Now they are spraying radiation on us in the chemtrails and blaming it on all these leaks and Japan. We can tell the moment it drifts down on us there is a nasty metal taste, they are not giving up in more ways than one, they may go down, but they will take many with them. Watch ........The Change Aerosol Spraying Over Amarillo.. suspected Depleted Uranium in Spray
look how the blowhard gore lives....like a bloody king, and the rest of us need to put on sweaters and turn the heat down! that hypocritical fuckshite!
WHIP OUT YER TIN FOIL HATS! Global warming is a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY by all of the climate scientists (with silly PhDs) in all of the developed nations to TAKE YER MONIES! The 98 percent consensus by the climate science community is all a big scam!!!!!1111
The utter ignorance in the comments here is really, really depressing. However, you are all Alex Jones fans, so it's to be expected. You are the same people who think 9/11 was an inside job despite the rigorous rebuttal by structural engineers (you know, the people who are qualified to analyze what happened that day) so you can't argue with that level of idiocy. It's a scary thing when so many people start to turn their backs on the very science that has helped provide a great quality of life.
@mographzach I've come to the realisation there are a lot of trolls or agents who comment here. They're not all fans of Alex. Some come here to demonize him. Some say they are fans and listen, but with one question I can usualy tell, they do not. And they are ignorant. Look at this guy below (tempter44) who says he watches prisonplanet.tv, but doesn't know what to do now tha he's "awake". Inform people, Alex says it everyday. So this guy listens, but doesn't hear.
@mographzach Wait, you think structural engineers are saying what happened is what happened with 9/11? Excuse me but that's not true. There's an overwhelming number of structural engineers and architects, experts that would beg to differ with you, and do beg to differ with the official story. A small number of government paid ones said it was how it happened while almost 1600 architects and engineers not on the payroll say it was impossible to happen the way it did.
@mographzach Well dude get in there and start paying Al his carbon credits. Carbon Tax us to prefect weather, give me a break. By the way, I live in Las Vegas. I know a controlled demolition when I see it. WTC 7 was a beautiful job.
Can't argue with that hard-hitting logic. /sarcasm. I'm struggling to find a way to explain this in a way a typical Alex Jones fan could understand (no easy task). If that relatively small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is capable of trapping heat, then an increase in that relatively small percentage would lead to an increase in warming. Yes? CO2 has always been a "small" percentage of the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean its impact or role in our climate is trivial. It's not.
@jlarsena 70,000 years ago? No. That's a straight up lie, sorry. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at the highest level it's been in 400,000 years. This is scary shit. I wish more people realized how much shit we're going to be in if we don't act, but nobody seems to care, and on the contrary, people like you get in the way of getting any real action done on this and spread lies like what you just posted. Sorry if I come off as harsh but I have 0 patience when it comes to misinformation.
@mographzach Sorry, I thought that's what Lord Monckton had said last week. I knew it was a long time ago. I will stop misinforming and research before commenting. Just wanted to comment when you said CO2 was always a small % when it's been as high as 30% in the earth's existence.
@mographzach Our impact on the climate is trivial. We make a single digit percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere while the Earth produces something like 98% of the the far less then 1% currently in the atmosphere which is actually too low. Plants need CO2 as a key component to their life and growth cycles and are starved for it. If you take a tree and study it's rings, you find that they are having very slow to nearly completely stunted growth when all other factors are ideal. Explain that one.
What he means by that is that the mere act of questioning the status quo automatically leads to defeating tyranny and restoring freedom.
You asked "How are we going to win with signs and paperwork?" Isn't the pen mightier than the sword? Your tone suggests violence. One man cannot do it alone. We need a LOT of people to wake up and fight for freedom.
@tempter44 discuss with your friends what you've heard...look around and see any groups you can attend who have similar view points..start up a website/you tube site against the greenfascistglobalists and link in relevant vids..understand fracking as this will be a major Achillesl heel, as it's such a sham.
Alex unveils the illusion and it's scary taking the red pill, It can make you moody, but i never feel ashamed in talking to people about these important issues..humble/compassionate
This just in more Global Warming; Al Gore states now that the Federal Reserve is printing too much money and the destruction of the trees and the ink fumes are causing more Global Warming this is getting crazy ...but Al Gore backs this 100% he is going to have a 2 hour special on this because Japan is now printing more fiat money the euro zone is printing more fiat money and he says this has got to stop now!
@JohnnyBGood11 The US uses cotton paper so I love how Al Gore accuses us of killing more trees to print currency here. How stupid are people to believe that one I wonder. Well considering most kids in school today are coming out dumb as stones, probably more then a few.
@JohnnyBGood11 The US uses cotton paper so I love how Al Gore accuses us of killing more trees to print currency here. How stupid are people to believe that one I wonder. Well considering most kids in school today are coming out dumb as stones, probably more then a few.
@CompleteConspiracy -- "you think high Co2 causes plants to die off?" -- No, but plants that are adapted for the jungle cannot survive the desert. Plants and animals have EVOLVED to live in their environment. If that changes too fast they die off. In the past those changes took place over hundreds of thousands of years. Enough time for new species to EVOLVE and adapt to the new CLIMATE.
In 30 years we won't be able to grow WHEAT in the US. What will you eat? What crop will grow at 120F?
you all can argue. only time will tell. so far LA isn't under water like gore predicted. I'm just glad Alex Jones can provide the argument and hopefully it will make you research yourself, even though you'll probably use liberalized google
@CompleteConspiracy "Al Gore taking and moving graphs" - I don't get my science from Al Gore. -- "Co2 has been 1000's of times higher" Yes it has. No one is saying the earth will be destroyed. But the rapid die off of plants and animals, the flooding and storms and droughts would be very harmful FOR US.
@CompleteConspiracy "why , none of the terrible global warming prophecies have come to pass" -- You should inform yourself on the actual science.
"Global temps cooling" -- Global warming is a FACT. "Ice sheets thickening and growing in size" Nope, antarctic ice is thinning and spreading out. Arctic ice is diminishing. "killer bees" - You watch too many 70's "B" movies. "Ozone layer" - Yes, a real problems that was solved. "they claimed a new ice age" FALSE. Time Magazine is not science.
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don't understand? Follow my links. Read the quotes page first. Then read my column ‘Prepping for Slavery’
@waypasthadenough You know nothing about the American Revolution, no offense. The colonists didn't go from the green as you put it back to Boston killing government employees all the way back. They tried working within the British government until left with no other option but secession and formed the Continental Congress. They followed the articles of war and did not indiscriminately kill as you claim. The NEA under UN control created the fallacy they did that to turn them into terrorists!
Luck had you find it, curiosity will have you check this: healthnews33.blogspot.com (BECAUSE HEALTH IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US!) - please share with your friends...
