[cont] to think that things in science are so complicated so they can take your money and make you think that your ignorant. Wake up--it's time for a change. The whole world is changing right before our eyes and the greed of every where is being exposed. They spread lies just so they can get your money. Endogenous respiration is the key. Carbon dioxide truly is our friend and don't you forget it. Peace and love to all.
[cont] from CO2 deficiency! As a result, tissue hypoxia occurs. This is why so many people have cancers, diseases, and psychological problems: we hyperventilate, thus pushing out precious carbon dioxide that we need in our lungs. We need about 5 - 6 percent at all times in our lungs and blood to be healthy. The answer to all of life's problems is simple--breathing correctly and this will cure virtually all diseases. Wake up people--everything is corrupt--they want you [cont]
[cont] side effects of inhaling pure oxygen! CO2 is our friend and I will take this to my grave. I have experienced the results myself. I don't like the FDA, but have anyone ever heard of the Frolov breathing device? It does exactly opposite of mainstream medical breathing techniques does: It increases CO2 in the air that you are breathing through that device and its FDA approved!! People! Start thinking for yourself and stop being fooled by lies!! 90 percent of all people suffer [cont]
[cont] to life. We think that by breathing more, we get more oxygen to the tissues. In fact, it is the opposite: If you breathe less, you get more oxygen. If anyone knows their physiology, then they would know that there is a constant level of CO2 in the body. Why is this? Because our bodies NEED CO2, just like it needs oxygen, glucose, proteins, fats, cholesterol, vitamins, minerals, and the list goes on and on. Too much of anything is bad for you! Just google the negative [cont]
[cont] of science. CO2 provides stabilization to neurons and the nerves, fights off free radicals, provide balance in pH in the blood, is a regulator of oxygen, is a vasodilator, is a bronchodilator, fights off infection and inflammation, boost the immune system, aids in Bohr effect greatly, prevents cancer, slows heart rate, relaxes smooth muscles, and provides more energy due to more efficient absorption of oxygen and nutrients in the body. Endogenous respiration is the key [cont]
This video is so true. Carbon dioxide is essential to life. So many times in science, politics, and false propaganda, carbon dioxide is labelled as a poison. Well, I got news for you: carbon dioxide is necessary for healthy living. Why? If anyone knows their basic chemistry in physiology, they would know that CO2 is incorporated into chemical bodily equations and provide balance. Without enough CO2, we would die. Hell, I almost died from CO2 deficiency: we are entering a new age [cont]
In prehistoric times the 'regulation' of the CO2 was done by Nature. Animal species develop, CO2 is increased, negative feedback - animal species get extinct, the plants take control and the CO2 is reduced.
We (as Homo sapiens) have never lived at concentrations of CO2 higher than 400 ppm and the rate of increase of CO2 has never been that fast, so the species had time to adapt.
A lot of species have extinct in order to have that beautiful climate we have today ... and that we are about to lose.
Here’s a question: When the head of Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly-traded energy company, calls for a carbon tax, is that serious or is it just a tactic to avoid any action on climate change?
And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe?
Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam
@syco50 actually it is propaganda. The people who created this video are "Competitive Enterprise Institute" funded by Exxon/Mobil. I found it funny though too.
Look if you believe in global warming and all that shit then you're more of a corporate drone than anyone else. I agree that some of these corporations are exploitative fucks and no mistake but open your eyes. Don't just believe what Al "I fail at politics" Gore says. Practically none of us are scientists. People over environment. Never lose sight of that. Peace Out.
@Adroitism I love your comment "People Over Environment" it should be on a poster!
The only thing is that People cannot live without the environment, but the environment can do quite well without people. It is not about "Saving the Earth." The Earth will be here long after we have gone.
I can't believe this video is real. If you took high school biology you should be aware how skewed this commercial is. Republicans, gotta love them. They can make anything seem positive. Even CO2 emission that is currently ruining the earth. YAY POLITICS!
We shouldn't limit carbon emissions because if we eliminated all CO2, we'd all die!!! uh...true...but burning fossil fuels and breathing are two different things. Fear not, even if we burned nothing to produce CO2, us animals would still breathe out enough to keep all the plants alive.
Hilarious video...if I didn't know better, I'd say it was an SNL skit.
Global heating is related to changes in solar activity and change in magnetism in sun and earth magnetospheres. All planets in the sollar system are going through a warming phase last 30 years. Due to humans?
i.e.Co2 is a really lame greenhouse gas- unfortunately, or it might enough to prevent the next otherwise inevitable ice age- we need something much more effective?-
@GuybrushThreebwood It will certainly prevent from the so called mini ice age that is a potential 0,3 degrees decline from lack of solar forcing (National Solar Obervatory). The rising temperatures graph will merely be affected.
Wow first of all they aren't trying to ban all carbon. co2 IS essential to many biological processes. The problem is when we convert so much of it from fossil fuels into the atmosphere it contributes more and more to a greenhouse effect. It's ok though i wouldnt expect the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" to actually research anything they say.
magnusea your a dumb ass to think that the ocean has no failure threshold on CO2 absorption. it takes in CO2 but signs of coral bleaching and decrease in pH of water shows the increased absorption. i mean the solubility of CO2 inthe ocean decreases by 4% for every degree C this in of itself shows the ocean won't just take and hold onto Co2..
How much carbon dioxide has been made to remain in the air by the Environmental Lobby's mandates for paper recycling?
After all, every newly grown tree that is then buried in a landfill represents "geologically sequestered carbon" under the ideology that defines carbon in the air as pollution.
Boiling water to recycle paper uses LOTS more energy than chopping down a tree and planting a new seed!
No man, I'm talking about commercial tree farms, and the utilization of trees that will just be replanted. Paper mills don't want to run out either!
Trees are carbon sinks, but as long as they remain above ground, the potential for that carbon to get back into the air is all too real: Trees, just like coal and gasoline, are flammable and release CO2 when burned.
The safest place for an old, slow-growing tree is underground, with a younger faster-growing one replacing it above ground.
I'm with gawdzila on this. The debate on how to label C02 is important and the solution is going to be complex. This video is baseless propaganda, even people who don't want to see C02 limits in place must think this is idiotic.
Yes plants and animals breath the stuff, but Bambi doesn't drive a Ford F250 or power his TV using electricity from a coal-fired plant. Too much of anything is bad, and carbon dioxide is no exception.
Don't dis that. I mean, I still have an entire plantation of slaves. They save me from a lot of back breaking work. Some Washington politicians want to take them away calling it inhumane but I call it life.
um we aren't talking about poop or farts. YOU don't emit the CO2 that's the problem. It's the CO2 that is emitted to create the things that we consume.
Yeah like food, modern medicine, the electricity that powers my CFL lightbulbs ever since I left APS territory (APS uses superior nuclear power).
Look chump, I live in Arizona. When I hear about a bunch of frenchies who died a few years ago during a so-called "european heat-wave" being "proof" of global warming, all I can do is wonder why my family - or any of the other 10 million people in Phoenix - is still alive.
BTW: climate models say the hottest spots will cool. So much for "global"...
