Carbon Footprint: Perverts Importance of CO2 (long version)

[91099Babar]

Part -2 999

The burnt carbon changes it lattice and the inventions are created up till now

might have found no use , unless they should undergo a transition period of origination .

[91099Babar]

Part 1 -999

What they meant with respect to Carbon as Pollutant , I presume that it is the after effects of burnt substances or expired substances which is happened to reacted with outside entities and form into pollutant due to exponential decay for which they undergo a series of conventional testings and later assessed as rather Pollutant than to analyze it as useful

component .

[91099Babar]

Thank god for the first time someone has spoken out in favor of Carbon .

[david222444]

Atmospheric co2 enrichment will benefit all life on the Planet.

[U1T001]

The problem is not in the carbon cycle of nature. The problem is in the concentration, not in the presence or absence.

Do you know at what concentration the acid rains will wipe out the leaves of the trees? Do you know what will happen with the climate of the planet when the average temperature rises by 1.. 3 .. 6 degrees.

In the past there were similar rises in the temperature, but the concentrations of CO2 were different and those data could not be applied onto the present state of the things.

[Selfspeak]

water is good to drink right? then why not stick a hose down your throat and crank on the hose for an hour, that's just stupid! There's an amazing array of alternative energy sources that we out to be paying attention to for alot of reasons...example.. lower impact on the DELICATE BALANCE of the gasses and various elements that create our bioshphere...It's time we stop using the earth as a science experiement..THAT'S just plain stupid...cap and trade still bad. power to the people!

[ShwangShwing]

Why is this bitch talking no sense? Not enough CO2? wtf... Damn it... American ignorance platinum edition.

[Pyriander]

How stupid this women is or pretends to.. Doesn't have the slightest clue about physics or chemicals. To watch this makes an intelligent person angry, very angry. Please doen't believe this nonsense. Get real scientific information, f.e. from any serious university around the world...

[CaptElaine]

FINALLY, someone said it, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, Glo-bull warming is NOT science it is a way for governments to TAX the very air we breath... and some people are buying it.. NOW who is stoopid?

[divermike]

Stupid is as stupid does....

The next time a 'climate change' person decries C02...ask them if they would like to do an experiment with you.

In this experiment there will be two sealed rooms both filled with oxygen. In one room there will be plants and in the other there will be nothing. Before you put them in the room without plants and you in the room with plants...ask them how long they think they can survive without that 'pollutant' called C02...Stupid is as stupid does...

[mscoffman]

Very good example!

[Knossos22]

@divermike

Well this is just stupid!

[molecularpenguin]

@divermike Huh? This doesn't makes sense. The person in the room would fill the room with CO2 as they exhaled each time. The CO2 would kill them eventually. The missing ingredient would be the plants. Your example is completely bogus.

[MrMichaelcurran]

Reason as it exist. This is "real world stuff"

[abyssquick]

Co2 is not elemental carbon.

It has different properties than other chemical forms. This is basic chemistry; I.E. properties of chemicals are different than properties of elements. Sodium by itself is a metal which reacts violently with water. Pure chlorine is toxic to humans. Sodium Chloride is table salt.

The same thing is true with carbon. "C" has very different properties than "CO2" and C6H12O6 (glucose). All carbon based.

Science is about fine details, not general statements.

[mscoffman]

You are of course, correct -- as far as it goes. Our point is that all of these various forms of carbon in living or formerly living originated with atmospheric CO2 being converted into food by photosynthesis. So we are back to the main point of the video. CO2 is not a pollutant.

[abyssquick]

Yes, I have made the distinction between - let's call it - "sleeping" carbon (locked in the ground), and carbon that is "awake" (actively part of the earth surface carbon cycle). Carbon stores compiled over eons, and haven't been part of the (normally self-balancing) "awake" cycle for thousands, or millions of years. Humans are taking old, static carbon, and rendering it atmospheric. This activity seems, to me, an important climactic risk factor given the known properties of the gases produced.

[abyssquick]

"awake" = Biological Carbon Cycle

"asleep" = Geological Carbon Cycle

... but you already know that.

[abyssquick]

FTR: I don't agree with the economic "carbon footprint" artifice, either. It's too simplistic, and ultimately confuses the public as to the purpose/intent of science.

What concerns me most is the pending reality of displacement. Most of the worlds human population lives within 50 miles or so from the sea. Smaller populations are subject to desertification, and heat-induced lower crop yields. Indeed the planet will be fine, species will adapt, but what of all these displacements?