'South Park' did Al Gore best: "manbearpig". If U haven't seen that episode, it's worth a look *grin*. . .just sayin. On another topic: Sea level sinking due to POSTGLACIAL REBOUND EFFECT: Scott Owen of CA USA; Listen to this dude! He's telling the TRUTH! (BUG) believersunderground channel on U Tube. Show daily on liberty broacasting-listen live on the web
your guests seems to sound alot like delta mind controllers, ALEX, you are being hypocritical when you say Al Gore sounds so cheesy. this guy is implying that the weather cannot be modified, which is bullshit. you don't need to be a pagan aztec neanderthal to believe that. The people that fund Gore have that ability and more. What's crumbling is the entire evil empire that gore is just a minion of. We don't need more stinkin minions
@alvarophoto The Aztecs did sacrifice thousands to appease their gods. A historical fact. That is why the walls on the sides of the streets are all lined with countless skulls. I have a degree in history and learned that not from revisionist morons.
Alex never mentions that the human produced CO2 is NOT clean as the CO2 exhaled by plants at night.
___
Human made CO2 is a BAD thing. Even IF there would be no Anthropogenic COMPONENT to Climate Change, still the man made CO2 would be a villain. Man made CO2 is PACKED with hundreds of toxic substances.Toxic to man, to plants to water, to the soil. But Alex does not cover THAT.
___
The POLLUTION INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX love Alex for the way he is HELPING them.
@sunamori6765 Plants consume CO2 in order to process nutrients and is necessary, which is why they are starving right now. The amount they exhale is negligible. Human produced CO2 is just that CO2. Otherwise it would be another chemical compound. Ever take basic high school chemistry because if you did, you would know that. Now carbon monoxide or CO is a greenhouse gas but anything burning can cause it. So would you blame a forest fire, no! Go hug a tree where you're clueless.
@TFaucheur Al Gore did not invent the world wide web you moron. DARPA did you clueless fool. Ever hear of the ARPA Net? He had nothing to do with it. But he has a lot to do with creating the fallacy of global warming where he will make billions off of it though. Just check out the Chicago Carbon Exchange and the investment company that has funded Haraa however you spell it!
... actually it is useful idiots that think they are playing gestapo with you t0 break y0ur will;
~this series 0f destructive testing is to catalog your genotype by those that think they own patent rights to your DNA/soul, which they had collected for sale to whom ever for what ever purpose anywhere they desire, a galactic slavery harvest on their GMOs
=your not invited, just your Genetic offspring once all donor claimants have been manipulated into self MAD extinction & planet core Borg napped
I used to be so arrogant and tell people 'move to Australia, best country in the world to live' Now I'm shrinking in a hole from embarrassment from this supercilious genuflecting sycophant we call a prime minister. It's gotten to the stage her boyfriend is telling everyone that we (females) are picking on her and bullying her. Shes such a dirty lying scumbag. I bet she has a picture of AL manpigbear in her wallet to drool over!
Hey Man-Bear-Pig, I learned that plants need CO2 to survive in 2nd grade....I'm very sorry that you got co-opted by Satan, but you STILL CANNOT HAVE MY FUCKING MONEY!
@TheSportCompact They're one and the same, Al Gore is a fearmongering, lying scheming left wing scam artist. Alex Jibes is a fearmongering, lying, scheming, right wing, scam artist. Really the only difference is Alex weighs around 300 pounds.
the greenpolice they live inside of Gores' ass......the greenpolice they come too him in his gas.............the greenpolice.............the greenpolice..........the greenpolice.
"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history,"
"... the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."
@1noen1 15 to 20 million years ago CO2 comprised a hell of a lot higher levels then it does today. Right now it makes up well under 1% of the gases in the atmosphere. Back then it made up over 30%. Where did you learn math because there is no way you could pass an elementary school math class never mind a college level course.
@1noen1 The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters.
@solarDeviant "that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other" -- No climate scientist claims that CO2 CAUSED previous warmings, they CONTRIBUTED to warming that was triggered by the Milankovich cycle, made them larger and last longer. But it is still a FACT that CO2 is a GH gas and you have yet to explain how CO2 could NOT contribute to past warming or be a cause of today's warming.
@1noen1 And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.
@1noen1 In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years!
@solarDeviant "by hundreds to thousands of years! " A thousand years is a blink of the geologic eye. What happened was that the Milankovich cycle triggered warming, which released CO2, which exaggerated and prolonged the warming already under way. CO2 is a GH gas. What you have to do is to PROVE that our physics of atomic quantum theory is WRONG. Good luck with that.
@1noen1 The mechanisms governing CO2 in the oceans are much more complicated such that the equilibrium depends on the amount of biological activity, on the complicated chemical reactions in the oceans, and many more interactions. For example, a lower temperature can increase the amount of dust reaching the oceans.
@1noen1 The main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature is NOT CO2.
@SuperDdy "Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas" - FALSE. CO2 is a major GH gas second only to water vapor. CO2 contributes about 26% to warming but it is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. "Humans are only responsible for 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere." MISLEADING. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. CO2 is building up and that build up is accelerating.
@1noen1 There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
@solarDeviant "while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose" FALSE. The historical record clearly shows that CO2 and global temps track very closely. The usual denialist claim is that CO2 lags behind temps (and there is a reason for that) but you go off the deep end claiming that there is no correlation at all.
What the denialist needs to explain is how CO2 is NOT a GH gas. Given the PHYSICS of CO2, how is it possible that increased CO2 would not lead to increased temps?
@1noen1 It doesn't prove at all that CO2 has any effect on the global temperature. There is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature. Of course, the temperature itself can depend on a dozen different factors, including CO2, but just the CO2 / temperature correlation by itself DOES NOT tell you the strength of the CO2→ΔT link. It doesn't even tell you the sign.
@1noen1 Al Gore uses pyrotechnics to lead his audience to the wrong conclusion. If CO2 affects temp, then the 20th century CO2 rise should cause a temp rise larger than the rise seen from the last ice-age to today's interglacial. This is of course wrong. All it says is that we offsetted the dissolution balance of CO2 in the oceans. If we were to stop burning fossil fuels, then the large CO2 increase would turn into a CO2 decrease, returning back to the pre-industrial level over a century or so.
@1noen1 Think for example on a closed coke bottle. It has coke with dissolved CO2 and it has air with gaseous CO2. Just like Earth, most of the CO2 is in the dissolved form. If you warm the coke bottle, the coke cannot hold as much CO2, so it releases a little amount and increases the partial pressure of the gaseous CO2, enough to force the rest of the dissolved CO2 to stay dissolved. Since there is much more dissolved CO2 than gaseous CO2, the amount released from the coke is relatively small.
@1noen1 Once the oceans adjust (on time scale of decades to centuries), the CO2 equilibrium changes as well. The changed CO2 can further affect the temperature, but the CO2 / temperature correlation cannot be used to say almost anything about the strength of this link.
@solarDeviant "while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose" FALSE. The historical record clearly shows that CO2 and global temps track very closely. The usual denialist claim is that CO2 lags behind temps (and there is a reason for that) but you go off the deep end claiming that there is no correlation at all.
What the denialist needs to explain is how CO2 is NOT a GH gas. Given the PHYSICS of CO2, how is it possible that increased CO2 would not lead to increased temps?