@gawdzila I like ur attempt at sounding smart, but do you have any idea how much percentage of CO2 is in our atmosphere???? ok, should we not let countries and companies wantonly throw their garbage anywhere? no, but this envirobull is just there for the people truly in power to manipulate the USEFUL IDIOTS into keeping the power out of the individuals hands.
the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 1/20th of 1%. That isn't very much. You can see, then, how the contribution of all of human industry might have a significant effect on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, especially over the course of more than a century.
As for the rest of your "point", it doesn't really make any sense.
@gawdzila by that argument, since DDT was in such small percentages, it was also fine, same with mercury, oh and lead in the water supply. The statistic you gave is completely irrelevant
I was not arguing that CO2 is harmless because it is makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere. My argument was that BECAUSE it makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere, it makes it easier for human contributions to upset the balance. That means that my statistic is completely relevant.
You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing on the side of the video, which pretty much means that you misunderstood my point.
Since CO2 in the air is like a fertilizer, the more there is, the faster plants will grow. When temperatures rise, the photosynthetic reaction speeds up. A homeostatic mechanism, like a thermostat or toilet tank float. The system works as long as the mechanism is intact. Cutting all of the forests and killing the algae in the ocean where most of the co2 is absorbed, can't be good thing. This is a bigger issue than using fossil fuels. We shouldn't go there just to see.
While I agree with your comment with regards to forests and algae, I have to correct your assessments of the greenhouse gas situation:
there was a peer-reviewed experiment, where plants were exposed to the amount of CO2 that's going to be in the air in 2050, as well as the temperatures that go along with it. Contrary to what might be expected, their growth was stunted.
CO2 is heathy, but only in certain amounts contained in the atmosphere to keep the temperature so we can live in this earth, for the past years, because of all our actions and because of our contamination (wich could have been avoided in some cases) CO2 levels are going up and up, increasing earths regular temperature, as you know plants and animals produce it but it was never foretold by earth that we would produce a mass amount of this gas, that is the real problem, and many others as well
There was 5 or 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere millons of years ago, when it was warm or it was ice ages. No cerrelation were CO2 controlled climate.
Also you breath out almost 50000 ppm (fifty thousand) CO2 at every breath you take! Indoor air may have 1000 ppm CO2 or more (the flowers are very happy with that).
The nature (oceans) emits and absorb 30 times more CO2 than we humans emits, and the oceans contains 50 times more CO2 than we possibly can emits in 100 years of time.
Balanced? That's philosophy! Some mega large volcanoes has destroyd earth AND brought higher levels of CO2 which made climate and life better. A meteorit destroyed the dinosarurs which enabled human to develop.
We have long term decreasing CO2 levels. At the moment we have +100 ppm compared to interglacier average. During ~90000 year ice ages (between the interglaciers) it is 100 ppm lower levels. Current level depends on warmth. NOAA: ~1/2 of our CO2 in the oceans. ~1/4 fertilizes trees.
Another thing you don't seem to know is that every single year nature (mostly oceans) sucks up ~25 times more CO2 than we emits.
Nature also emits 25 times more than we emits, so if we shall talk about balance in nature, then nature has no problem to take care of the small amount of CO2 we add into the atmosphere.
Nature is NOT sucking up all the CO2 we emit, that is why atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are at the highst level for the last 800,000 years.
truetheatertype writes: "Earth does absorb a great amount of CO2. it also releases just as much. We're adding to the net sum of ..."
No, this is a (gloom & doom) story. The chemical fact is that the oceans have 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and well absorb extra CO2 we put in the atmosphere. There will be a small and declining net addition in the atmospere. Oceanograph Ph D's and chemical professors I know says this.
all this people keep implying that "global warming is fake" are abviously exxon share holder and part of corporate americas.. they dont want to educate people of realy whats happening simply because it's bad for their bussiness.. but ask your self? do they realy think that we are that ignorant? it's realy annoying, dont you think?
Umm this video has a point but theres one problem...... Carbon Dioxide gases will make the air more poisonous and global warming rise eventually making the world less clean than today
Errr... I agree with global warming, but careful on the poisonous part. Anyone in the scientific community who was being honest would tell you that the carbon dioxide could never reach toxic levels in our atmosphere as we would all be dead and fried in a Venus like atmosphere before it did... Just saying. Carbon Dioxide= Global Warming, good... Carbon Dioxide= Poison, bad...
slgongado - you've posted a lot of words below. But you've got some basics wrong.
I'm "hell-bent" as you claim on refuting eco-alarmism, because the costs of Kyoto far outweigh the possible benefits. They have the effect of keeping billions of people in poverty in developing countries by denying them the basics of a civilised life - like vaccines, refrigerators, electroc lighting, clean domestic cooking and heating.
The environmentalist movement of today is worse than that of the 1970s.
slagongado - You go on about Iraq - a complete red herring, irrelevant to the question of whether CO2 emission is on balance beneficial to plants, animals and humans.
You claim that cleaner energy is viable through market developments: this is absolutely not the case - which is why governments are trying to force us to do what we all know isn't in our economic interests.
You should read a recent article which shows that ratification of Kyoto is correlated with state corruption indices!
I wonder how much of the peanut gallery below actually takes time to read books, and information from a variety of sources?
Everyone pointing the finger at "eco-alarmists" could do well to read up, and recognize the vast potential for economic growth that is inherent in sustainable development. Any CEO that doesn't improve his company's bottom line through efficient resource use is misled. This is one example of why you should learn about the issues at hand, instead of just bitching!
stagongado - it's your own peanut-ness you reveal. The whole point is that whereas you eco-sheep have got most of your views from the mass media, those of us who are climate rationalists have got most of our views through reading scientific books and articles.
For a thorough discussion of the economic issues why don't you read Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" (2007)?
"Cool it" was intended to argue for more responsible ways of addressing climate change, like promoting alternatives to consumers and allowing the free market to fund the change. If you had read my post, you would understand that I also am arguing for responsible, pragmatic ways of addressing climate change, promoting economic growth at the same time.
If you would like to learn something interesting, check out these "Mass media" books on sustainable business - they are all entrepreneurial and forward-thinking:
Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins, Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough, and Biomimicry by Janine Benyus. These books present methods for addressing resource scarcity that are environmentally and economically sustainable.
slagongado - correction - the great majority of the argument of "Cool It" is that we should spend our money on higher priorities than global warming, since a richer warmer world is many times better than a poorer cooler world.
I recognise that you are arguing for pragmatic ways of addressing climate change, but that doesn't change the fact that reducing CO2 emissions is a huge waste of money that could otherwise be used for good, since CO2 does not drive temperature to any significant degree.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is both a means and an end - I can't say unequivocally that GHGs are absolutely contributing to climate change, but you're a sheep if you think 100% for sure that they don't. Even if a higher CO2 concentration turns out not to be harmful to the atmosphere, going carbon-neutral and rethinking our consumption can mitigate LOTS of scarcity problems, that are demonstrated and measurable, as well as just improving general quality of life for people. Really, read up
slagongado - really - I have read up - I used to believe in the CO2 dogma until I started reading about it for myself about a year ago.
The problem with your argument is that you are assuming the costs of CO2 abatement and reducing consumption are trivial - in reality, the costs of doing so are very very high and yet they achieve little or no results.
Far from improving general quality of life, reducing CO2 emissions means devastating cuts now, and keeping billions of people in poverty.
