More Thoughts On Global Warming

"the earth counteracts CO2 increase...veeeery slowly, and deforestation really slows the process down even more...

CO2 is natural, so is radon gas but I wouldn't recommend building a home on a radon site...

nearly everything is natural, anything out of normal proportions is abnormal, CO2 in high levels will make you sick and can even kill you..."

My point is plants counteract. Veeery slowly doesn't tell me anything. If it is slow, it is because it is nowhere near toxic as you claim. Take a deep breath. Does it even feel toxic? That's what I am talking about. Now, you tell me mother earth cannot counteract what I cannot even feel?

"and doing nothing to limit CO2 will cost much much more..."

I don't think so. President Obama just gave billions to the United Nations to give to the developing countries. He just spent and continues to spend on failed projects like Solyndra. He slowed down the Keystone pipeline quite a bit. I think we spent enough.

"Climatologist study the climate regardless what it does, warmer, colder, static, it's irrelevant they still have a job."

Again, I don't think so. This doesn't answer my statement.

"there is no "if", the earth is warming..."

OK. The earth warms, the earth cools. There is no need to panic.

"you miss the point of "climate change" it's unpredictable (now you know why there are climatologists) assuming everything will work out perfectly and rain will only fall where it will do the most good in amounts that are usable is like leaving cancer untreated, "hey! it may go into spontaneous remission"...

While people like you think there is a need to worry, others say no. I look at the rise in temperatures of the graphs. I see 1 degree centigrade. Panic....

"If CO2 is the only limiting factor, as you suggest, then why has there been an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere at all? Why haven't the plants made use of the extra CO2 and kept the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere stable?"

What is the point in making it stable or lower than it is now? My point is it is not a doom and gloom toxic where everyone dies. Mother earth has resources to counter this.

 

what does recovery speed have to do with toxicity? A comet can slam into the earth in mere seconds causing a mass extinction event that will take millions of years to recover from... and ya you can feel the effects of increased CO2 it's called climate change...

millions and billions for prevention compared to the potential hundreds of trillions for damage caused by Climate change, this is a no brainer...there used to be a TV commercial for auto oil filters a mechanic explaining the need for preventive maintenance "You can pay me now(new filter $10) or you can pay me later(new engine)...

do you think universities invent subjects of study? that universities invented climate so they could produce jobs, climatologists?... maybe Universities invented weather too so meteorologists could have jobs, who then invented Hurricanes to justify their salaries?

a 3c drop in temp sends us toward an Ice age, no need to be concerned right?

people like me? 97% of scientists say this is where we are headed and you to follow the 3% of whom many are paid by energy companies to deflect from the issue?...only a 3c drop sends toward an ice age, a 2c rise sends toward another tipping point...just as the earth occupies a "Goldie Locks zone in the solar system for life to be possible...complex life on earth also occupies a Goldie Locks temp zone, a very narrow band of temp that makes life possible...small changes in temp have significant consequences...life can adapt to slow change, rapid climate changes trigger extinction events...

we are adding GHGs to the atmosphere faster than the planet can balance the equation...what we add to the atmosphere in decades will take hundreds if not thousands of years to correct and correction isn't even possible as long as man adds more GHG's then can be absorbed...and just where do you think this absorption will happen? certainly not the rain forests that are steadily being reduced, so that leaves the oceans, and what happens when the oceans are made toxic for life? mass extinction....

 

[video=youtube;2_ZQRIsn2pA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ZQRIsn2pA[/video]

The problem is not "Mother Earth' surviving; the problem is humans suffering.

And that still does not answer the question: "If CO2 is the only limiting factor, as you suggest, then why has there been an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere at all? Why haven't the plants made use of the extra CO2 and kept the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere stable?"

 

You can put all the theories in front of me you want. The thing is, I have not seen any one shred of evidence of anything toxic going starting up.

 

Sorry. I am not aware of how this reply with quote system works yet as you have done. Some of my reply have shown up in your quote.

 

Holy cow. A one degree rise will cause a drought?

Don't come to me with humans suffering. People are starving. Unemployment is chronically high. Three wars have been fought in the last 20 years because of oil. Your theories are causing human suffering.