@1noen1 Strong negative feed-backs play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.
@1noen1 Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.
A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton.
@1noen1 This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.
@1noen1 All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15-20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content.
@1noen1 In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.
Most of these important negative feed-backs are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models.
@1noen1 What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do.
@1noen1 Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises.
@1noen1 And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet.
@1noen1 In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2.
@1noen1 Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
@1noen1 Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined.
@1noen1 IPCC scientists did not relay that, during the time from the mid 60's-98, the stratosphere cooled almost 3x as much as the earth warmed. From this input, it could prove that CFC destruction of ozone, not CO2, was the cause of the abnormal warming over that period.
@solarDeviant "31,478 scientists have signed a petition" -- No they didn't. This more than anything exposes you for the clown and denialist shill you are. Is Micky Mouse a scientist? Because he's on that list.
@1noen1 In addition, U.S. Senator James Inhofe 2 (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, recently delivered a global warming speech entitled: “Global Warming Consensus in Freefall: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." Inhofe also detailed the growing number of left of center scientists and environmental activists who are speaking out to reject man-made climate fears.
@1noen1 Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science and past UN IPCC contributor, explained that only a FEW scientists were involved in writing the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report 3. Although purported to speak for thousands of scientists, it was NOT thousands offering their consensus. Dr. Lindzen participated in that and said, "Each person who was an author wrote one or two pages in conjunction with someone else.
@1noen1 They traveled around the world several times a year for several years to write it, and the summary for policymakers had the input of about 13 of the scientists. Ultimately, it was written by REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENTS, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial
@1noen1 In the documentary "Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore conveniently separated the Vostok Ice core
temperature and CO2 graphs so you could not see which came first, a warming spike or a CO2 spike. He said that a CO2 spike came first but alas, it was the just the opposite! When the graphs are combined, it is clearly seen that a global warming spike always comes first. This warms the oceans, which reduces the solubility of CO2 in water and results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans.
@solarDeviant Which is it? Does CO2 correlate to temps or not? You are not permitted to have it both ways. Either CO2 has no relationship to temps as you JUST SAID or it lags, as you JUST SAID.
@1noen1 During this period, CO2 and temps are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temps by about 600-1000 years. CO2 simply cannot be responsible for global warming. The initial changes in temp during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.
@1noen1 It is interesting to note that the IPCC scientific report, which are your sources, (e.g., the AR4) avoids this question of lag. Instead of pointing it out, they write that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores.
@1noen1 Since the increase of CO2 over the 20th is monotonic, and other climate drivers (e.g., the sun) increased as well, a correlation with temperature is mostly meaningless. This leaves the geological variations in CO2 as the only variations which could be used to empirically estimate the effect of the CO2→ΔT link.
@1noen1 The reason that over geological time scales, the variations do not depend on the temperature is because over these long durations, the total CO2 in the ecosystem varies from a net imbalance between volcanic out-gassing and sedimentation/subduction. This "random walk" in the amount of CO2 is the reason why there were periods with 3 or even 10 times as much CO2 than present, over the past billion years.
@1noen1 The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor and clouds, which studies indicate are responsible for between 66% and 85% of the total effect.
@1noen1 Carbon dioxide contributes a smaller amount, no more than 25%. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration would produce a small increase in the earth’s temperature—on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.
@1noen1 Al Gore also gave NO explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place. What is so disturbing is that climatologists, like Al Gore, seem to have a problem discerning cause and effect. It is very simple and does not require a rocket scientist. If what you call an effect comes first, you have it backwards; the cause comes first to produce the effect.
@1noen1 Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature? No, that does not exist. Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth's temperature to increase? No, according to Joseph D'Aleo, certified meteorologist. Even a non-scientist can see there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If there were a correlation, they both would rise and fall together.
@1noen1 The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend - not true for the earth's temperature. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Two sets of temperature measurements are shown, one set by NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) for the troposphere and the other by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit for the land and sea. Both show declining temps over time even as CO2 has increased from 366 ppmv in January 1998 to 385 ppmv by January 2008.
@1noen1 It's NOT true that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period. The CO2 concentration oscillates based on the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The ratio of land to ocean in the Northern Hemisphere is about 1 to 1.5 and in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. Therefore, the Northern Hemisphere with much more land mass has a growing season that dominates the Southern Hemisphere growing season with respect to absorption of CO2.
@1noen1 Each year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the N. Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere & the reduction continues until around mid to late August when plants start to go dormant. The cycles occur on a regular yearly basis and the swing in CO2 concentration is in the 5-8 ppmv range. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for long periods before being consumed, the season to season cyclic effect would not be seen.Nature reacts very fast in its consumption of CO2.
@1noen1 The actual temp for 2008 was some 0.43 oC cooler than the IPCC projection based on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 concentration remained constant with time. On an actual temp basis, one sees that the IPCC models predict temps that are not even close to actual measurements. The temp in 2008 was the same as in 1982. The predictions represent the classic "garbage in - garbage out" analysis for computer models.
@1noen1 It reminds me of the computer models used to predict where Hurricane Ike would hit the U. S. in 2008. Five meteorological models all predicted the hurricane would hit the west coast of Florida, then changed it to New Orleans, then to Galveston, down to Corpus Christi and then back up to Galveston, where it finally hit, all of this over a five day period. Here again, meteorological models are not trustworthy.
@1noen1 CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature. The increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to
the level we had in 2001-2002 when it was warmer than it is now.
@1noen1 CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature. The increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to
the level we had in 2001-2002 when it was warmer than it is now.
@1noen1 Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the
atmosphere, nature's controlling mechanism causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Photosynthesis is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on other environmental conditions such as temperature and available moisture 7.
@1noen1 More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere available for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man's feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle.
@1noen1 Without it, life would not exist on earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food. :)
@1noen1 There are several possible causes of global warming, and each warms the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes. Each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere and will leave its "signature". The greenhouse signature is very distinct. If this signature were present, warming would be concentrated in a distinct “hot spot” about 8 to 12 km up over the tropics, with less warming further away, turning to cooling above 18 km.
@1noen1 If what the IPCC is presenting were true, for every unit of energy in, one would get back (390/168) = 2.32 units of energy. The U.S. Patent Office never awards a patent for a process that claims it gets more energy out than it puts in because thermodynamically it is quite impossible. Strangely, the IPCC promotes such nonsense to the people of the world! Of course, I'm NOT buying their agenda. Unlike you.
@1noen1 As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it - if only!
@1noen1 The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill (H.R.2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009) is favored by the current administration. It is estimated this will result in a tax increase to every American family of $3,100/year. This greatly offsets the proposed Federal income tax reduction of $400 for a single person making $75,000/yr or less and $800 for a married couple making $150,000/yr of less.
@1noen1 Let me see, you stimulate the economy by giving tax breaks to Americans then you surreptitiously tax them through energy use some 4 to 8 times more than the tax relief you give them? What a lot of CRAP! Based on actual data, CO2 causing global warming is clearly a figment of the IPCC's imagination. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain.