What "devastating cuts" are we talking about here? We have spent over a trillion dollars in Iraq since 2003 securing our CO2-friendly fossil fuels. A tenth or a hundredth of that money could have been allocated towards an "economic stimulus package" that subsidizes new technological development, allowing the people to choose well-designed, affordable alternatives to current dirty consumption methods. This will keep billions in poverty? Looks more like it will enfranchise the middle class.
Have you taken any general econ classes at least? What's keeping people in poverty right now is that we are spending all our public aid money on a worthless war, and no drastic action has been taken to enfranchise the poor of the USA since the Second Reconstruction. How about providing people an affordable means of getting energy that doesn't rely on our diplomatic standing, and hides no externalized prices?
Your buddy Bjorn Lomborg himself argued that providing the demand side of the free market with energy and consumption alternatives was a sober and realistic way to address the VERY real impact of resource scarcity and climate change. This isn't pinko hand-wringing; it's entrepreneurship providing Americans with better ways to live their lives.
I checked out your favorites and it seems like you're hellbent on proving CO2 alarmists wrong. Why? Why are you fighting so hard to defend this viewpoint? The environmentalist movement of today is not the same as that of the 1970s; today's environmentalists want transparent government, efficient government, stimulus of development and trade, reduction of unnecessary spending, prudent foreign policy - smacks of true conservatism (not neoconservatism), to be perfectly honest.
I just don't see why looking for sustainable methods of energy independence and countering waste and resource problems is "so devastatingly costly". How about being a good conservative and recognizing the power of the free market to catalyze progress and paradigm shifts? Instead of paying over a trillion bucks, ruining int'l diplomatic standing, and creating an argument for terrorist recruiters, we could have all the (clean) energy we need for far less cost...of both money, and human lives.
So, read up. Today's environmentalists are some of the smartest businessmen alive today, and they embrace a philosophy that makes for economic prosperity, US leadership in an increasingly competitive global market, positive diplomacy, decreased regulations in many cases (especially land use and architecture), and healthy and happy living for every part of the socioeconomic strata. How could you possibly argue against that, unless you just want to keep the poor poor and fight pointless wars?
eco alarmism? i forgot im human im not a part of nature, even if climate change is purely natural, all i need is concrete and exhaust pipes, green is poisonous like nuclear power so burn it all. ps thats my response to irrelevant scientific bullshit debates
alexhiggins80 what a stupid experiment you propose. When holding your breath CO2 levels rise by many times the rise we are seeing in the atmosphere, and more importantly oxygen levels are falling - which isn't happening in the atmosphere.
Your experiment would be about as stupid as saying we don't need water in order to live - try holding your head under water.
Facts: today the earths atmosphere has .038% carbon dioxide. before the industrial revolution it had .030% carbon dioxide. you who believe that global warming is due to human contributions are upset over eight thousants of one % increase in the CO2 level, this is an increadably small increase. What is increasing the earths temperature is the fact the sun is hotter than in the past, and the scientests have noticed that increase on other planets where there are no people to contribute to the CO2.
A temperature graph shows a very obvious and unmistakable trend. Comparing the last ten years *only* with the spike of 1998 is mendacious and irrelevant.
Don't bother recycling bogus talking points - I've heard all this stuff before, many, many times. There is a reason it's not convincing anyone.
alexhiggins - correction, you haven't heard my arguments because you fail to understand them let alone address the, By contrast I have heard your arguments many times before.
The temperature graph does indeed show a trend - a very mild slight rise - nothing to be alarmed about and well within the bounds of naturally occurring variation on this planet. Which bit of that don't you understand?
As for the so-called spike - frankly 10 years of non-warming out of 30 years is not a spike.
"remember to apologise in 5 years when you find that the Earth is all still here and no climate change problems."
You think there will be no climate change problems in five years? Try going to coastal Bangladesh and saying that, see what reaction you get. Remember to apolgise afterwards.
alexhiggins80 - yes - let's use Bangladesh as the benchmark. As you know the current rise in sea levels is much the same as it has been for the last 10,000 years or so.
There is absolutely no evidence that sea flooding is getting any worse in Bangladesh. You may perceive it that way because there is more media reporting of it and because population has grown in flood plains.
Anyone who really cares about Bangladesh would spend a fraction of the cost of Kyoto on sea defences NOW.
I perceive that way because my friend has returned from there and people pointed out the parts of the ocean they used to live in to him. Bangladeshi scientists are outraged by Western indifference.
The disctinction between spending money on sea defences and spending money on addressing global warming is a false one - they're both necessary. Google: Unspeak and Lomborg.
alexhiggins80 - nonsense - your own evidence shows that the problem is current, and nothing to do with any increase in sea level that might be caused at some point in the future.
It isn't a false distinction, because for a tiny frraction of the cost of even implementing Kyotot - which would make little or no difference to sea levels 100 years from now, the sea defences could be built now.
Global warming is a costly and deadly irrelevance ot he people of Bangladesh. What they want is wealth.
It's not like Co2 is the main green house gas. You may have heard of something called WATER VAPOUR (a.k.a clouds lol). I think this "We call it life" is a bunch of crap, but it's benifits far out-strip it's negative points. We should concentrate on using what little oil we have left sparingly and using it to prepare for when it runs out (i.e. building nuclear power stations, tidal barriers... etc, but not wind power, way too ineffecient)
I can't see why they didn't mention the storms, like Katrina in New orleans, that will kill our children and destroy what we have made. The drought, the melting of our glaciers, the lack of of fresh water and the extinction of parts of our flora and fauna.
what would our lives be like without electronic billboards, a dusty tractor, kids getting into a minivan, a train, and a guy deburring metal? what would our lives be like then?
You need CO2 yeah for photsynthesis to occur but too much concentration in the air would mean brain damaged or dead humans. Just like in the Apallo 13 mission, the CO2 concentration in the space craft was too high and they had to filter it out.
This video makes it seem like CO2 is the reason were here. Its not, water and O2 are.
I don't understand the pro-CO2 stance, Why do we want extra CO2. I mean even if CO2 wasn't really a problem, what is the harm in lowering the abnormally high levels of CO2 in the air for just a precaution. I mean why in the world are there people arguing against this issue?
..and morons don't worry I am only talking about lowering CO2, not eliminating it altogether (which would be feasibly impossible.)
This commercial is an outrageous lie intended to make you think that pollution is good for you. How stupid do they think we are? WHy would they do that? Because the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" who produced this commercial is a propaganda tank funded by Exxon Mobil, The American Petroleum Institute, and Dow Chemical. Exxon alone has paid this bogus group over $2.5 million to try to deceive you with ads like this and other other disinformation tactics.
If yall like CO2 so much, then go live on Venus; where temperaures are 800 degrees F due to greenhouse effect from mass ammount of CO2 in atmosphere. Go fry, bitches & stop overpopulating Earth.
A lungful? You better hope you have a lungful of carbon dioxide, otherwise you are a corpse buddy! Go back to high school biology class and learn about respiration.
with a lungful of of carbon dioxide you are a corpse. Have you ever heard of hypercapnia? I have to treat them everyday in the intensive care unit, patients that are chronic C02 retainers from so much damage caused by smoking.
The spokesman for this "Think Tank" was on John Stewart last night. God I wish Stewart would have asked him where his funding came from. Please link this to lots of people. Now that this guy is out on a book tour he is going to get a lot of press (likely on FOX) so more people should see this.