[gibblets17]

@abyssquick all that will happen whether we like it or not. we do NOT produce enough c02 to make any difference. volcanoes alone produce more then we do. the oceans and plant life and decomposing stuff produces more then we could ever hope to make! the fact is that the sun controls warming more then anything else. in times of cooling there are no sun spots or very few. in times of warming sun activity is up! in times of past before we ever had industry or cars temperatures where way higher!

[abyssquick]

Oh for shit's sake, this is months old. And no, going by your commentary you are not literate in biological carbon cycles. The internet is a daft, uneducated place and I am tired of the same re-hashed non-science, the same imprudent "refutations" repeated ad nauseum. The answers to any questions you have are out there if you care to seek them. A fool asks more questions than 10 wise men can answer.

[gibblets17]

@abyssquick great non answer. your trying to prove something to me so you say go find the answers your self? lame. learn to debate or get the fuck off the web and stop replying t people.

[abyssquick]

"Debate" is the only thing people on the internet know how to do, yet it is also the most obtuse form of discourse in this particular forum. I'm tired of answering the same questions repeatedly, while simultaneously having to educate the person doing the criticism. The real issue is that people have conflated science with politics, and hold a political stance that prevents scientific realities from computing properly. I have neither the time nor patience for this type of routine incredulity.

[gibblets17]

@abyssquick debate is a very important part of science. if you don't want to speak with me or debate with me then don't fucking respond to my comments. you don't HAVE to type a message to em. just ignore it. but when you insult me insult the idea and a conversation and exchange of ideas that not science that lazy hardheadedness. these day anyone that says or trys to speak a different opinion about this is always berated and given the same slew of bull shit each time. that's not science.

[abyssquick]

I know what science is. Debate is not the nexus of science. Dialogue is. Exploration is. Data is. "Debate" is merely one form of exchange, and hardly the only one employed.

I have degrees in horticultural and ecological sciences, and as such I have had to routinely explain ecological sciences in detail time and time again. Indeed, I wish I had never commented on this video. At the time, I did not understand the extent of science illiteracy in the USA. It is more extensive than I realized.

[abyssquick]

Understand, this video is a political piece. Nothing more. It leaves out a rather important ecological context, relying on public ignorance of science to spread it's message. It exploits superficial logic. I have some serious serious questions regarding it's intent.

[B17Boy]

@abyssquick - So, would you term Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" also a political piece? I certainly have no issue with science. Investigation and refutation of consensus has lead to knowledge about this planet that was only dreamed about a mere 100 years ago. Michael Crichton was very much against the politicalization of science, too. As am I. Unfortunately, when someone like Al Gore lies about AGW you sometimes have to dumb down your response to reach his level and that of his followers.

[abyssquick]

I don't follow Al Gore, and I don't care what he's doing. His film is are part advocacy, part politics. What I have heard him say seems accurate, but is part "emerald movement." The public act like "Al Gore" suddenly thrust the issue on the scene, when in fact people who work in ecology have been aware of, and literate in the subject for decades. Since I work in Ecology, I keep tabs on the field scientists themselves. I have not assessed his film, so I cannot say much about it, nor do I wish to.

[B17Boy]

@abyssquick - Thank you very much for your reply.

[gibblets17]

@abyssquick in fact did you know that the ice caps melt every year buy huge swafts? most of the ice caps melt every year. but there is barely a difference in the height of ocean. when you see pictures of ice caps falling apart its pictures of what has been happening for thousands of years naturally. it only just recently that we could record it so much with our satellites. in times of past when there was barley any ice on earth polar bears still existed and survived as well.

[david222444]

@abyssquick Is There something wrong with elemental carbon? what is your point? this is organic chemistry, Why do you bring in examples of inorganic chemistry? Carbon is essential for organic life on the Planet. Guess what the Planet is cooling abruptly with or without co2.

[abyssquick]

We understand quite well what pulls the earth into ice ages, and what brings us out of them (Milankovitch Cycles, weak and strong gas forcings, etc). We have many well-researched ice-core samples, from several glaciers worldwide, as well as several ecological ones (tree rings, coral, sedimentation, etc). This idea that "it's all warming and cooling naturally" implies we do not know much about the natural oscillations. We do. And no, it's not "cooling."