@1noen1 Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate and will hurt the economies of the world. Many scientists see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from carbon taxes.
@solarDeviant -- You need to show how it is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. Just how is it possible that dumping BILLIONS of tons of CO2 into the air would NOT have an effect on global temps? We know the physics of carbon atoms and what happens at the quantum level when they absorb infra-red radiation. Given the PHYSICS of atomic matter, how is it possible that CO2 would NOT re-radiate I-R and heat up the surrounding air?
You need to explain that before you can be taken seriously.
@1noen1 It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
@1noen1 The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth’s surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth’s surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.
@1noen1 There is much talk about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2. We are told that we need to minimize our “carbon footprint.” But CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"
@1noen1 Here is the flaw to what you are saying, well quoting. There was no man made CO2. There was a lot of gasses released into the atmosphere by the Earth itself from like volcanoes. At that time the Earth was just going beyond primordial times. Trees were growing at rapid rates feeding off of the CO2, now they barely grow because they are CO2 starved. The way you've posted here, you have to be getting paid to spread the global warming lie!
@TheSportCompact "There was no man made CO2." - No one claims that humans "made" CO2. The claim is that the global warming that is a FACT is due to human activity. We dug up coal and drilled for oil buried in the ground and then released it into the air. Thus CAUSING global warming.
@1noen1 You are claiming humans are the cause of CO2, now you say we aren't, which is it? You just contradicted yourself in this post. You prove you are clueless by doing so too.
@TheSportCompact "You just contradicted yourself in this post." No I did not. You are just incapable of understanding anything above a 4th grade level. Humans don't "make" CO2, it's in the ground, we dig it up and release it in the air. So we are in fact responsible for the current warming of the earth.
@1noen1 You didn't contradict yourself? I ask everyone out here to read your posts. I believe they will agree with me. If I can't comprehend above a 4th grade level then how did I get my college degree in history and a certificate in computer science at the same time? You said man made CO2 and CO2 is caused by humanity both saying it's our faults. Then you went on and contradicted that. You are now with no argument and trying to back peddle. So pathetic and sad!
@TheSportCompact "how did I get my college degree in history and a certificate in computer science at the same time?" -- I don't know but I do know that you cannot reason rationally or logically. You have a CERTIFICATE in CS!!! WOW!!!! Can you program in javascript too???? AWSOME!
You have a BA in History. Is that what you tell the Art History majors you work next to at McDonalds?
@1noen1 OMG you are so pathetic. You are the one who cannot reason rationally never mind understand logic. Actually my certificate in CS has come in handy. I can program in C, C++, Java, Perl, JavaScript as well where you are curious, and that is just to name a few languages. So I have a degree in history, and it doesn't mean I work at Mc Donalds either. For the record, I own a small business that produces consumer electronics, like PC's and tablets. So laugh away where you work at Mc D's.
@TheSportCompact "I can program in C" -- I can think. Variable(weather) = today(temp + precip + pressure) -- Variable(climate) = average(weather.day_01 + weather.day_02 for N days)
variable(weather) /= variable(climate)
Therefore --> You wasted your money at the junior college you got your degree from.
@1noen1 HAHAHAHA.. When you get schooled you go on the personal attacks. When you try to use one thing and then say it doesn't apply on another you do the same, like how New England being unseasonably cold is a proof of global warming by with Florida it is not. You are no different then Al Gore, and lets look at how full of shit he has been proven to be. He is so full of it, it comes spewing out of his mouth and ears, no differently then you. I went to a 4 year institution by the way.
Now they are spraying radiation on us in the chemtrails and blaming it on all these leaks and Japan. We can tell the moment it drifts down on us there is a nasty metal taste, they are not giving up in more ways than one, they may go down, but they will take many with them. Watch ........The Change Aerosol Spraying Over Amarillo.. suspected Depleted Uranium in Spray
iondetox 2 weeks ago
Who's doing the chem-trails?
streetmuggedbypolice 2 months ago
look how the blowhard gore lives....like a bloody king, and the rest of us need to put on sweaters and turn the heat down! that hypocritical fuckshite!
echelonexcursions 2 months ago
WHIP OUT YER TIN FOIL HATS! Global warming is a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY by all of the climate scientists (with silly PhDs) in all of the developed nations to TAKE YER MONIES! The 98 percent consensus by the climate science community is all a big scam!!!!!1111
mographzach 5 months ago
The utter ignorance in the comments here is really, really depressing. However, you are all Alex Jones fans, so it's to be expected. You are the same people who think 9/11 was an inside job despite the rigorous rebuttal by structural engineers (you know, the people who are qualified to analyze what happened that day) so you can't argue with that level of idiocy. It's a scary thing when so many people start to turn their backs on the very science that has helped provide a great quality of life.
mographzach 5 months ago
@mographzach I've come to the realisation there are a lot of trolls or agents who comment here. They're not all fans of Alex. Some come here to demonize him. Some say they are fans and listen, but with one question I can usualy tell, they do not. And they are ignorant. Look at this guy below (tempter44) who says he watches prisonplanet.tv, but doesn't know what to do now tha he's "awake". Inform people, Alex says it everyday. So this guy listens, but doesn't hear.
jlarsena 5 months ago
@mographzach Wait, you think structural engineers are saying what happened is what happened with 9/11? Excuse me but that's not true. There's an overwhelming number of structural engineers and architects, experts that would beg to differ with you, and do beg to differ with the official story. A small number of government paid ones said it was how it happened while almost 1600 architects and engineers not on the payroll say it was impossible to happen the way it did.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@mographzach Well dude get in there and start paying Al his carbon credits. Carbon Tax us to prefect weather, give me a break. By the way, I live in Las Vegas. I know a controlled demolition when I see it. WTC 7 was a beautiful job.
clint525fuller 1 month ago
There's 0.036% of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. How do plants even breath? I think we need a lot more CO2, not less.
jlarsena 5 months ago
Can't argue with that hard-hitting logic. /sarcasm. I'm struggling to find a way to explain this in a way a typical Alex Jones fan could understand (no easy task). If that relatively small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is capable of trapping heat, then an increase in that relatively small percentage would lead to an increase in warming. Yes? CO2 has always been a "small" percentage of the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean its impact or role in our climate is trivial. It's not.
mographzach 5 months ago
@mographzach CO2 hasn't always been a small percentage. 70 000 years ago it was 30% and plants flourished. We had tropical plants all over the globe.
jlarsena 5 months ago
@jlarsena 70,000 years ago? No. That's a straight up lie, sorry. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at the highest level it's been in 400,000 years. This is scary shit. I wish more people realized how much shit we're going to be in if we don't act, but nobody seems to care, and on the contrary, people like you get in the way of getting any real action done on this and spread lies like what you just posted. Sorry if I come off as harsh but I have 0 patience when it comes to misinformation.
mographzach 5 months ago
@mographzach Sorry, I thought that's what Lord Monckton had said last week. I knew it was a long time ago. I will stop misinforming and research before commenting. Just wanted to comment when you said CO2 was always a small % when it's been as high as 30% in the earth's existence.
jlarsena 5 months ago
@mographzach Our impact on the climate is trivial. We make a single digit percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere while the Earth produces something like 98% of the the far less then 1% currently in the atmosphere which is actually too low. Plants need CO2 as a key component to their life and growth cycles and are starved for it. If you take a tree and study it's rings, you find that they are having very slow to nearly completely stunted growth when all other factors are ideal. Explain that one.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
Yes water vapor/clouds are responsible for 95% of the warming and
Co2 between 2 to 4%. Ergo a minor greenhouse gas. You claim 26%
and go on to correct your own fallacy "it is not possible to state that
a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the green house effect."
That's what I call self correction. Sorry the Co2 fraud is at an end
look up it's the sun and clouds.
SuperDdy 5 months ago
@tempter44 Well you have one of the most potent weapons in this fight right
in front of you. Get educated, get on their sites , and challenge their bullshit.
Great presentation and summary of the issues humanity faces. The funding
of this fraud is unparallelled in human history. They have corrupted the science
and infected the internet with over 11 million sites it's going to be a long battle.
Thank You Mark and Alex for making the historical connections this is the greatest
threat to freedom
SuperDdy 5 months ago
@UrHardyRardy
Type into the search box "Al Gore epic rant" or "Al Gore bullshit rant"
Urhoboman5 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tempter44 As Alex says: RESISTANCE IS VICTORY.
What he means by that is that the mere act of questioning the status quo automatically leads to defeating tyranny and restoring freedom.
You asked "How are we going to win with signs and paperwork?" Isn't the pen mightier than the sword? Your tone suggests violence. One man cannot do it alone. We need a LOT of people to wake up and fight for freedom.
We must be our own leaders.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@tempter44 discuss with your friends what you've heard...look around and see any groups you can attend who have similar view points..start up a website/you tube site against the greenfascistglobalists and link in relevant vids..understand fracking as this will be a major Achillesl heel, as it's such a sham.
Alex unveils the illusion and it's scary taking the red pill, It can make you moody, but i never feel ashamed in talking to people about these important issues..humble/compassionate
MrResisting 5 months ago
12:10
He is obviously NOT payed by the Coal Plants lobby.
With all his research is extremely hard to not overlook how Alex does NOT see Coal Plants lobby, Oil Lobby and Nuclear Lobby as enemies.
dmtk8 5 months ago
This just in more Global Warming; Al Gore states now that the Federal Reserve is printing too much money and the destruction of the trees and the ink fumes are causing more Global Warming this is getting crazy ...but Al Gore backs this 100% he is going to have a 2 hour special on this because Japan is now printing more fiat money the euro zone is printing more fiat money and he says this has got to stop now!
JohnnyBGood11 5 months ago
@JohnnyBGood11 The US uses cotton paper so I love how Al Gore accuses us of killing more trees to print currency here. How stupid are people to believe that one I wonder. Well considering most kids in school today are coming out dumb as stones, probably more then a few.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@JohnnyBGood11 The US uses cotton paper so I love how Al Gore accuses us of killing more trees to print currency here. How stupid are people to believe that one I wonder. Well considering most kids in school today are coming out dumb as stones, probably more then a few.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@CompleteConspiracy -- "you think high Co2 causes plants to die off?" -- No, but plants that are adapted for the jungle cannot survive the desert. Plants and animals have EVOLVED to live in their environment. If that changes too fast they die off. In the past those changes took place over hundreds of thousands of years. Enough time for new species to EVOLVE and adapt to the new CLIMATE.
In 30 years we won't be able to grow WHEAT in the US. What will you eat? What crop will grow at 120F?
1noen1 5 months ago
"The Inconvenient (Truth) Nuke Meltdowns"
FrankensteinFinance 5 months ago
@1noen1 Plants breath Co2. and you think more co2 would be bad for them? we are in a co2 STARVED period.
garrethdavis 5 months ago
you all can argue. only time will tell. so far LA isn't under water like gore predicted. I'm just glad Alex Jones can provide the argument and hopefully it will make you research yourself, even though you'll probably use liberalized google
SuperMichaelHawkins 5 months ago
@CompleteConspiracy "Al Gore taking and moving graphs" - I don't get my science from Al Gore. -- "Co2 has been 1000's of times higher" Yes it has. No one is saying the earth will be destroyed. But the rapid die off of plants and animals, the flooding and storms and droughts would be very harmful FOR US.
1noen1 5 months ago
@CompleteConspiracy "why , none of the terrible global warming prophecies have come to pass" -- You should inform yourself on the actual science.
"Global temps cooling" -- Global warming is a FACT. "Ice sheets thickening and growing in size" Nope, antarctic ice is thinning and spreading out. Arctic ice is diminishing. "killer bees" - You watch too many 70's "B" movies. "Ozone layer" - Yes, a real problems that was solved. "they claimed a new ice age" FALSE. Time Magazine is not science.
1noen1 5 months ago
"...carbon based energy, one of the greatest liberators of mankind..."
By Jove, I think he's got it...
waypasthadenough 5 months ago
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don't understand? Follow my links. Read the quotes page first. Then read my column ‘Prepping for Slavery’
waypasthadenough 5 months ago
@waypasthadenough You know nothing about the American Revolution, no offense. The colonists didn't go from the green as you put it back to Boston killing government employees all the way back. They tried working within the British government until left with no other option but secession and formed the Continental Congress. They followed the articles of war and did not indiscriminately kill as you claim. The NEA under UN control created the fallacy they did that to turn them into terrorists!
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
11 people planned on trading in Carbon Credits.
And boy, are they pissed now.
drreedindeed 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BenjiREC Good on you.
Ron Paul 2012.
drreedindeed 5 months ago
just donated a $1000 to ron paul
never done this for any president, governor or any politician running for office.
i believe in the message of the constitution which ron paul embodies.
ron paul or president 2012
xcalibur4l 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@xcalibur4l
Ron Paul 2012!
drreedindeed 5 months ago
i thank God for alex jones, this is so refreshing to hear how evil and toolbagish people are...
wh1teflower 5 months ago
@BenjiREC KEEP IT UP, I JUST BOUGHT SOME RON PAUL BUMPER STICKERS! RON PAUL! NO MORE PUPPET TOOLBAG PRESIDENTS...
wh1teflower 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Luck had you find it, curiosity will have you check this: healthnews33.blogspot.com (BECAUSE HEALTH IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US!) - please share with your friends...
thinkagain777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Featured on Newsbad.... Check out Blistering! 9/13/2011 – Peter Schiff Testifies Before Congressional “Jobs” Committee
TGtube1 5 months ago
polar bear farts are destroying the planet
disclosurenow9 5 months ago
Poor Gore, no one will take him serial
thegoldenarmkid 5 months ago
@thegoldenarmkid SERIAL!!!that is funny dude!!...serial..to true to true,oh my god your the best mate!!!