Can't wait to see the sequels: "My friend the pesticide" or "Everything clean with dioxine". Indeed the world would be a friendlier place if people making such crap would take a big dose of what they call life!
Pesticide is our "friend" without it there would be millions of people starving every day. Sure you can afford to buy luxury organic products, but abandoning pesticides would bring about a holocaust of starvation in the developing world, not that you really care.
"Gore and a fringe group of radical liberals known as 'scientists' believe that the earth is being damaged by man-made carbon dioxide. Well, bad mouth humanity all you want, but diss carbon dioxide and the Competitive Enterprise Institute is likely to open up a can of public service advertising on yo' ass."
"I know what you're driving at, but I really don't think science and liberals are going to outlaw breathing."
"Imagine if they succeed...what would our lives be like then?" Life on earth will be better for every living creature--except perhaps petroleum executives. This video is so shameless it's hilarious!
[cont] to think that things in science are so complicated so they can take your money and make you think that your ignorant. Wake up--it's time for a change. The whole world is changing right before our eyes and the greed of every where is being exposed. They spread lies just so they can get your money. Endogenous respiration is the key. Carbon dioxide truly is our friend and don't you forget it. Peace and love to all.
MrGtrCalculus 2 months ago
@MrGtrCalculus Now take a breath!
howorthjohn 1 month ago
@howorthjohn I'm taking a small non-deep breath! lol
MrGtrCalculus 1 month ago
[cont] from CO2 deficiency! As a result, tissue hypoxia occurs. This is why so many people have cancers, diseases, and psychological problems: we hyperventilate, thus pushing out precious carbon dioxide that we need in our lungs. We need about 5 - 6 percent at all times in our lungs and blood to be healthy. The answer to all of life's problems is simple--breathing correctly and this will cure virtually all diseases. Wake up people--everything is corrupt--they want you [cont]
MrGtrCalculus 2 months ago
[cont] side effects of inhaling pure oxygen! CO2 is our friend and I will take this to my grave. I have experienced the results myself. I don't like the FDA, but have anyone ever heard of the Frolov breathing device? It does exactly opposite of mainstream medical breathing techniques does: It increases CO2 in the air that you are breathing through that device and its FDA approved!! People! Start thinking for yourself and stop being fooled by lies!! 90 percent of all people suffer [cont]
MrGtrCalculus 2 months ago
[cont] to life. We think that by breathing more, we get more oxygen to the tissues. In fact, it is the opposite: If you breathe less, you get more oxygen. If anyone knows their physiology, then they would know that there is a constant level of CO2 in the body. Why is this? Because our bodies NEED CO2, just like it needs oxygen, glucose, proteins, fats, cholesterol, vitamins, minerals, and the list goes on and on. Too much of anything is bad for you! Just google the negative [cont]
MrGtrCalculus 2 months ago
[cont] of science. CO2 provides stabilization to neurons and the nerves, fights off free radicals, provide balance in pH in the blood, is a regulator of oxygen, is a vasodilator, is a bronchodilator, fights off infection and inflammation, boost the immune system, aids in Bohr effect greatly, prevents cancer, slows heart rate, relaxes smooth muscles, and provides more energy due to more efficient absorption of oxygen and nutrients in the body. Endogenous respiration is the key [cont]
MrGtrCalculus 2 months ago
This video is so true. Carbon dioxide is essential to life. So many times in science, politics, and false propaganda, carbon dioxide is labelled as a poison. Well, I got news for you: carbon dioxide is necessary for healthy living. Why? If anyone knows their basic chemistry in physiology, they would know that CO2 is incorporated into chemical bodily equations and provide balance. Without enough CO2, we would die. Hell, I almost died from CO2 deficiency: we are entering a new age [cont]
MrGtrCalculus 2 months ago
Rand Paul approves this message.
allmtrwhor3 3 months ago
In prehistoric times the 'regulation' of the CO2 was done by Nature. Animal species develop, CO2 is increased, negative feedback - animal species get extinct, the plants take control and the CO2 is reduced.
We (as Homo sapiens) have never lived at concentrations of CO2 higher than 400 ppm and the rate of increase of CO2 has never been that fast, so the species had time to adapt.
A lot of species have extinct in order to have that beautiful climate we have today ... and that we are about to lose.
U1T001 6 months ago
Comment removed
franny231123DMT 7 months ago
Here’s a question: When the head of Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly-traded energy company, calls for a carbon tax, is that serious or is it just a tactic to avoid any action on climate change?
franny231123DMT 7 months ago
oil cartels are behind carbon tax
And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe?
Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam
franny231123DMT 7 months ago
please put a plastic bag over your head and breathe in and out for a few minutes.you will see,you will grow up!!
europeans and intelligent people call it shit!
sambamamba2000 9 months ago
some people buy this shit, can you believe it? :)
zopcuk 10 months ago 3
this is comedy not propaganda
no sane person can take this seriously!
syco50 1 year ago 3
@syco50 actually it is propaganda. The people who created this video are "Competitive Enterprise Institute" funded by Exxon/Mobil. I found it funny though too.
rainboltart 10 months ago 4
@syco50 some people at Exxon and in the US seem to belive that.....never heard so much stupid shit in one video....!!!
hackcbg 7 months ago
I like this, it's natural, therefore NO MATTER WHAT, it can't possibly be harmful. I challenge the makers of this video to go test this with Cyanide.
dbald27 1 year ago
this shit is hilariousss and stop fucking discussing political issues in the comments
niggimescudi2 1 year ago
Veridian Dynamics. Climate change. Good.
bitcloud1 1 year ago
Look if you believe in global warming and all that shit then you're more of a corporate drone than anyone else. I agree that some of these corporations are exploitative fucks and no mistake but open your eyes. Don't just believe what Al "I fail at politics" Gore says. Practically none of us are scientists. People over environment. Never lose sight of that. Peace Out.
Adroitism 1 year ago
@Adroitism I love your comment "People Over Environment" it should be on a poster!
The only thing is that People cannot live without the environment, but the environment can do quite well without people. It is not about "Saving the Earth." The Earth will be here long after we have gone.
rainboltart 1 year ago 11
@Adroitism Environment over people. I'd gladly wipe out as many people like you as it takes to protect the environment.
Heero1337 2 days ago
Ah, carbon dioxide. It's kind of like rape. Rape makes babies. What? Are you saying you hate babies???
tripillthreat 1 year ago
lol
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
obviously NO one has ever grown plants!!!! PLANTS USE CO2 AS FOOOOOODDD!!! I can't believe the stupid people out there!
vjlaptop 1 year ago
omg, wtf, rofl
JVirago 1 year ago
I can't believe this video is real. If you took high school biology you should be aware how skewed this commercial is. Republicans, gotta love them. They can make anything seem positive. Even CO2 emission that is currently ruining the earth. YAY POLITICS!
videosarefun69 2 years ago
This video is hilariously ridiculous.
We shouldn't limit carbon emissions because if we eliminated all CO2, we'd all die!!! uh...true...but burning fossil fuels and breathing are two different things. Fear not, even if we burned nothing to produce CO2, us animals would still breathe out enough to keep all the plants alive.
Hilarious video...if I didn't know better, I'd say it was an SNL skit.
dreamscape03 2 years ago 2
Global heating is related to changes in solar activity and change in magnetism in sun and earth magnetospheres. All planets in the sollar system are going through a warming phase last 30 years. Due to humans?
SaurierDNA 2 years ago
I don't get why some people must comment on a subject they know nothing about or are not even capable of understanding... :)
and for the record, this video is hilarious :D
Roadrunnahz 2 years ago 3
Ordovician ice = >4000 ppm Co2-
i.e.Co2 is a really lame greenhouse gas- unfortunately, or it might enough to prevent the next otherwise inevitable ice age- we need something much more effective?-
GuybrushThreebwood 2 years ago
@GuybrushThreebwood It will certainly prevent from the so called mini ice age that is a potential 0,3 degrees decline from lack of solar forcing (National Solar Obervatory). The rising temperatures graph will merely be affected.
synsei1 2 months ago
Wow first of all they aren't trying to ban all carbon. co2 IS essential to many biological processes. The problem is when we convert so much of it from fossil fuels into the atmosphere it contributes more and more to a greenhouse effect. It's ok though i wouldnt expect the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" to actually research anything they say.
dupomang 2 years ago
All humans produce feces, therefore feces is essential to our life.
NameNotAlreadyTaken2 2 years ago 2
The Hutts don't excrete feces. Do you want to look like Jabba?
jitzubur 2 years ago
How on earth do you even know this. Mind=blown.
SAGEBOT500 2 years ago
It was in some Star Wars novel I read when I was a kid. I can't find a reference on wookiepedia anywhere, so it might not be canonical.
jitzubur 2 years ago
Cyanide is a poison, CO2 is essential to life. See the difference or are you really that stupid?
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
This is so over the top. What's next? Mercury is your friend? Ah, what won't we do for money.
animeanibe 2 years ago
Does all life on Earth require mercury? do you exhale mercury? Does mercury improve plant growth? Is mercury essential to photosynthesis?
dummy
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Comment removed
henriquevicente 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All the elements and substances are our friends. Fascism is NOT.
Encreased CO2 = more green!
Capitalism rules the world! Capitalism = PEACE.
henriquevicente 2 years ago
magnusea your a dumb ass to think that the ocean has no failure threshold on CO2 absorption. it takes in CO2 but signs of coral bleaching and decrease in pH of water shows the increased absorption. i mean the solubility of CO2 inthe ocean decreases by 4% for every degree C this in of itself shows the ocean won't just take and hold onto Co2..
sting94408 2 years ago
Good! We need all the CO2 in the atmosphere that we can get, good to know the ocean will not be stealing it.
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
Hilarious stuff, Exxon-Mobil. Thanks for the laughs.
odawg1218 3 years ago 4
Here's an interesting thought to ponder:
How much carbon dioxide has been made to remain in the air by the Environmental Lobby's mandates for paper recycling?
After all, every newly grown tree that is then buried in a landfill represents "geologically sequestered carbon" under the ideology that defines carbon in the air as pollution.
Boiling water to recycle paper uses LOTS more energy than chopping down a tree and planting a new seed!
zaphraud 3 years ago
...Trees are sinks for CO2. Not sources. They take CO2 out of the atmosphere. The less trees we have, the higher the concentration of CO2.
Are you actually trying to say that deforestation will help SOLVE global warming?
truetheatertype 2 years ago
No man, I'm talking about commercial tree farms, and the utilization of trees that will just be replanted. Paper mills don't want to run out either!
Trees are carbon sinks, but as long as they remain above ground, the potential for that carbon to get back into the air is all too real: Trees, just like coal and gasoline, are flammable and release CO2 when burned.
The safest place for an old, slow-growing tree is underground, with a younger faster-growing one replacing it above ground.
zaphraud 2 years ago
I'm with gawdzila on this. The debate on how to label C02 is important and the solution is going to be complex. This video is baseless propaganda, even people who don't want to see C02 limits in place must think this is idiotic.
dan37911 3 years ago 7
Actually the people who don't want CO2 limits created this propaganda video.
rainboltart 2 years ago 4
This video is completely, utterly ridiculous.
Their argument, essentially, is:
Burning CO2 fuels makes your life easier,
therefore CO2 can't be bad.
What garbage.
Yes plants and animals breath the stuff, but Bambi doesn't drive a Ford F250 or power his TV using electricity from a coal-fired plant. Too much of anything is bad, and carbon dioxide is no exception.
gawdzila 3 years ago 26
Don't dis that. I mean, I still have an entire plantation of slaves. They save me from a lot of back breaking work. Some Washington politicians want to take them away calling it inhumane but I call it life.
Tatarize 3 years ago 2
The actions of Ms O'Leary's cow generated more CO2 emissions than I will in my entire lifetime. Animals aren't so innocent, ya know.
zaphraud 2 years ago
um we aren't talking about poop or farts. YOU don't emit the CO2 that's the problem. It's the CO2 that is emitted to create the things that we consume.
rainboltart 2 years ago
Yeah like food, modern medicine, the electricity that powers my CFL lightbulbs ever since I left APS territory (APS uses superior nuclear power).
Look chump, I live in Arizona. When I hear about a bunch of frenchies who died a few years ago during a so-called "european heat-wave" being "proof" of global warming, all I can do is wonder why my family - or any of the other 10 million people in Phoenix - is still alive.
BTW: climate models say the hottest spots will cool. So much for "global"...
zaphraud 2 years ago
@gawdzila I like ur attempt at sounding smart, but do you have any idea how much percentage of CO2 is in our atmosphere???? ok, should we not let countries and companies wantonly throw their garbage anywhere? no, but this envirobull is just there for the people truly in power to manipulate the USEFUL IDIOTS into keeping the power out of the individuals hands.
vjlaptop 1 year ago
@vjlaptop
Yes, I do.
the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 1/20th of 1%. That isn't very much. You can see, then, how the contribution of all of human industry might have a significant effect on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, especially over the course of more than a century.
As for the rest of your "point", it doesn't really make any sense.
gawdzila 1 year ago
@gawdzila by that argument, since DDT was in such small percentages, it was also fine, same with mercury, oh and lead in the water supply. The statistic you gave is completely irrelevant
dbald27 1 year ago
@dbald27 - I think you missed my point.
I was not arguing that CO2 is harmless because it is makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere. My argument was that BECAUSE it makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere, it makes it easier for human contributions to upset the balance. That means that my statistic is completely relevant.
You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing on the side of the video, which pretty much means that you misunderstood my point.
gawdzila 1 year ago
@gawdzila Yup ! Even oxygen or water can be toxic.
synsei1 2 months ago
Since CO2 in the air is like a fertilizer, the more there is, the faster plants will grow. When temperatures rise, the photosynthetic reaction speeds up. A homeostatic mechanism, like a thermostat or toilet tank float. The system works as long as the mechanism is intact. Cutting all of the forests and killing the algae in the ocean where most of the co2 is absorbed, can't be good thing. This is a bigger issue than using fossil fuels. We shouldn't go there just to see.
Ixthamus 3 years ago
While I agree with your comment with regards to forests and algae, I have to correct your assessments of the greenhouse gas situation:
there was a peer-reviewed experiment, where plants were exposed to the amount of CO2 that's going to be in the air in 2050, as well as the temperatures that go along with it. Contrary to what might be expected, their growth was stunted.
