why some ameritards deny global warming?

@UndeadPrivateer I'll say that in a way earth was a bit more vulnerable to global warming during the age of the dianosaurs. Volcanos are a huge rescource of Co2- and they have emitted a lot of it.

But I think it's after when earth had Its better years. When there were people around, but not modern technology like today.
There was a lot of harvesting and planting, which I think does help with Co2 and global warming. There's a reason plant biochemists take a huge interest in photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration. Not saying plants are our way out of this, but they are a great help.

@AnonymousJSS Oh they definitely help, plants speed up carbon cycling. Which will slow down the process, but I don't know that they can ever really stop it. I'm not omniscient so I have no real idea to what degree the plant biomass actually affects the carbon cycle, but the warming was pretty significant during the age of the dinosaurs and the end of that, right before the KT impact, was when we also had some of the densest plant biomass in Earth's history with global rainforests everywhere due to the high temperatures putting so much water in the atmosphere.

The rise of the dinosaurs, immediately after the Great Dying, was when the Pangaean supercontinent was still around and the whole continent-spanning-desert thing was an issue. Which was also directly after the Yellowstone supervolcano blew up and the ocean conveyor stopped(another of those 3 major factors I mentioned, which rendered most of the oceans anoxic). So there's definitely more to the carbon cycle than just greenery and the ocean, that is when we start getting into theory, because we have no real good data to explain that. Gotta rely on simulations and such.

@InvaderNice i'm a scientist by training. science isn't a liberal endeavor. it's also not an atheist thing. i know scientists who are politically and religiously conservative AF.

that said, there's two ways of looking at it. it's a chicken and egg thing.

one: liberal policy makers support scientists and they do liberal science. and thus we have climate change research.

two: climate scientists support policy makers informed by their science. so they are worried by climate change and support policy makers who respond to that.

@Mynamehooge Ok Avril. But I'm all out of stones, sorry. Here have some sand.

@Mynamehooge Just figured your sandy vagina could use a refill, sheesh.

@Stereoguy explain?

@pianoplayingsteve Al Gore is not a climate scientist. And is probably a hypocrite. You're not a climate scientist either. For that matter, neither am I.

Whenever these debates come up I always remember my encounters with research-oriented PhDs and the depth of their specialization. In that narrow field, the gulf of knowledge between a layman and the typical PhD academic is vast. Trust me, "cycle the earth goes through" is not being ignored by nearly one hundred percent of climate scientists on the planet and you don't understand it better than them. And traditionally, elites have been funding anti-climate change research, without much actual success. Even now - do you think Trump wouldn't love having a report handed to him absolving him of responsibility and justifying withdrawal of the Paris accords? Nobody will vouch for it.

You're making a judgement on the scientific consensus based on the lifestyle of of a professional attention whore and untrained common sense. Dude... come on.

@pianoplayingsteve Problem is, while Al Gore is a poster child for the cause, scientists in literally every scientific discipline agree almost unanimously that climate change is 1) real, 2) dire and 3) enormously accelerated by man's activities.

Congratulations on doing what you can. You do know, though, that the mantra is reduce, reuse and, finally, recycle. Which is not terribly supported by all because of the hidden costs and resource use.

Scientists have no political agenda. They use the scientific method to research and report.