firefirefuneralpyre 5 months ago
Comment removed
thegoldenarmkid 5 months ago
@firefirefuneralpyre Trey Parker and Matt Stone are cool im just quoting, but thanks anyhoo
thegoldenarmkid 5 months ago
'South Park' did Al Gore best: "manbearpig". If U haven't seen that episode, it's worth a look *grin*. . .just sayin. On another topic: Sea level sinking due to POSTGLACIAL REBOUND EFFECT: Scott Owen of CA USA; Listen to this dude! He's telling the TRUTH! (BUG) believersunderground channel on U Tube. Show daily on liberty broacasting-listen live on the web
GriffinElliot 5 months ago
your guests seems to sound alot like delta mind controllers, ALEX, you are being hypocritical when you say Al Gore sounds so cheesy. this guy is implying that the weather cannot be modified, which is bullshit. you don't need to be a pagan aztec neanderthal to believe that. The people that fund Gore have that ability and more. What's crumbling is the entire evil empire that gore is just a minion of. We don't need more stinkin minions
Sugamari 5 months ago
11 people are fuckin morons
extrenix 5 months ago
please do´t insult the Aztecs comparing them to Al Gore. And the Aztecs sacrified thieves and prisoners.
>They never sacrified thousands. Please stick to the truth
alvarophoto 5 months ago
@alvarophoto The Aztecs did sacrifice thousands to appease their gods. A historical fact. That is why the walls on the sides of the streets are all lined with countless skulls. I have a degree in history and learned that not from revisionist morons.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
Alex never mentions that the human produced CO2 is NOT clean as the CO2 exhaled by plants at night.
___
Human made CO2 is a BAD thing. Even IF there would be no Anthropogenic COMPONENT to Climate Change, still the man made CO2 would be a villain. Man made CO2 is PACKED with hundreds of toxic substances.Toxic to man, to plants to water, to the soil. But Alex does not cover THAT.
___
The POLLUTION INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX love Alex for the way he is HELPING them.
sunamori6765 5 months ago
@sunamori6765 Plants consume CO2 in order to process nutrients and is necessary, which is why they are starving right now. The amount they exhale is negligible. Human produced CO2 is just that CO2. Otherwise it would be another chemical compound. Ever take basic high school chemistry because if you did, you would know that. Now carbon monoxide or CO is a greenhouse gas but anything burning can cause it. So would you blame a forest fire, no! Go hug a tree where you're clueless.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
al-gore inventet WorldWideWeb not THE internet. Thx for your work mr. jones. Peace<3
TFaucheur 5 months ago
@TFaucheur Al Gore did not invent the world wide web you moron. DARPA did you clueless fool. Ever hear of the ARPA Net? He had nothing to do with it. But he has a lot to do with creating the fallacy of global warming where he will make billions off of it though. Just check out the Chicago Carbon Exchange and the investment company that has funded Haraa however you spell it!
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@TheSportCompact LoL okay. Peace<3
TFaucheur 5 months ago
Nice coordination with the clothing and grooming guys!!
elfornse 5 months ago
I love the fact your not yelling and screaming Alex. I want to hear your opinion but more importantly your guests. Keep up the good work!
OpWaveRide1 5 months ago 3
That comparison to the Aztecs was sweet.
cozyfoxstudio 5 months ago
Fuckwits
CitizenVoltaire 5 months ago
Al Gore wants to tax humans to breath. Americans have awakened and now are laughing at Gore. Will the rest of the world wake up in time?
mojoidol 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... actually it is useful idiots that think they are playing gestapo with you t0 break y0ur will;
~this series 0f destructive testing is to catalog your genotype by those that think they own patent rights to your DNA/soul, which they had collected for sale to whom ever for what ever purpose anywhere they desire, a galactic slavery harvest on their GMOs
=your not invited, just your Genetic offspring once all donor claimants have been manipulated into self MAD extinction & planet core Borg napped
docatomics 5 months ago
I used to be so arrogant and tell people 'move to Australia, best country in the world to live' Now I'm shrinking in a hole from embarrassment from this supercilious genuflecting sycophant we call a prime minister. It's gotten to the stage her boyfriend is telling everyone that we (females) are picking on her and bullying her. Shes such a dirty lying scumbag. I bet she has a picture of AL manpigbear in her wallet to drool over!
manque15 5 months ago
Hey Man-Bear-Pig, I learned that plants need CO2 to survive in 2nd grade....I'm very sorry that you got co-opted by Satan, but you STILL CANNOT HAVE MY FUCKING MONEY!
wahahn 5 months ago
Al Gore is what Alex would be if he were a democrat.
alexjonesisascam 5 months ago
@alexjonesisascam HAHAHA. They are nothing alike!
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@TheSportCompact They're one and the same, Al Gore is a fearmongering, lying scheming left wing scam artist. Alex Jibes is a fearmongering, lying, scheming, right wing, scam artist. Really the only difference is Alex weighs around 300 pounds.
alexjonesisascam 5 months ago
Marc Morano talks a big game, but when I Google'd him I see his background is as a Republican operative and GOPropagandist.
LongueTiedNoLunger 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAlexJonesChannel
@LongueTiedNoLunger Ad Hominem.
peterstierjr 5 months ago
The Corona of the Sun cooled, and it will not begin to heat back up for several years.
CelticSouthland 5 months ago
"as al gore is speaking.." LOL
th86stone 5 months ago
Obama cut back on epa's choking of America , in search of votes, he will allow
accelerate epa attacks on progress if he is re elected.
Obama told us this year that Nuclear Power is a big part of our future immediately
following Japan's melt down.
Obama is an idiot.
riverstrat 5 months ago
Alex Jones?? Seriously?? This is where Marc Morano now chooses to dwell? Hilarious! It shows how desperate he is.
TIO540S1 5 months ago
There was never wind before evil humans started breathing.
jimmi161 5 months ago
The Only made made climate change are the chemtrail nazis in our skies and haarp.
loveofbirds 5 months ago 2
The Only made mad climate change are the chemtrail nazis in our skies and haarp.
loveofbirds 5 months ago
end of times.
indibabs122275 5 months ago
the greenpolice they live inside of Gores' ass......the greenpolice they come too him in his gas.............the greenpolice.............the greenpolice..........the greenpolice.
matcave420 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAlexJonesChannel
i live in Palm Springs California and we had by far the coolest summer i have ever seen and i have been living here since 1996
burnedoutgolfer 5 months ago
inb4 Zardoz
diogeneslaertius666 5 months ago
Gore is a neo-pet and a small creature on the stage of clowns
Agogaraxis 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAlexJonesChannel
"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history,"
"... the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 15 to 20 million years ago CO2 comprised a hell of a lot higher levels then it does today. Right now it makes up well under 1% of the gases in the atmosphere. Back then it made up over 30%. Where did you learn math because there is no way you could pass an elementary school math class never mind a college level course.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@1noen1 if u believe man made global warming then just kill yourself that will help in reducing global warming.
also it will help reduce the number of loons in the world,hahaha
xcalibur4l 5 months ago
@1noen1 The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@solarDeviant "that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other" -- No climate scientist claims that CO2 CAUSED previous warmings, they CONTRIBUTED to warming that was triggered by the Milankovich cycle, made them larger and last longer. But it is still a FACT that CO2 is a GH gas and you have yet to explain how CO2 could NOT contribute to past warming or be a cause of today's warming.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years!