JassuElla 3 years ago
CO2 is heathy, but only in certain amounts contained in the atmosphere to keep the temperature so we can live in this earth, for the past years, because of all our actions and because of our contamination (wich could have been avoided in some cases) CO2 levels are going up and up, increasing earths regular temperature, as you know plants and animals produce it but it was never foretold by earth that we would produce a mass amount of this gas, that is the real problem, and many others as well
molezar 3 years ago 3
Some CO2 good, Too much CO2 is bad.
776281 3 years ago 8
There was 5 or 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere millons of years ago, when it was warm or it was ice ages. No cerrelation were CO2 controlled climate.
Also you breath out almost 50000 ppm (fifty thousand) CO2 at every breath you take! Indoor air may have 1000 ppm CO2 or more (the flowers are very happy with that).
The nature (oceans) emits and absorb 30 times more CO2 than we humans emits, and the oceans contains 50 times more CO2 than we possibly can emits in 100 years of time.
magnusea 3 years ago
What is so hard to understand about balanance. Nature was balanced and we have upset that balance, we are producing more CO2 than nature can absorb.
776281 3 years ago 2
Balanced? That's philosophy! Some mega large volcanoes has destroyd earth AND brought higher levels of CO2 which made climate and life better. A meteorit destroyed the dinosarurs which enabled human to develop.
We have long term decreasing CO2 levels. At the moment we have +100 ppm compared to interglacier average. During ~90000 year ice ages (between the interglaciers) it is 100 ppm lower levels. Current level depends on warmth. NOAA: ~1/2 of our CO2 in the oceans. ~1/4 fertilizes trees.
magnusea 3 years ago
Another thing you don't seem to know is that every single year nature (mostly oceans) sucks up ~25 times more CO2 than we emits.
Nature also emits 25 times more than we emits, so if we shall talk about balance in nature, then nature has no problem to take care of the small amount of CO2 we add into the atmosphere.
magnusea 3 years ago
Nature is NOT sucking up all the CO2 we emit, that is why atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are at the highst level for the last 800,000 years.
776281 3 years ago
You're right, the Earth does absorb a great amount of CO2. it also releases just as much.
We're adding to the net sum of all the CO2 in the system, by burning carbon-heavy fossil fuels that have isolated, buried underground, for millennia.
We do release a small amount of CO2 compared to all the CO2 in the entire atmosphere, but that's all that matters.
truetheatertype 2 years ago
truetheatertype writes: "Earth does absorb a great amount of CO2. it also releases just as much. We're adding to the net sum of ..."
No, this is a (gloom & doom) story. The chemical fact is that the oceans have 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and well absorb extra CO2 we put in the atmosphere. There will be a small and declining net addition in the atmospere. Oceanograph Ph D's and chemical professors I know says this.
magnusea 2 years ago
I didn't make this video, (exxon funded most of it) I don't agree with this video, I posted it because it is ridiculously funny
rainboltart 2 years ago 4
but true
hahajohnnyb 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."
--Yury Izrael
-IPCC co-chairman
-Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute
-member, Russian Academy of Sciences
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all this people keep implying that "global warming is fake" are abviously exxon share holder and part of corporate americas.. they dont want to educate people of realy whats happening simply because it's bad for their bussiness.. but ask your self? do they realy think that we are that ignorant? it's realy annoying, dont you think?
nauticapnoy12 3 years ago
Umm this video has a point but theres one problem...... Carbon Dioxide gases will make the air more poisonous and global warming rise eventually making the world less clean than today
codetyrant 3 years ago
Errr... I agree with global warming, but careful on the poisonous part. Anyone in the scientific community who was being honest would tell you that the carbon dioxide could never reach toxic levels in our atmosphere as we would all be dead and fried in a Venus like atmosphere before it did... Just saying. Carbon Dioxide= Global Warming, good... Carbon Dioxide= Poison, bad...
Daharen 3 years ago
Reminds me of the petition to ban H2O.
theropingeffect 4 years ago
lolwut?
Mokurentate 3 years ago
Somebody as a joke started a petition to ban H20 to make a point that lots of people do not understand basic science.
theropingeffect 3 years ago 4
they also don't know what woman's suffrage is. XD lol
Mokurentate 3 years ago 2
slgongado - you've posted a lot of words below. But you've got some basics wrong.
I'm "hell-bent" as you claim on refuting eco-alarmism, because the costs of Kyoto far outweigh the possible benefits. They have the effect of keeping billions of people in poverty in developing countries by denying them the basics of a civilised life - like vaccines, refrigerators, electroc lighting, clean domestic cooking and heating.
The environmentalist movement of today is worse than that of the 1970s.
minilemur 4 years ago
slagongado - You go on about Iraq - a complete red herring, irrelevant to the question of whether CO2 emission is on balance beneficial to plants, animals and humans.
You claim that cleaner energy is viable through market developments: this is absolutely not the case - which is why governments are trying to force us to do what we all know isn't in our economic interests.
You should read a recent article which shows that ratification of Kyoto is correlated with state corruption indices!
minilemur 4 years ago
If Al Gore is so afraid of carbon dioxide why doesn't someone tell him to shut his ignorant mouth?
ATLANTABURNING 4 years ago
I wonder how much of the peanut gallery below actually takes time to read books, and information from a variety of sources?
Everyone pointing the finger at "eco-alarmists" could do well to read up, and recognize the vast potential for economic growth that is inherent in sustainable development. Any CEO that doesn't improve his company's bottom line through efficient resource use is misled. This is one example of why you should learn about the issues at hand, instead of just bitching!
slagongado 4 years ago
stagongado - it's your own peanut-ness you reveal. The whole point is that whereas you eco-sheep have got most of your views from the mass media, those of us who are climate rationalists have got most of our views through reading scientific books and articles.
For a thorough discussion of the economic issues why don't you read Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" (2007)?
minilemur 4 years ago
"Cool it" was intended to argue for more responsible ways of addressing climate change, like promoting alternatives to consumers and allowing the free market to fund the change. If you had read my post, you would understand that I also am arguing for responsible, pragmatic ways of addressing climate change, promoting economic growth at the same time.
slagongado 4 years ago
If you would like to learn something interesting, check out these "Mass media" books on sustainable business - they are all entrepreneurial and forward-thinking:
Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins, Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough, and Biomimicry by Janine Benyus. These books present methods for addressing resource scarcity that are environmentally and economically sustainable.
slagongado 4 years ago
slagongado - correction - the great majority of the argument of "Cool It" is that we should spend our money on higher priorities than global warming, since a richer warmer world is many times better than a poorer cooler world.
I recognise that you are arguing for pragmatic ways of addressing climate change, but that doesn't change the fact that reducing CO2 emissions is a huge waste of money that could otherwise be used for good, since CO2 does not drive temperature to any significant degree.
minilemur 4 years ago
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is both a means and an end - I can't say unequivocally that GHGs are absolutely contributing to climate change, but you're a sheep if you think 100% for sure that they don't. Even if a higher CO2 concentration turns out not to be harmful to the atmosphere, going carbon-neutral and rethinking our consumption can mitigate LOTS of scarcity problems, that are demonstrated and measurable, as well as just improving general quality of life for people. Really, read up
slagongado 4 years ago
slagongado - really - I have read up - I used to believe in the CO2 dogma until I started reading about it for myself about a year ago.
