Global Warming... Oops, I'm Sorry It's Now Called CLIMATE CHANGE :lol:
- Thread starter CrackerJax
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
Ur 100% correct of course, but the word is getting out. Americans are becoming skeptical of folks like Al Bore.
It's important to show that he is a liar.... and a manipulative bastard.
But yes, no matter how much we drag down our economies (how are we gonna pay off the upcoming extra Obama tax load?), it isn't going to mean a thing to the Earth.
Bunch of big arse lies.....
Hydrotech364
Well-Known Member
After I read about the Volcano in Africa spewing more CO2 in one day than mankind has in our lifetime the theory went to shit for me.Maybe we should throw Al Gore into it as a sacrifice.I dont even want to get started on Obama.
CrackerJax
New Member
But the politicians don't want to hear any more info...... they want the money and no amount of good science will stop them now.
Did you hear about the scientists who have come up with a very cheap way of dealing with cooling the planet.
Their idea is to send up a very long "garden hose" into the stratosphere. Then pump sulphur (naturally occurring) into the stratosphere (just like a volcano does), which would cool the earth significantly and cost about the price of a single F22 fighter jet.
Gore says they are "nuts"....
How dare they come up with a simple and effective and cheap solution.
It's much easier to change the entire world economy..... yah, it's the scientists who are nuts....
Did you hear about the scientists who have come up with a very cheap way of dealing with cooling the planet.
Their idea is to send up a very long "garden hose" into the stratosphere. Then pump sulphur (naturally occurring) into the stratosphere (just like a volcano does), which would cool the earth significantly and cost about the price of a single F22 fighter jet.
Gore says they are "nuts"....
How dare they come up with a simple and effective and cheap solution.
It's much easier to change the entire world economy..... yah, it's the scientists who are nuts....
P
PadawanBater
Guest
C02 is one of the leading greenhouse gases. It contributes 9-26% to the greenhouse effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_effect
Venus' atmosphere consists of mostly carbon dioxide, which contributes significantly to it's runaway greenhouse effect. Same with Mars, also, both those planets don't have a carbon cycle or organic life to absorb it, so it just keeps building up into the atmosphere. The same thing happens on Earth.
So the theory goes if we as humans produce more C02 than we have before, data and collected evidence would suggest the C02 levels in the atmosphere would also rise. There are a lot of variables to consider though, there is organic life and the Earth does have carbon cycles, we don't know exactly how much C02 humans contribute to the overall % in the atmosphere, we don't know enough about our effects and the consequences of civilization yet to really say that we are responsible for global warming or not, but, there are also a lot of other things to consider, completely leaving out whether or not our grandchildrens grandchildren will have a safe living environment... The alternatives. Oil. The continued production of this resource only exploits third world countries and lines greedy peoples pockets. Oil and energy is one of the main contributors to war in the 21st century. Control oil, control wealth, control wealth control people, control people, well... I don't think I need to explain what happens when people are manipulated by wealth, power and greed...
It's going to run out one day, why wait till the last minute to do something about it? Why not look for safer technologies to enhance our society and increase effeciency to save energy? Why continue using oil till it's gone?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
well when you remember the name let us know...I tried but have no clue what volcano you talking about that does that....so when you remember let us knowOff the top of my head I cannot remember the name but there is a volcano in Africa which emits the totality of the entire man made greenhouse effect in the U.S. every day... pure folly.
out.
CrackerJax
New Member
I can't find my old link to the article, but I found something similar. Volcanoes release immense amounts of CO2, but the global warming "truthers" are changing the angle of the dangle. Now they insist that volcanoes don't produce as much carbon as man.
BUT.... the question is...do volcanoes outproduce us in GREENHOUSE GASES. CO2 is only one very small element released by volcanoes and water vapor is the dominant agent of global warming....not carbon. Conveniently water vapor is not taken into consideration when measuring for global warming.
Science now knows that the earth is cooling, not warming. This is FAR worse for man.
======================================================================
Since 1980, scientists have monitored geologic unrest in Long Valley Caldera and at adjacent Mammoth Mountain, California. After a persistent swarm of earthquakes beneath Mammoth Mountain in 1989, earth scientists discovered that large volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas were seeping from beneath this volcano. This gas is killing trees on the mountain and also can be a danger to people. The USGS continues to study the CO2 emissions to help protect the public from this invisible potential hazard.
A preliminary estimate of the current rate of CO2 gas emission at Mammoth Mountain is 1,300 tons per day. Similar rates of CO2 emission have been measured from the craters of Mt. St. Helens (Washington) and Kilauea (Hawaii) volcanoes during periods of low-level eruptive activity.