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@solarDeviant "by hundreds to thousands of years! " A thousand years is a blink of the geologic eye. What happened was that the Milankovich cycle triggered warming, which released CO2, which exaggerated and prolonged the warming already under way. CO2 is a GH gas. What you have to do is to PROVE that our physics of atomic quantum theory is WRONG. Good luck with that.
1noen1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 Name the scientists that are your sources.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 The mechanisms governing CO2 in the oceans are much more complicated such that the equilibrium depends on the amount of biological activity, on the complicated chemical reactions in the oceans, and many more interactions. For example, a lower temperature can increase the amount of dust reaching the oceans.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 The main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature is NOT CO2.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas responsible for 2 to 4% of the warming.
The warming they're talking about is .88 degrees over the past 150 years.
97% of Co2 is produced naturally by plant decay, ocean out gassing,
volcanoes, forest fires etc. Humans are only responsible for 3% of the Co2
in the atmosphere. The amount of warming caused by human activity is
utterly insignificant.
SuperDdy 5 months ago
@SuperDdy "Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas" - FALSE. CO2 is a major GH gas second only to water vapor. CO2 contributes about 26% to warming but it is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. "Humans are only responsible for 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere." MISLEADING. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. CO2 is building up and that build up is accelerating.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@solarDeviant "while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose" FALSE. The historical record clearly shows that CO2 and global temps track very closely. The usual denialist claim is that CO2 lags behind temps (and there is a reason for that) but you go off the deep end claiming that there is no correlation at all.
What the denialist needs to explain is how CO2 is NOT a GH gas. Given the PHYSICS of CO2, how is it possible that increased CO2 would not lead to increased temps?
1noen1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 It doesn't prove at all that CO2 has any effect on the global temperature. There is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature. Of course, the temperature itself can depend on a dozen different factors, including CO2, but just the CO2 / temperature correlation by itself DOES NOT tell you the strength of the CO2→ΔT link. It doesn't even tell you the sign.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 Al Gore uses pyrotechnics to lead his audience to the wrong conclusion. If CO2 affects temp, then the 20th century CO2 rise should cause a temp rise larger than the rise seen from the last ice-age to today's interglacial. This is of course wrong. All it says is that we offsetted the dissolution balance of CO2 in the oceans. If we were to stop burning fossil fuels, then the large CO2 increase would turn into a CO2 decrease, returning back to the pre-industrial level over a century or so.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 Think for example on a closed coke bottle. It has coke with dissolved CO2 and it has air with gaseous CO2. Just like Earth, most of the CO2 is in the dissolved form. If you warm the coke bottle, the coke cannot hold as much CO2, so it releases a little amount and increases the partial pressure of the gaseous CO2, enough to force the rest of the dissolved CO2 to stay dissolved. Since there is much more dissolved CO2 than gaseous CO2, the amount released from the coke is relatively small.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 Once the oceans adjust (on time scale of decades to centuries), the CO2 equilibrium changes as well. The changed CO2 can further affect the temperature, but the CO2 / temperature correlation cannot be used to say almost anything about the strength of this link.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@solarDeviant "while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose" FALSE. The historical record clearly shows that CO2 and global temps track very closely. The usual denialist claim is that CO2 lags behind temps (and there is a reason for that) but you go off the deep end claiming that there is no correlation at all.
What the denialist needs to explain is how CO2 is NOT a GH gas. Given the PHYSICS of CO2, how is it possible that increased CO2 would not lead to increased temps?
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 Strong negative feed-backs play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.
A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15-20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.
Most of these important negative feed-backs are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 IPCC scientists did not relay that, during the time from the mid 60's-98, the stratosphere cooled almost 3x as much as the earth warmed. From this input, it could prove that CFC destruction of ozone, not CO2, was the cause of the abnormal warming over that period.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 First, most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise! In the United States
31,478 scientists have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement and of these 9,029 have PhDs, including Dr. Edward Teller.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@solarDeviant "31,478 scientists have signed a petition" -- No they didn't. This more than anything exposes you for the clown and denialist shill you are. Is Micky Mouse a scientist? Because he's on that list.
What a FUCKING TOOL.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 In addition, U.S. Senator James Inhofe 2 (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, recently delivered a global warming speech entitled: “Global Warming Consensus in Freefall: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." Inhofe also detailed the growing number of left of center scientists and environmental activists who are speaking out to reject man-made climate fears.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science and past UN IPCC contributor, explained that only a FEW scientists were involved in writing the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report 3. Although purported to speak for thousands of scientists, it was NOT thousands offering their consensus. Dr. Lindzen participated in that and said, "Each person who was an author wrote one or two pages in conjunction with someone else.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 They traveled around the world several times a year for several years to write it, and the summary for policymakers had the input of about 13 of the scientists. Ultimately, it was written by REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENTS, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial
organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 In the documentary "Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore conveniently separated the Vostok Ice core
temperature and CO2 graphs so you could not see which came first, a warming spike or a CO2 spike. He said that a CO2 spike came first but alas, it was the just the opposite! When the graphs are combined, it is clearly seen that a global warming spike always comes first. This warms the oceans, which reduces the solubility of CO2 in water and results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@solarDeviant Which is it? Does CO2 correlate to temps or not? You are not permitted to have it both ways. Either CO2 has no relationship to temps as you JUST SAID or it lags, as you JUST SAID.
pick one
1noen1 5 months ago
Comment removed
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 During this period, CO2 and temps are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temps by about 600-1000 years. CO2 simply cannot be responsible for global warming. The initial changes in temp during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 It is interesting to note that the IPCC scientific report, which are your sources, (e.g., the AR4) avoids this question of lag. Instead of pointing it out, they write that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 Since the increase of CO2 over the 20th is monotonic, and other climate drivers (e.g., the sun) increased as well, a correlation with temperature is mostly meaningless. This leaves the geological variations in CO2 as the only variations which could be used to empirically estimate the effect of the CO2→ΔT link.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 The reason that over geological time scales, the variations do not depend on the temperature is because over these long durations, the total CO2 in the ecosystem varies from a net imbalance between volcanic out-gassing and sedimentation/subduction. This "random walk" in the amount of CO2 is the reason why there were periods with 3 or even 10 times as much CO2 than present, over the past billion years.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor and clouds, which studies indicate are responsible for between 66% and 85% of the total effect.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 Carbon dioxide contributes a smaller amount, no more than 25%. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration would produce a small increase in the earth’s temperature—on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Al Gore also gave NO explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place. What is so disturbing is that climatologists, like Al Gore, seem to have a problem discerning cause and effect. It is very simple and does not require a rocket scientist. If what you call an effect comes first, you have it backwards; the cause comes first to produce the effect.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature? No, that does not exist. Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth's temperature to increase? No, according to Joseph D'Aleo, certified meteorologist. Even a non-scientist can see there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If there were a correlation, they both would rise and fall together.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend - not true for the earth's temperature. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Two sets of temperature measurements are shown, one set by NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) for the troposphere and the other by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit for the land and sea. Both show declining temps over time even as CO2 has increased from 366 ppmv in January 1998 to 385 ppmv by January 2008.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@solarDeviant "Both show declining temps" FALSE. CO2 and temps in fact have a strong correlation.