[david222444]

@abyssquick We are up a gum tree! Every level of the Atmosphere is cooling(AMSU=T temperature anomalies) The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now strongly negative and La nina is forming meaning that the Pacific ocean is cooling. Our Sun is now entering a Grand Solar Minimum and is currently tracking below Dalton minimum levels. The Gulf stream conveyer is weak! Techtonic and volcanic activity is increasing due to a weak Magnetosphere. Keep your Royal We, yes the Planet is cooling.

[abyssquick]

I don't know what sources you're using, but this lacks macroscopic perspective. La Nina is seasonal. PDO is an oscillation. Solar cycles are an oscillation. The thing about oscillations is that they VARY based on cyclical patterns, as everything on earth does. Oscillations being in a negative pattern shows us only part of the long-term climatological picture. Really, I don't have time to explain all of this to you. Why not get a degree in Ecology if you're so set on having these opinions?

[david222444]

@abyssquick Stop talking nonsense and do not be so arrogant as to think that you can explain anything to me.The conclusion is then that carbon dioxide levels are cyclical as they are a mere product of cyclical warming. I already have one in Earth and Environmental Sciene/ Biology. We must try not to talk down to anyone! I think you may be getting microclimates and macroclimates mixed, but then a warmist would!

[abyssquick]

Then you ought to be current with all of this. And, what is a "warmist" ...? Dual-model logic is a fallacy. I deal with climate in my own work. I've been observing cold-sensitive plant species shift along latitudes and altitudes for years, especially in northern hemisphere - patterns indicating a clear ecological phenomena of warming. Your re: climate statements don't make much sense, and are not accurate given what I study.

[david222444]

@abyssquick Yes and look at the mess of the economy your so called Anthropogenic Global Warming policies have made. You idiots should really be made to answer for your so called work. Again the Sun caused the past warming, and anyone knows that deserts move according to climate as does plant life and you get money for this lol . Your ideas do not make sense either maybe you are a con.artist eh? sorry I do not have any more time to waste on you.

[abyssquick]

You are conflating science with politics. And no, the "sun" was not the chief factor in past warming events. "Your" ... my what? You talk like I'm part of some group, and not independent field researcher. So, I'm "part of a conspiracy" ...jeezus. Everyone on the internet is either part of a conspiracy, or an FBI agent. Absurd. I can see this is going nowwhere fast.

[abyssquick]

Carbon is not a pollutant -per se- You utterly misconstrue the controversy here, a problem stemming from carbon -sources,- not the mere presence of carbon itself.

This video has made no distinction between the natural balance in earth's carbon cycle, the slow attrition into carbon stores underground (coal, oil, peat), or the dynamics of releasing ancient locked carbon stores.

This is not an educational video. It is stating basic ecological observations in a "well, duh" political tone.

[abyssquick]

Obviously carbon is imperative to all life. Carbon cycles are high school science. Anyone literate in basic earth science knows this.

Scientists like myself don't really know what to say to these kinds of claims and videos - You see I'm not even political on the issue really. There are many ways we might deal with excess carbon in the cycle.

Yet there's this group of people who thinks data collected foo decades across all ecological sciences is of political motivation... i don't get this...

[mscoffman]

The reason the natural balance vs man's emissions was not discussed is that it would have made the video too long and is "utterly" irrelevant. Using IPCC numbers, about 200 Gigatons is exchanged each year "naturally." Mankind adds about 6 Gigatons. That is significant, but what is much more significant is that atmospheric CO2 can be increased by 300% to 400% without detrimental effects (including global warming) and with huge benefits to food production and ecosystem health.

[abyssquick]

Well, the earth is warming. We do know that. I still say, that knowing the properties of gases produced by our activity, that it would be unwise not to scale back emissions, or at the very least attempt remediation measures to lock up extra carbon in soil / biomass. We know a little bit about feedback cycles, and we know what might happen long-term when it gets out of hand (I.E. venus). I think treading lightly would be the best, most logical course for the longevity of our own species.

[denirio781]

your comment on "humans growing bigger" has got to be one of the worst i've ever heard. We are limited in our growth much like insects. our bones limit our size, much like an exoskeleton limits the size on an insect. Plants, in case you didn't know, do not have bones, they rely on sunlight and co2 for their growth as well as elements like nitrogen, potash and phosphorous. your tomato plant will infact grow larger with more co2...try high amounts of co2 on your brain....i'm just saying

[mscoffman]

For both your information, I have a PhD in plant sciences and know whereof I speak. Both of you have some good points. CO2 does dramatically increase plant growth and there has been deforestation. Planting more trees does help -- to a point when they become too crowded and then planting more doesn't help. Anyway, continue the dialog, but try to do it without personal attacks.

[denirio781]

this was a good video. Some people will trash skeptics regardless of the facts. Someone will take a picture of a polar bear and it is proof positive that we are killing the planet, no debate. Soon al gore will have his people beating up those that don't agree, or worse. They claim the debate is over, i never remember hearing about the debate. global warming. end of story. we will all die. the planet will die. we must kill all humans before it's too late. i'm sorry, i can't stop breathing co2.

[denirio781]

you talk like you were a ceo of a big oil company. like you payed people to give false environmental reports. judging by your lack of knowledge on co2 it is easy to see you did neither. you resort to quoting "peer edited reviews" written by people that leave out anyone who questions their findings. take a gardening class, find out why co2 is so important to our planet. you will find that growers pump high levels of co2 into their greenhouses to grow plants bigger

[mysticdark1]

Maybe someone should pump some O2 into your head so your brain could grow a little. I lack knowledge on CO2 do i? So does your knowledge of CO2 come from gardening classes? well it sure looks like it.

[denirio781]

i don't watch fox news. i don't read so-called peer discriminated journals. i read political books. al gore is set to make billions if cap and trade passes. it is in his interests to believe in global warming. twenty years ago we were in the midst of an ice age. Funny how al gore says one of the symptoms of global warming is global cooling. why have they begun to call it "global climate change" instead of warming? that's because we're getting cooler as the result of fewer sun spots.

[mysticdark1]

Why is Global Warming a political issue? Its not some fad that people picked, Politicians are not scientists, they didn't study biology or chemistry. They studied Law, how could ask a law graduate about biology?

[denirio781]

How do you explain global warming on mars and Jupiter? Scientists have found that the temperatures are also rising on those planets. Maybe our co2 emissions have become so bad that we're actually destroying our galaxy...or maybe the sun has been extremely active and its sunspots are directly related to our climate. Hmmm. Funny how right now the sun's activity, in regards to sunspots, is really low and at the same time our planet is cooling. Sun active...planet hot !

[mysticdark1]

you missed my point, why would you ask politicians about global warming? its makes as much as sense as asking a fish farmer about plants.

Mars and Jupiter has different types of atmosphere. obviously because you don't see living things on those planets do you? understand a little bit about Earth before you try to explain about other planets.

[denirio781]

talkiing about missing the point! Those planets, much like earth are warming because of solar activity, plants don't have anything to do with sunspots. We could rid the planet entirely of co2 and the sun could still bake us if it's active enough. And while on the topic of co2...since you seem to read so much about it, how much co2 is the right amount of co2 for our planet. If the scientists can say our oceans will rise 70 ft. Then they must certainly know exactly how much co2 is our planet needs

[denirio781]

plants are not people you idiot! And co2 DOES directly affect the size of plant growth. Those plants disappeared as co2 levels dropped. Your argument is stupid in regards to oil being behind the non-global warming. The inverse, that would mean, would also have to be true: People who hate so-called fossil fuels are for global warming. Just because you were a secretary at an oil company doesn't mean you know shit about co2 emissions and big oil being behind the "non-warming conspiracy".

[denirio781]

your argument was about the destruction of the rainforest. I was simply making the argument that more trees doesn't help the environment. That point seemed to escape you though. We need less trees that are planted correctly. Every idiot seems to think they are doing a service by digging a hole and throwing in a tree. Most of the time what they are doing is killing the tree they are planting and drawing away resources from the trees around it, making them stressed as well. less is sometimes more

[mysticdark1]

What the hell are you trying to say, plants are bad for the Earth? Over population and the effects that predatory non-native species has on native species are bad in certain environments. But thats a whole different problem, i am arguing about global warming. So again you are irrelevant, I am arguing about the effects of deforestation of the amazon. duh

[giptonsilly]

I love this woman she is so right anybody who still believes in man made global warming is probably the most stupid person ever to walk this earth

[mysticdark1]

its bull shit

to much co2 is a bad thing

we are increading co2 by emmisios

and decreasing its absorption by deforestation

so yeah it does become a pollutant

[mscoffman]

You have a right to your opinion, but I would hope you'd get your facts straight. First, science clearly shows the more CO2 the better plants grow and the more food that is produced for us. Period. You've also listened to too much Sierra Club propaganda. We have almost doubled the forests of 100 years ago. So much for deforestation. Funny thing, harvested forests grow back.