The problem with your argument is that you are assuming the costs of CO2 abatement and reducing consumption are trivial - in reality, the costs of doing so are very very high and yet they achieve little or no results.
Far from improving general quality of life, reducing CO2 emissions means devastating cuts now, and keeping billions of people in poverty.
minilemur 4 years ago
What "devastating cuts" are we talking about here? We have spent over a trillion dollars in Iraq since 2003 securing our CO2-friendly fossil fuels. A tenth or a hundredth of that money could have been allocated towards an "economic stimulus package" that subsidizes new technological development, allowing the people to choose well-designed, affordable alternatives to current dirty consumption methods. This will keep billions in poverty? Looks more like it will enfranchise the middle class.
slagongado 4 years ago
Have you taken any general econ classes at least? What's keeping people in poverty right now is that we are spending all our public aid money on a worthless war, and no drastic action has been taken to enfranchise the poor of the USA since the Second Reconstruction. How about providing people an affordable means of getting energy that doesn't rely on our diplomatic standing, and hides no externalized prices?
slagongado 4 years ago
Your buddy Bjorn Lomborg himself argued that providing the demand side of the free market with energy and consumption alternatives was a sober and realistic way to address the VERY real impact of resource scarcity and climate change. This isn't pinko hand-wringing; it's entrepreneurship providing Americans with better ways to live their lives.
slagongado 4 years ago
I checked out your favorites and it seems like you're hellbent on proving CO2 alarmists wrong. Why? Why are you fighting so hard to defend this viewpoint? The environmentalist movement of today is not the same as that of the 1970s; today's environmentalists want transparent government, efficient government, stimulus of development and trade, reduction of unnecessary spending, prudent foreign policy - smacks of true conservatism (not neoconservatism), to be perfectly honest.
slagongado 4 years ago
I just don't see why looking for sustainable methods of energy independence and countering waste and resource problems is "so devastatingly costly". How about being a good conservative and recognizing the power of the free market to catalyze progress and paradigm shifts? Instead of paying over a trillion bucks, ruining int'l diplomatic standing, and creating an argument for terrorist recruiters, we could have all the (clean) energy we need for far less cost...of both money, and human lives.
slagongado 4 years ago
So, read up. Today's environmentalists are some of the smartest businessmen alive today, and they embrace a philosophy that makes for economic prosperity, US leadership in an increasingly competitive global market, positive diplomacy, decreased regulations in many cases (especially land use and architecture), and healthy and happy living for every part of the socioeconomic strata. How could you possibly argue against that, unless you just want to keep the poor poor and fight pointless wars?
slagongado 4 years ago
eco alarmism? i forgot im human im not a part of nature, even if climate change is purely natural, all i need is concrete and exhaust pipes, green is poisonous like nuclear power so burn it all. ps thats my response to irrelevant scientific bullshit debates
Olster81 4 years ago
carbon dioxide has ben scientifically proven for 100 years as 1 of 2 main gases that help humans and plants live
this video isnt lieing
TheCrazaticProject 4 years ago 2
It's not CO2 bad, its way too much CO2 bad.
It is the dose that is the poison
776281 4 years ago
Way too much hydrogen oxide will kill you fast too, It is the dose that is the poison.
bohemianowl 4 years ago
"carbon dioxide has ben scientifically proven for 100 years as 1 of 2 main gases that help humans and plants live this video isnt lieing"
Try holding your breath and see what happens as the CO2 builds up inside you. Not all good is it?
alexhiggins80 4 years ago
alexhiggins80 what a stupid experiment you propose. When holding your breath CO2 levels rise by many times the rise we are seeing in the atmosphere, and more importantly oxygen levels are falling - which isn't happening in the atmosphere.
Your experiment would be about as stupid as saying we don't need water in order to live - try holding your head under water.
minilemur 4 years ago
No, it would as stupid as the advert by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. That is the point.
alexhiggins80 4 years ago
Facts: today the earths atmosphere has .038% carbon dioxide. before the industrial revolution it had .030% carbon dioxide. you who believe that global warming is due to human contributions are upset over eight thousants of one % increase in the CO2 level, this is an increadably small increase. What is increasing the earths temperature is the fact the sun is hotter than in the past, and the scientests have noticed that increase on other planets where there are no people to contribute to the CO2.
corvair55 4 years ago
"the sun is hotter than in the past"
No it isn't. Solar radiation has been decreasing for a couple of decades - but the Earth is heating up.
alexhiggins80 4 years ago
aklexhiggins80 - you're talking nonsense. The sun was more active in the 20th century than for the last 8,000 years or so.
The recent plateauing of solar activity is matched by the flatlining of global temperatures which have not risen for the last 10 years (since 1998).
minilemur 4 years ago
A temperature graph shows a very obvious and unmistakable trend. Comparing the last ten years *only* with the spike of 1998 is mendacious and irrelevant.
Don't bother recycling bogus talking points - I've heard all this stuff before, many, many times. There is a reason it's not convincing anyone.
alexhiggins80 4 years ago
alexhiggins - correction, you haven't heard my arguments because you fail to understand them let alone address the, By contrast I have heard your arguments many times before.
The temperature graph does indeed show a trend - a very mild slight rise - nothing to be alarmed about and well within the bounds of naturally occurring variation on this planet. Which bit of that don't you understand?
As for the so-called spike - frankly 10 years of non-warming out of 30 years is not a spike.
minilemur 4 years ago
this is ABSOLUTELY hysterical.
5 years peepz. 5 years.
sarahnuge0503 4 years ago
sarahnuge0503 - remember to apologise in 5 years when you find that the Earth is all still here and no climate change problems.
minilemur 4 years ago
and minilemur, who ever said that the Earth wasn't going to be here anymore?
lilyockwell 4 years ago
"remember to apologise in 5 years when you find that the Earth is all still here and no climate change problems."
You think there will be no climate change problems in five years? Try going to coastal Bangladesh and saying that, see what reaction you get. Remember to apolgise afterwards.
alexhiggins80 4 years ago
alexhiggins80 - yes - let's use Bangladesh as the benchmark. As you know the current rise in sea levels is much the same as it has been for the last 10,000 years or so.
There is absolutely no evidence that sea flooding is getting any worse in Bangladesh. You may perceive it that way because there is more media reporting of it and because population has grown in flood plains.
Anyone who really cares about Bangladesh would spend a fraction of the cost of Kyoto on sea defences NOW.
minilemur 4 years ago
I perceive that way because my friend has returned from there and people pointed out the parts of the ocean they used to live in to him. Bangladeshi scientists are outraged by Western indifference.
The disctinction between spending money on sea defences and spending money on addressing global warming is a false one - they're both necessary. Google: Unspeak and Lomborg.
alexhiggins80 4 years ago
alexhiggins80 - nonsense - your own evidence shows that the problem is current, and nothing to do with any increase in sea level that might be caused at some point in the future.
It isn't a false distinction, because for a tiny frraction of the cost of even implementing Kyotot - which would make little or no difference to sea levels 100 years from now, the sea defences could be built now.