You have yet to explain how it is that CO2 is NOT a GH gas.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 It's NOT true that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period. The CO2 concentration oscillates based on the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The ratio of land to ocean in the Northern Hemisphere is about 1 to 1.5 and in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. Therefore, the Northern Hemisphere with much more land mass has a growing season that dominates the Southern Hemisphere growing season with respect to absorption of CO2.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Each year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the N. Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere & the reduction continues until around mid to late August when plants start to go dormant. The cycles occur on a regular yearly basis and the swing in CO2 concentration is in the 5-8 ppmv range. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for long periods before being consumed, the season to season cyclic effect would not be seen.Nature reacts very fast in its consumption of CO2.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 The actual temp for 2008 was some 0.43 oC cooler than the IPCC projection based on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 concentration remained constant with time. On an actual temp basis, one sees that the IPCC models predict temps that are not even close to actual measurements. The temp in 2008 was the same as in 1982. The predictions represent the classic "garbage in - garbage out" analysis for computer models.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 It reminds me of the computer models used to predict where Hurricane Ike would hit the U. S. in 2008. Five meteorological models all predicted the hurricane would hit the west coast of Florida, then changed it to New Orleans, then to Galveston, down to Corpus Christi and then back up to Galveston, where it finally hit, all of this over a five day period. Here again, meteorological models are not trustworthy.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature. The increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to
the level we had in 2001-2002 when it was warmer than it is now.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature. The increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to
the level we had in 2001-2002 when it was warmer than it is now.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the
atmosphere, nature's controlling mechanism causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Photosynthesis is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on other environmental conditions such as temperature and available moisture 7.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere available for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man's feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Without it, life would not exist on earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food. :)
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 There are several possible causes of global warming, and each warms the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes. Each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere and will leave its "signature". The greenhouse signature is very distinct. If this signature were present, warming would be concentrated in a distinct “hot spot” about 8 to 12 km up over the tropics, with less warming further away, turning to cooling above 18 km.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 If what the IPCC is presenting were true, for every unit of energy in, one would get back (390/168) = 2.32 units of energy. The U.S. Patent Office never awards a patent for a process that claims it gets more energy out than it puts in because thermodynamically it is quite impossible. Strangely, the IPCC promotes such nonsense to the people of the world! Of course, I'm NOT buying their agenda. Unlike you.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it - if only!
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill (H.R.2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009) is favored by the current administration. It is estimated this will result in a tax increase to every American family of $3,100/year. This greatly offsets the proposed Federal income tax reduction of $400 for a single person making $75,000/yr or less and $800 for a married couple making $150,000/yr of less.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Let me see, you stimulate the economy by giving tax breaks to Americans then you surreptitiously tax them through energy use some 4 to 8 times more than the tax relief you give them? What a lot of CRAP! Based on actual data, CO2 causing global warming is clearly a figment of the IPCC's imagination. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@1noen1 Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate and will hurt the economies of the world. Many scientists see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from carbon taxes.
Like Al Gore who is filthy rich now.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
@solarDeviant -- You need to show how it is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. Just how is it possible that dumping BILLIONS of tons of CO2 into the air would NOT have an effect on global temps? We know the physics of carbon atoms and what happens at the quantum level when they absorb infra-red radiation. Given the PHYSICS of atomic matter, how is it possible that CO2 would NOT re-radiate I-R and heat up the surrounding air?
You need to explain that before you can be taken seriously.
1noen1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth’s surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth’s surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 There is much talk about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2. We are told that we need to minimize our “carbon footprint.” But CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1noen1 I am taken very seriously.
It is you that NOBODY is listening to.
NOBODY is supporting you in any video you go to.
It is YOU that NOBODY takes seriously.
YOU ARE A DISINFO AGENT.
solarDeviant 5 months ago
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 Here is the flaw to what you are saying, well quoting. There was no man made CO2. There was a lot of gasses released into the atmosphere by the Earth itself from like volcanoes. At that time the Earth was just going beyond primordial times. Trees were growing at rapid rates feeding off of the CO2, now they barely grow because they are CO2 starved. The way you've posted here, you have to be getting paid to spread the global warming lie!
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@TheSportCompact "There was no man made CO2." - No one claims that humans "made" CO2. The claim is that the global warming that is a FACT is due to human activity. We dug up coal and drilled for oil buried in the ground and then released it into the air. Thus CAUSING global warming.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 You are claiming humans are the cause of CO2, now you say we aren't, which is it? You just contradicted yourself in this post. You prove you are clueless by doing so too.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@TheSportCompact "You just contradicted yourself in this post." No I did not. You are just incapable of understanding anything above a 4th grade level. Humans don't "make" CO2, it's in the ground, we dig it up and release it in the air. So we are in fact responsible for the current warming of the earth.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 You didn't contradict yourself? I ask everyone out here to read your posts. I believe they will agree with me. If I can't comprehend above a 4th grade level then how did I get my college degree in history and a certificate in computer science at the same time? You said man made CO2 and CO2 is caused by humanity both saying it's our faults. Then you went on and contradicted that. You are now with no argument and trying to back peddle. So pathetic and sad!
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@TheSportCompact "how did I get my college degree in history and a certificate in computer science at the same time?" -- I don't know but I do know that you cannot reason rationally or logically. You have a CERTIFICATE in CS!!! WOW!!!! Can you program in javascript too???? AWSOME!
You have a BA in History. Is that what you tell the Art History majors you work next to at McDonalds?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 OMG you are so pathetic. You are the one who cannot reason rationally never mind understand logic. Actually my certificate in CS has come in handy. I can program in C, C++, Java, Perl, JavaScript as well where you are curious, and that is just to name a few languages. So I have a degree in history, and it doesn't mean I work at Mc Donalds either. For the record, I own a small business that produces consumer electronics, like PC's and tablets. So laugh away where you work at Mc D's.
TheSportCompact 5 months ago
@TheSportCompact "I can program in C" -- I can think. Variable(weather) = today(temp + precip + pressure) -- Variable(climate) = average(weather.day_01 + weather.day_02 for N days)
variable(weather) /= variable(climate)
Therefore --> You wasted your money at the junior college you got your degree from.
1noen1 5 months ago
@1noen1 HAHAHAHA.. When you get schooled you go on the personal attacks. When you try to use one thing and then say it doesn't apply on another you do the same, like how New England being unseasonably cold is a proof of global warming by with Florida it is not. You are no different then Al Gore, and lets look at how full of shit he has been proven to be. He is so full of it, it comes spewing out of his mouth and ears, no differently then you. I went to a 4 year institution by the way.