[mysticdark1]

double the forest? You mean adding 1 or 2 trees after destroying a whole forest for development???

That is not correct, deforestation is a bigger problem today than it was a hundred years ago

ropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions.

[denirio781]

research the fire in yellowstone chump. 1.2 million acres of forest were burned to the ground. The growth that followed the fire is now posing serious problems. The trees are too thick and must be thinned out. If they are not thinned the beetles and insects will surely kill them. you need to educate yourself on these things before you throw ignorant little comments on the board. you come off as a dumb ass.

[mysticdark1]

wtf i was not talking about the yellowstone

I am was talking about the tropical rainforests

Rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting effects on ocean water are making it increasingly difficult for coral reefs to grow

[mysticdark1]

what is you point, cut all the trees in the world, what you are talking is a natural problem that nature will take care

i am talking about human's contribution to Global Warming.

how is my comment ignorant if i list FACTS that i got from reputable sources such as peer edited journals of scientists ?

FYI making the irrelevant comment makes you the dumbass

[mscoffman]

Unfortunately you don't have your facts straight. There are nearly twice as many acres in forests today than a hundred years ago. You must be thinking of today's forests compared to the original extent of forests. If so, you are correct, there are far fewer forested acres today than in, say, the 1400s.

[mysticdark1]

I think you should get your facts straight before you try to fool people Mr. I work for the oil company.

DOUBLE THE FOREST this makes me so mad, what planet are you from.

And what i said is not an opinion ITS FACTS.

high levels of CO2 is bad

just like levels of cholesterol and high blood pressure

[magnusea]

We are increasing CO2 a little, but increase isnt solely from our emissions. CO2 rate vary with temperature. Remember 180 ppm during ice ages. Historical CO2 data from ice cores criticized by chemistries (e g Jaworowski) to be leveled out since CO2 moves inside the ice.

Natural CO2 emissions about 25 times larger than ours, and the absorption of CO2 by the sea is likewise about 25 times larger. Studies show fossil CO2 is about 5% of atmospheric CO2.

[mysticdark1]

BY A LITTLE?????? then why are the coral fields becoming bleach white? BECAUSE they are dying due to high levels CO2 in the ocean.

[magnusea]

mysticdark1. Bio fuel decrease forrests. That's bad. Not because of CO2 absorption, but in other environmental respects.

CO2 increase has been half the amount of fossil emissions due to Sabine, NOAA 2004.

You're wrong, no matter you call these facts BS.

CO2 isn't a problem. Concentration between 2 and 50 million years ago was >500 ppm, at times >2000 ppm. See Pagani, Science 2005:

biocab (DOT) org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

It was a bit warmer then, but not significantly due to CO2.

[denirio781]

you are a dumb shit. fewer forests on the planet isn't destroying it. The forests in Colorado are being killed by the pine beetle. The beetle attacks these trees because they are stressed and dying. do you know why they are stessed and dying? they are dying because the forests are too thick and need to be thinned out. more trees are not the answer. fewer trees planted correctly is the solution. you may know something about oil, but you don't know shit about plants.

[mysticdark1]

again you pointed out a specific problem, that has nothing to with my argument. What makes you the expert about plants?

[greatrighthope]

You should debate her. Her argument is well structured but you have simple reasoning and assumptions. I am glad you took the time to school her and the rest of us. Let's get to Copenhagen and save the world. By the way is your above deduction from the lientists at East Anglia, NASA and the IPCC cuz...y'know they don't have a very good track record. Anyway, very illuminating commentary. Oh yeah when trees get too old they no longer consume CO2 the produce it so...down they must come.

[mysticdark1]

NASA doesn't have a good track record, where do you get your facts?????

Trees go through photosynthesis, if they can' t then they won't survive, and there are insects and fungi species that takes care of the dead tree. Plants always produce CO2 because they go through cellular respiration. so whats your point?????????? I am not saying start planting trees like crazy, just stop cutting them down because its one of the reasons for GLOBAL WARMING.

[greatrighthope]

I can't be the only one but there is no Global Warming. That's what this is about. That is my point. But even if there was warming it would be nature just has if there was cooling (like there is right now and nobody denies that...except the folks around here) it is nature. The "Climate" has changed over time just like the weather. You would like to think this is a problem that isn't enough to make is so. The content of all the IPCC emails is how to make their stats look warmer. DUH!

[mysticdark1]

"Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface." How can you deny that????? IPCC confirms that GLOBAL WARMING is infact occurring and is caused by human. How can you refute what 1000s of scientists from all over the world have concurred????????

[denirio781]

Funny how those so-called peer edited journals you say I should read have now been exsposed for out right lying about their numbers. They also refuse to print anyone who disagrees with them. Sure seems like a good reference source to me: one side of the story. The lead scientist of the U.N. climate report sued to have his name taken off the report...but i bet you already knew that. He stated this was all a power grab and had nothing to do with science, or hard numbers. POLITICS!! research that!

[mysticdark1]

You getting your news from popular media. Since when did reporters become scientists? I have been quoting science and what PhD professors and scientists say when all your points are either wrong or from fox news

[mysticdark1]

FYI the rate that CO2 is increasing is not natural, its human caused. Do a little research before you try to refute me again because you are not making any sense right now.

[denirio781]

How can high co2 levels be bad for the planet...because al gore says they are? Plants love co2, during the age of dinosaurs they grew extremely large because of it. People are fucking tards if they think co2 hurts the planet. maybe gore wants perpetual famine in third world countries. If they were able to grow more food (higher co2 levels) they could support larger populations. gore and his ilk are eugenists. think outside the box for once in your life. don't let others tell you what to think.

[mysticdark1]

There were different types of plant that were growing back then, we have different species now. Just because there are more CO2 photosynthesis does not go faster. According to your logic if there was more O2 then humans will grow larger. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE GENIUS.

Al Gore simply told the world what scientists are saying, maybe its time you read some peer edited journals instead of believing blindly the rumors that oil companies are paying people to say.

[greatrighthope]

FYI....the IPCC is totally discredited. So are you and everyone else that cites their research. Maybe you need to do the research? For the love of God some one on your side needs to do some real research. Why do research when you can collude and fudge the numbers and pervert the peer reviewed process to suit whatever out come you desire? There are no "1000s " of scientists. You are only making sense to yourself.

[mysticdark1]

IPCC is not credible because you said so? Definition of Peer Reviews - Its research that has been reviewed by other scientists to make sure its not fraudulent. The oil companies has paid people to try to discredit the solid proof of Global Warming. You are saying that I am wrong because i did research? The fact that you believe this woman on youtube than rather than scientists with PhDs, shows clearly what kind of research you do.

[greatrighthope]

OK, let's keep this very simple. The basis of the IPCC assertions are now proven to be fraudulent. The emails that were recovered from the server of the University of East Anglia clearly demonstrate that there has been a deliberate deception in an attempt to show that there is Global Warming. Please tell me where I am wrong here and then we will move on to the next point.

[mysticdark1]

so you use 10 year old emails that are taken out of context to support your stance in denial. nicely done

[greatrighthope]

Hmmmm? You and the Goracle both so very deluded. The last email was from a month ago. Here, you aren't good on the calender thing but please, this is your chance, put those 10 year emails in context for all of us. Since the data and the studies we are talking about are pertaining to the climate over the last two centuries (and beyond) and more precisely the last 150 years...what has changed in the last 10 years to make those emails less relevant? Please put them in context.

[mysticdark1]

there is more than one email to suggest that oil company is trying to discredit any evidence towards the problem that you deny to accept as real.

Its obvious that no matter what i say you are not going to change your mind. but at least do the world a favor actually do some real research rather than believing blindly what some woman says on youtube.

Peace out yo, i am done arguing with people who drink kool aid.

[newmediajournal]

BRAVO!!!

[jdubya57]

An eloquently simple video that exposes the modern day flat earthers. MMGW is junk science. Ergo, not science AT ALL!

[srknut]

Excellent! Simple, brief and to the point. I also recommend a book called The sky's not falling! why it's OK to chill about global warming by Holly Fretwell. And a DVD called The Global Warming Swindle for more in-depth coverage.

[eyeswideoopen]

Common sense - clear and concise. She delivers a 7th grade science lesson on the carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle in plants.

She's right, the whole "carbon footprint" thing is political nothing to do with science and "it's just plain stupid".