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/CO2/
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/geochem/co2.html
BUT.... the question is...do volcanoes outproduce us in GREENHOUSE GASES. CO2 is only one very small element released by volcanoes and water vapor is the dominant agent of global warming....not carbon. Conveniently water vapor is not taken into consideration when measuring for global warming.
Science now knows that the earth is cooling, not warming. This is FAR worse for man.
======================================================================
Since 1980, scientists have monitored geologic unrest in Long Valley Caldera and at adjacent Mammoth Mountain, California. After a persistent swarm of earthquakes beneath Mammoth Mountain in 1989, earth scientists discovered that large volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas were seeping from beneath this volcano. This gas is killing trees on the mountain and also can be a danger to people. The USGS continues to study the CO2 emissions to help protect the public from this invisible potential hazard.
A preliminary estimate of the current rate of CO2 gas emission at Mammoth Mountain is 1,300 tons per day. Similar rates of CO2 emission have been measured from the craters of Mt. St. Helens (Washington) and Kilauea (Hawaii) volcanoes during periods of low-level eruptive activity.
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/CO2/
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/geochem/co2.html
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Happily Joe American is coming to the realization that man made climate change falls into the category of Progressive scare tactics which have a far different goal than the one stated.
This report from the Pew Research Center documents the eroding support for the scam that is Man Made Global Warming, err... Man Made Climate Change.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1390/why-do-fewer-americans-believe-the-earth-is-warming
This report from the Pew Research Center documents the eroding support for the scam that is Man Made Global Warming, err... Man Made Climate Change.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1390/why-do-fewer-americans-believe-the-earth-is-warming
CrackerJax
New Member
Yes JO, the bad science is now quite evident and can no longer be denied. The politicians will ignore it though.... they smell money and gullibility.
CrackerJax
New Member
No group of followers are quite as gullible and empty headed as the GREEN PPL. It wasn't always so. With the official apostle of Global "change" being Al Gore.....one can have no better indication of that.
====================================
Gore's Profits Of Doom
Posted 11/03/2009 06:37 PM ET
Junk Science: The oracle of climate disaster has a new book out on global warming that should be on the fiction list. He asks us to commit economic suicide while he rakes in millions from his green investments.
'Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis," Al Gore's sequel to his 2006 tome "An Inconvenient Truth," came out Tuesday. Printed on recycled paper using low-VOC (volatile organic compound) ink, it will undoubtedly be a best-seller and on the desk of every attendee at next month's climate change conference in Copenhagen.
In a press release announcing the book, the Oscar- and Nobel Prize-winning former vice president writes: "Now that the need for urgent action is even clearer with the alarming new findings of the last three years, it is time for a comprehensive global plan that actually solves the climate crisis. 'Our Choice' will answer that call."
The book's cover depicts one of the hurricanes Gore still claims are increasing in frequency and intensity. What has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence.
For example, a recent study by researchers at Florida State University determined that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.
Ryan Maue, co-author of the report released in November 2008 on "Global Tropical Cyclone Activity," used a measurement called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) that combines a storm's duration and its wind speed in six-hour intervals. The years 2007 and 2008 had among the lowest ACE measurements since reliable global satellite data were first available three decades ago.
In a New York Times puff piece the same day Gore's book was released, "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate And Investor," it's described just how profitable saving the earth can be. Considering the accuracy of Gore's climate data, his role would be better described as "storyteller and profiteer."
In November 2007, Gore joined the investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The following May the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.
The group then announced an additional $700 million to be invested the next three years in green-tech startup firms. But there will be no return on these investments if the green technology business, uh, cools down. The hype and interest must be maintained. Climate change skeptics must be denounced as "deniers."
Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million.
A mere nine years later, estimates put his net worth at about $100 million. Gore's spokeswoman wouldn't give a current figure for his net worth, but, according to the Times, "the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Equity Group," a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to conservation investments, namely environmentally correct products.
Last year, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and trade-legislation in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly.
Blackburn noted that Kleiner Perkins at last count had "about $1 billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."
Gore replied he was only being a good businessman in a capitalist economy, that he was putting his money where his mouth was.
Perhaps, but at the same time he is advocating policies based on junk science that, while he enriches himself, will devastate the American economy, causing huge losses in jobs, economic growth and GDP.
The American consumer and taxpayer are on the wrong end of his green Ponzi scheme. Somewhere, Bernie Madoff is smiling
====================================
Gore's Profits Of Doom
Posted 11/03/2009 06:37 PM ET
Junk Science: The oracle of climate disaster has a new book out on global warming that should be on the fiction list. He asks us to commit economic suicide while he rakes in millions from his green investments.
'Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis," Al Gore's sequel to his 2006 tome "An Inconvenient Truth," came out Tuesday. Printed on recycled paper using low-VOC (volatile organic compound) ink, it will undoubtedly be a best-seller and on the desk of every attendee at next month's climate change conference in Copenhagen.
In a press release announcing the book, the Oscar- and Nobel Prize-winning former vice president writes: "Now that the need for urgent action is even clearer with the alarming new findings of the last three years, it is time for a comprehensive global plan that actually solves the climate crisis. 'Our Choice' will answer that call."
The book's cover depicts one of the hurricanes Gore still claims are increasing in frequency and intensity. What has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence.
For example, a recent study by researchers at Florida State University determined that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.
Ryan Maue, co-author of the report released in November 2008 on "Global Tropical Cyclone Activity," used a measurement called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) that combines a storm's duration and its wind speed in six-hour intervals. The years 2007 and 2008 had among the lowest ACE measurements since reliable global satellite data were first available three decades ago.
In a New York Times puff piece the same day Gore's book was released, "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate And Investor," it's described just how profitable saving the earth can be. Considering the accuracy of Gore's climate data, his role would be better described as "storyteller and profiteer."
In November 2007, Gore joined the investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The following May the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.
The group then announced an additional $700 million to be invested the next three years in green-tech startup firms. But there will be no return on these investments if the green technology business, uh, cools down. The hype and interest must be maintained. Climate change skeptics must be denounced as "deniers."
Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million.
A mere nine years later, estimates put his net worth at about $100 million. Gore's spokeswoman wouldn't give a current figure for his net worth, but, according to the Times, "the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Equity Group," a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to conservation investments, namely environmentally correct products.
Last year, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and trade-legislation in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly.
Blackburn noted that Kleiner Perkins at last count had "about $1 billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."
Gore replied he was only being a good businessman in a capitalist economy, that he was putting his money where his mouth was.
Perhaps, but at the same time he is advocating policies based on junk science that, while he enriches himself, will devastate the American economy, causing huge losses in jobs, economic growth and GDP.
The American consumer and taxpayer are on the wrong end of his green Ponzi scheme. Somewhere, Bernie Madoff is smiling
CrackerJax
New Member
Here's another little detailed look at Al Bore.... huckster extraordinaire.
The Economic Uses of Al Gore
Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.
Last spring Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn asked Al Gore during a House hearing if his investments in green energy meant he would benefit personally from cap and trade.
"If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," Mr. Gore responded (and, yes, according to two reporters present, he sighed).
Mr. Gore is quite right that his arguments should be judged on their merits, not on his investments. He's wrong to think his investments are irrelevant, and, even more, that sincerity is dispositive of anything. Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.
Here are a couple questions: When so much of his position and prestige are invested in a predicted climate crisis, is Mr. Gore likely to be open to contrary evidence? Is he likely to be particularly fastidious about whether proposed steps will actually have an effect on global warming if they also happen to benefit his investments?
Ms. Blackburn's challenge was in a sense late. Mr. Gore long ago jumped over to the side where salesmanship, by whatever means, was the trumping priority. As far back as 1989, he insisted there was "no dispute worthy of recognition" about the danger of manmade climate change. By now, he titularly heads a vast establishment with a stake in one side of the argument.
Notice, for instance, after a decade in which the earth appears to have stopped warming and even cooled, that global warming advocates have rushed to embrace a computer simulation that predicts this cooling (in retrospect, of course) and allows for indefinite future cooling, even while assuring that the world is destined to face disastrous warming anyway. Isn't this what forecasters of doom have done since time immemorial when their deadlines for doom haven't been met?
Mr. Gore's own predictions of a climate catastrophe have not lessened, but every time he opens his mouth, the costs of meeting the emergency become easier and easier to swallow. They aren't even costs anymore; as he says in his new book, they are "profits."
View Full Image
Getty Images Salesman in chief.
All policy salesmanship naturally defaults toward the proposition of huge benefits and negligible costs (i.e., free lunchism). Isn't that where Al Gore is today?
Mr. Gore notes that he has poured his own money into two climate action nonprofits, but, whatever his self-felt motives, aren't these nonprofits functionally propaganda arms (i.e., advertising) that benefit his for-profit investments?
The truth is, evidence of man's impact on climate remains maddeningly elusive, in part because man's impact on climate is so small as to be hard to disentangle from natural variability. This is not Mr. Gore's position, of course. If anything, however, the case for action has become less closed since he pronounced it closed in 1989, if only because of the huge sums and manpower poured into the subject to little avail.