Global warming is a costly and deadly irrelevance ot he people of Bangladesh. What they want is wealth.
minilemur 4 years ago
Excellent counter to all that eco alarmism that normally dominates in the media.
minilemur 4 years ago
inane video
gabtng 4 years ago
It's not like Co2 is the main green house gas. You may have heard of something called WATER VAPOUR (a.k.a clouds lol). I think this "We call it life" is a bunch of crap, but it's benifits far out-strip it's negative points. We should concentrate on using what little oil we have left sparingly and using it to prepare for when it runs out (i.e. building nuclear power stations, tidal barriers... etc, but not wind power, way too ineffecient)
hotdogfilms 4 years ago
I love how this organisation believes that Global warming is a myth cooked up by the EU to decrease american business competitivness. =D
GeorgeGallowayfan 4 years ago 2
I can't see why they didn't mention the storms, like Katrina in New orleans, that will kill our children and destroy what we have made. The drought, the melting of our glaciers, the lack of of fresh water and the extinction of parts of our flora and fauna.
Henco153 4 years ago 3
HAHAHAHA That´s class A humor!
Laughed my ass of...Much funnier than Achmed the Dead Terrorist!
The soccer mom and the kids...went straight to my heart...I´m convinced...CO2 is the shit!
A1069 4 years ago
ignorant fucking people, so fucking selfish
optiom20 4 years ago
Go Co2!!! XD
ssviator 4 years ago
This is the most stupid video i have ever seen.
Skjegget 4 years ago 11
Money rules !!!! I know we humans are very responsive to propaganda but this is too easy and too dumb
Schabracke100 4 years ago 2
How dumb those people are...
galactrice 4 years ago
You are afraid of advancement and you try to avoid healthy changements for every single human beeing on the world,,,
galactrice 4 years ago
what would our lives be like without electronic billboards, a dusty tractor, kids getting into a minivan, a train, and a guy deburring metal? what would our lives be like then?
proboscislounge 4 years ago 3
less advertising, and less fat kids, more plastic, for a start :)
TheFluffyDuck 4 years ago
Me like big truck! Me hate you libruls! Me kill you! Me no like talky tv, bad! Me!
ATDynamics 4 years ago 3
You need CO2 yeah for photsynthesis to occur but too much concentration in the air would mean brain damaged or dead humans. Just like in the Apallo 13 mission, the CO2 concentration in the space craft was too high and they had to filter it out.
This video makes it seem like CO2 is the reason were here. Its not, water and O2 are.
Winnin813 4 years ago 3
ok, so now, remember this when you see things on tv; lots are corporation-sponsored, so lots more than this ad may be propaganda.
apollodionysus7 4 years ago 4
THE THINGS WE NEED
ghostwhales 4 years ago
Ok everyone in the world just start holding you breath ready 1...2...3...! they call it life?
I call it pollution! Ass hats!
dntueva 4 years ago 3
"We call it life." They obviously haven't seen the "life" on Venus. The temperature's hot enough to melt lead.
I'd like to find the person who made this and take a big steaming dump in the middle of their livingroom.
They may call it a disgusting pile of crap. I call it "life nurturing plant food".
Cornplanter 4 years ago 2
lol. Ijoin you with the turd :)
TheFluffyDuck 4 years ago
umm noo, pretty sure there was "life" before we started burning CO2.. nice try though
starwarsfan275 4 years ago
Nice one BIG OIL
Nichen 4 years ago 2
I don't understand the pro-CO2 stance, Why do we want extra CO2. I mean even if CO2 wasn't really a problem, what is the harm in lowering the abnormally high levels of CO2 in the air for just a precaution. I mean why in the world are there people arguing against this issue?
..and morons don't worry I am only talking about lowering CO2, not eliminating it altogether (which would be feasibly impossible.)
shabocentury 4 years ago 2
Holy shit. What can you say to this? It's kind of a scary and dangerous video, no? I mean really, even the narrator's voice screams "BRAINWASH!!"
Novaman5000 4 years ago 6
People need to stop breathing so much.
MrX420 4 years ago 2
The people who made this tripe need to stop breathing so much.
Cornplanter 4 years ago 2
wow, and I thought all this time CO2 was bad, but if its on TV and produced by the people who sell the stuff, it must be right.
alexandregingras 4 years ago 2
fuck you, CO2
Farquad2007 4 years ago
smooth PR. well done oil corp.
MrChendy 4 years ago
This commercial is an outrageous lie intended to make you think that pollution is good for you. How stupid do they think we are? WHy would they do that? Because the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" who produced this commercial is a propaganda tank funded by Exxon Mobil, The American Petroleum Institute, and Dow Chemical. Exxon alone has paid this bogus group over $2.5 million to try to deceive you with ads like this and other other disinformation tactics.
nanofilm 4 years ago
This video is 100% right!
flkjeio 4 years ago
nice touch oil companies
Sillyrabt 4 years ago 2
This is another piece of shit propaganda video sponsored by big oil companies.
itskaikai 4 years ago
If yall like CO2 so much, then go live on Venus; where temperaures are 800 degrees F due to greenhouse effect from mass ammount of CO2 in atmosphere. Go fry, bitches & stop overpopulating Earth.
itskaikai 4 years ago
A lungful? You better hope you have a lungful of carbon dioxide, otherwise you are a corpse buddy! Go back to high school biology class and learn about respiration.
jdw99 5 years ago
with a lungful of of carbon dioxide you are a corpse. Have you ever heard of hypercapnia? I have to treat them everyday in the intensive care unit, patients that are chronic C02 retainers from so much damage caused by smoking.
vanidius 5 years ago
Life, just dont get a lung full of it!
kingoftheintertron 5 years ago
What a bunch of shit, and note the group orducing it had the word competative in it, soo its all about money basicly.
asopu20 5 years ago
The spokesman for this "Think Tank" was on John Stewart last night. God I wish Stewart would have asked him where his funding came from. Please link this to lots of people. Now that this guy is out on a book tour he is going to get a lot of press (likely on FOX) so more people should see this.
rainboltart 5 years ago
Life, eh? They won't be saying that when they're choking on it. The absolute pinnicle of propaganda. Thanks for sharing this. I'll pass on the link.
Jurious 5 years ago
Can't wait to see the sequels: "My friend the pesticide" or "Everything clean with dioxine". Indeed the world would be a friendlier place if people making such crap would take a big dose of what they call life!
eclipsesx 5 years ago
Pesticide is our "friend" without it there would be millions of people starving every day. Sure you can afford to buy luxury organic products, but abandoning pesticides would bring about a holocaust of starvation in the developing world, not that you really care.
flkjeio 4 years ago
Jon Stewart had it right...
"Gore and a fringe group of radical liberals known as 'scientists' believe that the earth is being damaged by man-made carbon dioxide. Well, bad mouth humanity all you want, but diss carbon dioxide and the Competitive Enterprise Institute is likely to open up a can of public service advertising on yo' ass."
"I know what you're driving at, but I really don't think science and liberals are going to outlaw breathing."
PerryPlanet 5 years ago
this is depressing just thinking of the people who swallows this tripe and choke on the co2 that they love so much.
i love the ending though, priceless!
"we call it life"
qwertyrom 5 years ago
co2 is my friend
Westonci 5 years ago
"Imagine if they succeed...what would our lives be like then?" Life on earth will be better for every living creature--except perhaps petroleum executives. This video is so shameless it's hilarious!
ksocean 5 years ago
This video makes me very very sad
Udedenkz 5 years ago