 ppmv
I mean any hot house agriculturist will tell you that.
You must be talking about the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis!
Do you know I have been searching for at least the last year for empirical proof of that hypothesis and would you believe it? no one has come up with any yet.
Maybe you know something that I don’t which gives you this confidence to attempt to lead people into the belief that there is proper evidence.
I have an open mind actually. I will be excited if you would share this evidence with me.
Roger, I have to defer to the scientists. I am a believer that we are experiencing global warming and that it is a negative for our planet. I am not the expert though. I think if you want to further this conversation you should with people that have more in depth knowledge:
Thanks for your thoughts. Gretchen
To be honest with you, I personally would never promote any cause political or scientific unless I had a very good knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is if I wanted to sleep at night.
The following links record more than 30,000 scientists world wide who cannot see sufficient evidence for the anthropogenic global warming theory.
This is not surprising because there is no evidence, only a lot of observations and a few possible correlations which are being promoted as fact.
Furthermore the same theory is being promoted by politicians and people who have vested interests.
Therefore it is important that we all look at what facts there are and make up our own minds.
Actually climate science is not rocket science. A reasonably intelligent person can figure out the likely from the unlikely and recognise misrepresentations when they see them.
You are welcome to visit my blog and see the facts presented simply and concisely.
I also challenge you to think what would happen to the world, particularly your country, your town and your family if fossil fuels were suddenly removed.
The IPCC’s CO2 emission reduction demands will have exactly the same effect on everyone, although there will be actually an acute shortage of oil, gas and coal etc. rather than an outright removal.
So what if the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is not fact? Well we will have starved our families for no reason at all.
So rather than the planet frying, this premature starvation is what really is at stake. More worryingly, the IPCC is absolutely silent on the issue of the costs of CO2 emission reduction. Believe me, I have looked hard and long at this.
The above comment was spammed on Gretchen’s site.
The one below will probably be spammed as well, but I hope she looses plenty of sleep for spreading so many unsubstantiated rumours etc.
Are my questions too hard for you to answer?
Would you like me to post my last comment again so you can consider a reply.
Did I mention that I have also duplicated our exchange on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com
? Do a search under the name of your site to find your entry.
My readers there are looking forward to your reply, and if they realise that you have simply spammed mt question they will begin doubting the genuiness of you and your site.
I’m sure that you are a very nice person, but personally I do wonder how you sleep at night when you arepublically spreading beliefs that you cannot personally factually justify.