[video=youtube;SzmvmZYsQPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzmvmZYsQPg[/video]

 

I would say you need an education, based on your reasoning.

 

One could also argue that one small volcano could not possibly affect the global climate and cause a cooling of the earth. But that is exactly what happened with Mt. Pinatubo

 

Get educated on how the human race is doomed? Isn't that what you are saying? To believe in this nonsense is atheism, in my opinion, because whatever man will do, he is doomed to destruction.

What can we do to do to stop it if it was true? The Kyoto protocol is a failure. There are several exempt countries. They can burn all the fuel they want without violating the rules. The ones following the rules are settling for more expensive fuel. A clue is President Obama's "green energy" projects. He has had at least a dozen Solyndra's now, and he has given no indications of slowing down. He has given billions through the United Nations to give to the developing countries for compliance in the midst of asking for more taxes. He has slowed down the development of new sources of oil, the cheapest resource for energy for the human race.

I see your video and see the polar ice caps melting on one degree. I go to the beach and it's just fine. How many inches is it supposed to rise? One? two? twelve? I don't believe it, but I can live with that without even noticing it. I heard your coleagues, blaming the tsunamis an the hurricanes on climate change. (It's interesting how that has been changed from global warming.) Why are they called tsunamis and hurricanes? Because they were named that before man even began using fuel.

The statement at the end of your video says, "Six degrees could change the world." That tells me uncertainty. It is that kind of uncertainty that is causing human suffering of high oil prices, high unemployment and wars over oil when there is plenty of it. Why is it that ALL of the scientific writings of climate change has "could", "may" and other words that shows uncertainty? They will convince more people if they were more positive of the outcome. They would be more believable if that statement was, "Six degrees WILL change the world."

http://theconservativeagenda.org/?page_id=1414

 

It is stories this that has not hit the media much. There was a a few shortly after the eruption, but you cannot find it on the internet now.

One story was the carbon dioxide that came from Mt. Pinatubo, was created by man, since man started burning fossil fuel. And yes, the plants absorbed more. I remember Mt. Pinatubo. I don't remember it changing the climate. Again, the change is not noticeable. The point is that was a lot of carbon dioxide.

 

"I would say you need an education, based on your reasoning."

Taxcutter says:
Calling people ignorant is not gonna win any arguments. Does it ever occur that the opponents of Global Warming taxation and regulation view your education to be deficient?

 

cannot find it on the internet? seriously are you blind, finding anything on the net takes a matter of seconds unless you deliberately don't look for it...


your entire position is one based on feigned or intentional ignorance...essentially it comes down comes down to this, kuafu-"if I don't know it, it can't be true" and then any explanation offered is met with you closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears...

 

Before you tell me what you think I posted is ignorance, you need to read it. It is not if I don't now it, it can't be true. Whomever says that has not read what I posted. It's not believing in everything I read or am told, especially if it's not logical. It's like believing in Santa Claus.

You want to accuse me of ignorance? I can accuse you of the same thing. When we are done accusing each other of whatever, where are we?

 

that is an interesting perspective ....

as is your post .... you would be surprised to know the level of ignorance it reveals

 

you could choose to be informed ... and frankly, with access to the information available today there is no excuse for such blatant ignorance.

where I live ocean temps have risen by up to 5 degrees Celsius. this affects fish stocks, there is also some evidence that this is influencing the number of sharks in shallow waters - which may be the reason for the huge spike in shark attacks that we are experiencing ... there is plenty of other local information over a long period showing trends toward warming, and this is only from one small region - there is plenty of other information around the globe, from scientists studying a whole range of disciplines.

you choose ignorance.

 

there is no winning arguments with people who deliberately choose ignorance, which is why I no longer bother.

 

The recent Icelandic volcano emitted thousands of tons of ash and C02 to the point of closing down air travel in much of Europe for some time. This turned out to be good for the planet, since the amount of carbon which would have been emitted by the cancelled plane flights was greater than that of the volcano.

 

Temperatures rise, temperatures fall. Fish stocks go up, fish stocks go down. Of course, you do not say which. My guess is it is going up, because you would surely further your gloom and doom theory by stating fishermen are catching less and soon, they will catch zero. Shark attacks went up last year so next year there will be more. Soon, it will be unsafe to go to the beach at all. It will be infested with sharks because of climate change.

We will starve and have no fish to eat. There will be drought and we will have nothing to drink. It is all man made. Whomever says otherwise is ignorant.

 

Its like this dude....whoever says that bacteria does not cause cholera is ignorant. It is not caused by bad air or evil spirits.

Some places will have drought and other places will flood... some places will be colder...but on average the earth will be warmer.

 

let's test the level of BS you're presenting....

I did a Google and entered the search words-mt Pinatubo eruptions effects
and in .46! seconds google responded with 223,000 hits....223,000 articles and you wanna claim you cannot find anything on it on the internet?...the truth is you don't want to look for the answers, self induced ignorance on your part

one story claimed CO2 from mt Pinatubo was man made? BS! find that story, you made it up yourself....no scientific source claims that, no intelligent adult with more than a grade 6 education would make such ludicrous claim...mt Pinatubo didn't change the climate??? more selective ignorance....

google is your friend if your really honest about the pursuit of knowledge...

 

One story was the carbon dioxide that came from Mt. Pinatubo, was created by man, since man started burning fossil fuel. And yes, the plants absorbed more. I remember Mt. Pinatubo. I don't remember it changing the climate. Again, the change is not noticeable. The point is that was a lot of carbon dioxide.

[It is stories this that has not hit the media much. There was a a few shortly after the eruption, but you cannot find it on the internet now.
I did a Google and entered the search words-mt Pinatubo eruptions effects]

"and in .46! seconds google responded with 223,000 hits....223,000 articles and you wanna claim you cannot find anything on it on the internet?...the truth is you don't want to look for the answers, self induced ignorance on your part"

I thought it would be beyond you to quote me out of context. In the midst of your calling me ignorant, did you even bother to see exactly what I meant? It was not how many hits. It was stories that Mount Pinatubo actually caused global cooling. If there many stories like that and you didn't read it, how come it is me that's ignorant?

"one story claimed CO2 from mt Pinatubo was man made? BS! find that story, you made it up yourself....no scientific source claims that, no intelligent adult with more than a grade 6 education would make such ludicrous claim...mt Pinatubo didn't change the climate??? more selective ignorance....

google is your friend if your really honest about the pursuit of knowledge..."


That was a typo. I thought about making another post to correct it, but with your level of intelligence, I thought you will figure it out. Sorry. I was mistaken. Here is what it is supposed to read.

[One story was there was more carbon dioxide from Mt. Pinatubo than was created by man since man started burning fossil fuel.]

 

typo? no, this is a " tpyo "....what you wrote was barely coherent...

and again not finding any references on the internet B.S....you find nothing because you don't look, you don't look because you know the evidence doesn't support you, you prefer to feign ignorance...

 

You cannot find it? Who is ignorant? I answered all of your lYou stated there will be drought, fish stocks being affected and sharks biting more and blamed everything on man. You don't even know that I LOOKED and answered them? Who is ignorant?

It is he who has no argument that labels the other person instead of sticking to the facts.

 

The Treehuggers are also barking up the wrong tree about pollution. Natural air is full of toxic microbes, which, though they can kill us, are far weaker than us in dealing with pollution. To coin a true oxymoron, pollution is antiseptic, destroying our natural enemies. Evidence for that is all these alarmist epidemics die out once they reach the cities. The last time one took its full natural course by killing 20 million people was in 1919, just before automobile pollution was strong enough for us to enjoy its antiseptic benefit. Environmentalists have a superstitious reverence for Nature and our place in it. The balance of Nature is not in our favor. It is the enemy of mankind and must be transformed, refined, and manipulated to serve us. It should be treated the way Classical Rome treated its enemies: defeat them and enslave them. Only backward savages, who are fugitives from evolution, submit to Nature's tyranny. That's why they remain subhuman and should never be imitated. It is typical of decadent environmentalists that they praise these obsolete tribes as really knowing how to live.

 

just when you think when you've heard or read every idiotic idea possible something entirely new pops up...pollution kills viruses, who knew...