In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.
These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.
For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.
We could go on. But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.
Isn't that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?
The Economic Uses of Al Gore
Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.
- By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Last spring Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn asked Al Gore during a House hearing if his investments in green energy meant he would benefit personally from cap and trade.
"If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," Mr. Gore responded (and, yes, according to two reporters present, he sighed).
Mr. Gore is quite right that his arguments should be judged on their merits, not on his investments. He's wrong to think his investments are irrelevant, and, even more, that sincerity is dispositive of anything. Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.
Here are a couple questions: When so much of his position and prestige are invested in a predicted climate crisis, is Mr. Gore likely to be open to contrary evidence? Is he likely to be particularly fastidious about whether proposed steps will actually have an effect on global warming if they also happen to benefit his investments?
Ms. Blackburn's challenge was in a sense late. Mr. Gore long ago jumped over to the side where salesmanship, by whatever means, was the trumping priority. As far back as 1989, he insisted there was "no dispute worthy of recognition" about the danger of manmade climate change. By now, he titularly heads a vast establishment with a stake in one side of the argument.
Notice, for instance, after a decade in which the earth appears to have stopped warming and even cooled, that global warming advocates have rushed to embrace a computer simulation that predicts this cooling (in retrospect, of course) and allows for indefinite future cooling, even while assuring that the world is destined to face disastrous warming anyway. Isn't this what forecasters of doom have done since time immemorial when their deadlines for doom haven't been met?
Mr. Gore's own predictions of a climate catastrophe have not lessened, but every time he opens his mouth, the costs of meeting the emergency become easier and easier to swallow. They aren't even costs anymore; as he says in his new book, they are "profits."
View Full Image
Getty Images Salesman in chief.
All policy salesmanship naturally defaults toward the proposition of huge benefits and negligible costs (i.e., free lunchism). Isn't that where Al Gore is today?
Mr. Gore notes that he has poured his own money into two climate action nonprofits, but, whatever his self-felt motives, aren't these nonprofits functionally propaganda arms (i.e., advertising) that benefit his for-profit investments?
The truth is, evidence of man's impact on climate remains maddeningly elusive, in part because man's impact on climate is so small as to be hard to disentangle from natural variability. This is not Mr. Gore's position, of course. If anything, however, the case for action has become less closed since he pronounced it closed in 1989, if only because of the huge sums and manpower poured into the subject to little avail.
In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.
These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.
For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.
We could go on. But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.
Isn't that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?
CrackerJax
New Member
Follow the actions and the money. At the intersection is usually the real truth of the issue.
Al Bore is a complete fraud. Nothing has changed there...
Al Bore is a complete fraud. Nothing has changed there...
CrackerJax
New Member
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming
October 07, 2009 04:15 PM ET |
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.
In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
Ur being hoodwinked Ppl.....
Oh, a new study by the way out of the EU warns that carbon credits will need to be DOUBLED to reach the goal.
Wow, just like that.... double the cost. We need to pay out twice as much money to kill plant life on the planet. Our govt's are so incredibly smart....
October 07, 2009 04:15 PM ET |
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.
In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
Ur being hoodwinked Ppl.....
Oh, a new study by the way out of the EU warns that carbon credits will need to be DOUBLED to reach the goal.
Wow, just like that.... double the cost. We need to pay out twice as much money to kill plant life on the planet. Our govt's are so incredibly smart....
while you did c/p a couple of good articles...
i find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists will argue FOR global warming... while only a few of them, and some authors will argue against it...
the first pst of this article said something about breeding trees to scrub Co2 from the air.... this is true, but let's say, in my own fantasy, that around 5000 square kilometers of the biggest forest in the world is plowed down this year, and in the last 10 years more than 100,000 square kilometers have been plowed.... how many of these special trees would you need to plant to make up for this?????? and more importantly, WHO will provide the land to plant all of these trees??? how can plants grow bushier and denser if they are being cut down??
the atmosphere of the earth is changing, and where that leads us is unknown.... but we have the science to stop it... the fact that this turned into a political argument blinds you from the truth...
the arguments against global warming are kind of ludicrous... come on, specially bred trees??? after that "argument" by your supposed "scientist", i couldn't read any more on that article...couldnt stop laughing..... i'm sorry, but like Illegal Smile once said: "you can't fix stupid", no matter how many degrees he has.....
i find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists will argue FOR global warming... while only a few of them, and some authors will argue against it...
the first pst of this article said something about breeding trees to scrub Co2 from the air.... this is true, but let's say, in my own fantasy, that around 5000 square kilometers of the biggest forest in the world is plowed down this year, and in the last 10 years more than 100,000 square kilometers have been plowed.... how many of these special trees would you need to plant to make up for this?????? and more importantly, WHO will provide the land to plant all of these trees??? how can plants grow bushier and denser if they are being cut down??
the atmosphere of the earth is changing, and where that leads us is unknown.... but we have the science to stop it... the fact that this turned into a political argument blinds you from the truth...
the arguments against global warming are kind of ludicrous... come on, specially bred trees??? after that "argument" by your supposed "scientist", i couldn't read any more on that article...couldnt stop laughing..... i'm sorry, but like Illegal Smile once said: "you can't fix stupid", no matter how many degrees he has.....
