iamprolifetoo said: "Then, only about 20 years [after the global cooling scare]... a new mantra had developed... global warming." Svante Arrhenius first discussed GW in 1910, Popular Science Mag wrote about it in 1953, Bell-telephones did a documentary in 1958 on geophysics that featured GW prominantly. Prez Johnson warned about GW in 1965. Of 71 climate science papers released in the 1970s, only 7 warned of Global cooling while 44 warned of GW. The newsmedia hyped cooling, NOT science.
Global warming of a climate, is the fact which is not requiring proofs.
The problem of global warming and it is obviously necessary to plant as much as possible trees. can not you plant trees, we are already doing it for you.
Each person, should in the life, construct the house, grow up the son and plant a tree.
You know, we hear the puppet known as Obama, speak now about "climate change"-- never "global warming" any more. He knows that the global warming hoax is not believed by most Americans.
Even the brainwashed, braindead that voted him in.
If you watched the above video why not ask yourself if the Kyoto Protocol reduction of .015% of atmospheric CO2, will change our climate, or simply continue to feed the NGO parasites that profiteer from the hysteria they created.
It's a cinch that the draconian measures are already killing the poorest and least able among us.
But then there is no shortage of those advancing eugenics in this age.
The point of the Kyoto Protocol was to begin having the countries that are part of it beginning to actively reduce the production of atmospheric CO2, regardless of the amount. It is meant to stop or reverse the progressive increase of CO2 production. Unfortunately, that intention was seriously underminded when the US decided not to ratify.
Kyoto is only meant to be a first step. It only goes through 2012 - it's just to get countries to start reducing their emissions. It's not supposed to solve the problem all at once. Beginning to shift the main sources of energy away from fossil fuels is the first step in solving global warming.
Kyoto is such a massive "first step" that is still hasn't been done.
But you miss the point. If we eliminated ALL CO2 produced by mankind it would still only reduce total CO2 production by .28% - ONE quarter of ONE percent - if water vapor is included.
Nobody is against energy independence. It is happening as it becomes economically viable, as the giant wind generators attest.
CNG is a good mid-term alternative.
If hippies hadn't ruled U.S. probably be 80% nuclear (electric) today like France.
I don't know how accurate that figure is; 0.28%, but the point is that it is 0.28% more greenhouse gasses than nature naturally absorbs accumulating in the atmosphere year after year and it begins to add up. If you knew anything about how the climate and the environment works, that seemingly infinitesimal percent can have dramatic effects on the climate.
"If hippies hadn't ruled U.S. probably be 80% nuclear (electric) today like France."
You are laboring under the hippie styled presumption that there is no place on earth for mankind. I once was one of those "back to the land" type hippies. I believe God put us here.
How about this. Since termites produce 10 times all of the CO2 produced by mankind, let's just go on a campaign to kill 10% of the termites and call it even?
I also want to stop funding our enemy through fossil fuels.
I am a Christian. Jews believe we are created by God too.
You must be in that approximately 4% of U.S. population that are smart enough to be non-believers.
watch?v=e_8LG5zy5Ac
"One of the largest producers of CO2 may well be termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about ... 10 times ... the present [1990] world production of CO2 from burning fossil fuel." - 'Trashing The Planet' - Dixie Lee Ray p 33
'Trashing The Planet' is one of the most erroneous pieces of conservative propaganda on the market. It contains a lot of selective and outdated research, and frequently gives figures without citing sources. Books like that are generally ignored by the scientific community. Thanks for citing that, though. It tells a lot about the flawed research you use. The facts and figures I gave above are from Nature (a peer reviewed scientific journal) and the EPA.
"I am a Christian. Jews believe we are created by God too. You must be in that approximately 4% of U.S. population that are smart enough to be non-believers."
From my experience being Christian or Jewish doesn't mean that you have to ignore science (and most accept evolution). If you really do believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and that all organisms were created in thier present form, that says a lot about your understanding of science.
Where did I suggest that the earth is 6000 years old?
Do I believe that man evolved as Darwin presumed? No. The more we learn about ourselves, the more preposterous Darwin's theory is. Even Darwin was smarter than that:
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed...
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. - Charles Darwin
There are some people that you just cannot reach. This person is showing themselves to be as closed-minded as most of the propagandists on the "Global Warming" sky-is-falling side of the issue. They will ignore such "flawed" research that shows that the Earth is slightly cooler than it was a decade ago. The most laughable statement I've heard is that "Greenland is the warmest it has been in 400 years." Haha! Does nothing but prove your point.
"If you knew anything about how the climate and the environment works"...what would that figure begin to add up to? It seems to me that if you know anything about percentages, you'd know that .28% remains .28% no matter how many years go by...what drastic effects would .28% of the CO2 produced by mankind have?
We know that there are weapon systems (for lack of better terminology) capable of creating far more "drastic effects" than mankind could ever produce by burning fossil fuels.
iamprolifetoo said: "Then, only about 20 years [after the global cooling scare]... a new mantra had developed... global warming." Svante Arrhenius first discussed GW in 1910, Popular Science Mag wrote about it in 1953, Bell-telephones did a documentary in 1958 on geophysics that featured GW prominantly. Prez Johnson warned about GW in 1965. Of 71 climate science papers released in the 1970s, only 7 warned of Global cooling while 44 warned of GW. The newsmedia hyped cooling, NOT science.
ubrew12 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming of a climate, is the fact which is not requiring proofs.
The problem of global warming and it is obviously necessary to plant as much as possible trees. can not you plant trees, we are already doing it for you.