K
Keenly
Guest
if by only a few (against) you mean over 31,000
then i guess your right
Nothing would be green without Co2
my Girlfriend actually tried telling me the other day that if there is too much Co2 in the air the plants cant breathe
LO fucking L
funny, your g/f is smarter than you. lol that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2"
Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions, though this assumes no change in climate and no limitation on other nutrients.[30] Some people (for example David Bellamy) believe that as the concentration of CO2 rises in the atmosphere that it will lead to faster plant growth and therefore increase food production.[31] Such views are too simplistic; studies have shown that increased CO2 leads to fewer stomata developing on plants[32] which leads to reduced water usage.[33] Studies using FACE have shown that increases in CO2 lead to decreased concentration of micronutrients in crop plants.[34] This may have knock-on effects on other parts of ecosystems as herbivores will need to eat more food to gain the same amount of protein.[35]
Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, and so the majority of plants and algae, which use C3 photosynthesis, are only net absorbers during the day. Though a growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, the World Bank writes that a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.[36] However six experts in biochemistry, biogeology, forestry and related areas writing in the science journal Nature that "Our results demonstrate that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon neutral." [37] Mature forests are valuable carbon sinks, helping maintain balance in the Earth's atmosphere. Additionally, and crucially to life on earth, photosynthesis by phytoplankton consumes dissolved CO2 in the upper ocean and thereby promotes the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere.[38]"
CrackerJax
New Member
Well, that's swell and great news, since we are at historical lows with carbon. We have a very high ceiling before any worries. The earth would go through ANOTHER maga fauna age before any problems arose.
Carbon = good. Say it with me. Carbon = good. That's right.
The earth is cooling, and believe me, that is far far worse than warming.
Carbon = good. Say it with me. Carbon = good. That's right.
The earth is cooling, and believe me, that is far far worse than warming.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT] [FONT=times new roman,times]Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish [FONT=times new roman,times]National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times][FONT=times new roman,times]Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible[/FONT] for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish [FONT=times new roman,times]National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times][FONT=times new roman,times]Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible[/FONT] for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” [/FONT]
Hydrotech364
Well-Known Member
What about past era's?Scientists have said the Dinosaurs mass was caused by high levels of volcanic activity and this activity always add's up to more CO2.I believe that if humans cant evolve then we are just shit out of luck.we are a long way from colonizing the Moon so we better get used to it.On another note,wouldn't the World be better in these traumatic times if we had a new batch of artists to help us along.Where are the Bob Dylan's and the Jim Morrisons of this new age?I turn on my radio and watch all the video's and all I see is shit.All about the $$$"s now.We are a multitude of caring souls without a spiritual guide to calm the masses and make sense of this shitty hand we were dealt.Nature's hand but a shitty hand none the less.I saw a buper sticker the other day and it read:Obama psalm 109:8 look that up.funny, your g/f is smarter than you. lol that.
"
Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions, though this assumes no change in climate and no limitation on other nutrients.[30] Some people (for example David Bellamy) believe that as the concentration of CO2 rises in the atmosphere that it will lead to faster plant growth and therefore increase food production.[31] Such views are too simplistic; studies have shown that increased CO2 leads to fewer stomata developing on plants[32] which leads to reduced water usage.[33] Studies using FACE have shown that increases in CO2 lead to decreased concentration of micronutrients in crop plants.[34] This may have knock-on effects on other parts of ecosystems as herbivores will need to eat more food to gain the same amount of protein.[35]
Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, and so the majority of plants and algae, which use C3 photosynthesis, are only net absorbers during the day. Though a growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, the World Bank writes that a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.[36] However six experts in biochemistry, biogeology, forestry and related areas writing in the science journal Nature that "Our results demonstrate that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon neutral." [37] Mature forests are valuable carbon sinks, helping maintain balance in the Earth's atmosphere. Additionally, and crucially to life on earth, photosynthesis by phytoplankton consumes dissolved CO2 in the upper ocean and thereby promotes the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere.[38]"