Each person, should in the life, construct the house, grow up the son and plant a tree.
Baurzhan1963 2 years ago
You know, we hear the puppet known as Obama, speak now about "climate change"-- never "global warming" any more. He knows that the global warming hoax is not believed by most Americans.
Even the brainwashed, braindead that voted him in.
saturnx311 2 years ago
Comment removed
saturnx311 2 years ago
watch?v=N6avbyocmaA
Envir89 3 years ago
So you drank the Kool-Aid.
Try this one: watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
If you watched the above video why not ask yourself if the Kyoto Protocol reduction of .015% of atmospheric CO2, will change our climate, or simply continue to feed the NGO parasites that profiteer from the hysteria they created.
It's a cinch that the draconian measures are already killing the poorest and least able among us.
But then there is no shortage of those advancing eugenics in this age.
watch?v=wTqtyGZlDYo
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
The point of the Kyoto Protocol was to begin having the countries that are part of it beginning to actively reduce the production of atmospheric CO2, regardless of the amount. It is meant to stop or reverse the progressive increase of CO2 production. Unfortunately, that intention was seriously underminded when the US decided not to ratify.
Envir89 3 years ago
Kyoto is only meant to be a first step. It only goes through 2012 - it's just to get countries to start reducing their emissions. It's not supposed to solve the problem all at once. Beginning to shift the main sources of energy away from fossil fuels is the first step in solving global warming.
Envir89 3 years ago 2
Kyoto is such a massive "first step" that is still hasn't been done.
But you miss the point. If we eliminated ALL CO2 produced by mankind it would still only reduce total CO2 production by .28% - ONE quarter of ONE percent - if water vapor is included.
Nobody is against energy independence. It is happening as it becomes economically viable, as the giant wind generators attest.
CNG is a good mid-term alternative.
If hippies hadn't ruled U.S. probably be 80% nuclear (electric) today like France.
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
I don't know how accurate that figure is; 0.28%, but the point is that it is 0.28% more greenhouse gasses than nature naturally absorbs accumulating in the atmosphere year after year and it begins to add up. If you knew anything about how the climate and the environment works, that seemingly infinitesimal percent can have dramatic effects on the climate.
"If hippies hadn't ruled U.S. probably be 80% nuclear (electric) today like France."
No arguements from me.
Envir89 3 years ago
You are laboring under the hippie styled presumption that there is no place on earth for mankind. I once was one of those "back to the land" type hippies. I believe God put us here.
How about this. Since termites produce 10 times all of the CO2 produced by mankind, let's just go on a campaign to kill 10% of the termites and call it even?
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
"You are laboring under the hippie styled presumption that there is no place on earth for mankind."
No, I am saying that we need to move our economy away from being driven on fossil fuels.
"I believe God put us here."
Creationist, huh? That explains a lot.
"Since termites produce 10 times all of the CO2 produced by mankind..."
No, termites produce methane, not CO2; and they produce about 15% of it. I think you missed the point I made above about natural GHG absorbtion.
Envir89 3 years ago 2
I also want to stop funding our enemy through fossil fuels.
I am a Christian. Jews believe we are created by God too.
You must be in that approximately 4% of U.S. population that are smart enough to be non-believers.
watch?v=e_8LG5zy5Ac
"One of the largest producers of CO2 may well be termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about ... 10 times ... the present [1990] world production of CO2 from burning fossil fuel." - 'Trashing The Planet' - Dixie Lee Ray p 33
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
'Trashing The Planet' is one of the most erroneous pieces of conservative propaganda on the market. It contains a lot of selective and outdated research, and frequently gives figures without citing sources. Books like that are generally ignored by the scientific community. Thanks for citing that, though. It tells a lot about the flawed research you use. The facts and figures I gave above are from Nature (a peer reviewed scientific journal) and the EPA.
Envir89 3 years ago
"I am a Christian. Jews believe we are created by God too. You must be in that approximately 4% of U.S. population that are smart enough to be non-believers."
From my experience being Christian or Jewish doesn't mean that you have to ignore science (and most accept evolution). If you really do believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and that all organisms were created in thier present form, that says a lot about your understanding of science.
Envir89 3 years ago
Where did I suggest that the earth is 6000 years old?
Do I believe that man evolved as Darwin presumed? No. The more we learn about ourselves, the more preposterous Darwin's theory is. Even Darwin was smarter than that:
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed...
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. - Charles Darwin
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
The silence is deafening. Why is the earth not filled with all the "accidents" that happened on the way from the amoeba to mankind?
Fossils, fossils everywhere! You wouldn't be able to take a step without treading on them.
saturnx311 2 years ago
There are some people that you just cannot reach. This person is showing themselves to be as closed-minded as most of the propagandists on the "Global Warming" sky-is-falling side of the issue. They will ignore such "flawed" research that shows that the Earth is slightly cooler than it was a decade ago. The most laughable statement I've heard is that "Greenland is the warmest it has been in 400 years." Haha! Does nothing but prove your point.
saturnx311 2 years ago
Termites produce about 15% of methane? Isn't methane one of the most vilified gases?
saturnx311 2 years ago
"If you knew anything about how the climate and the environment works"...what would that figure begin to add up to? It seems to me that if you know anything about percentages, you'd know that .28% remains .28% no matter how many years go by...what drastic effects would .28% of the CO2 produced by mankind have?
We know that there are weapon systems (for lack of better terminology) capable of creating far more "drastic effects" than mankind could ever produce by burning fossil fuels.
saturnx311 2 years ago
watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago