Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How much tax are you paying to support this supposed government scam?
Less than we would be if we were to sign on to the Paris Accords. The estimated cost to the US was 3 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a T. Utter robbery and where would the money go? Who the eff knows? Read the accords, it goes all over the place and has all kinds of draconian tyrannical impacts:
Example: In July 2017, French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced a five-year plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles in France by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Did we read that correctly? BAN ALL PETROL & DIESEL VEHICLES? State sponsored and violently enforced. That's Ban with a B. BAN ALL PETROL VEHICLES.
In order to reach the agreement's emission targets, Norway will ban (that's ban with a B) petrol and diesel powered cars by 2025;[SIZE=2][10][/SIZE] the Netherlands will do the same by 2030.
Is that the kind of world we want to live in? A world of massive theft of wealth to be redistributed to the 3rd world (and really to its leaders, and we all know what will happen then). A world of bans (that's bans with a B) on economic activity, such as telling you: No, you can't have a car.
To that I say Bull$hit. Let the climate do what it wants to do and if we die? So be it. Better dead (that's dead with a D) than living under the yoke of enslavement envisioned by eco-fascists.
Actually "retreat", as it is known in the scientific literature, is a less expensive investment than protection in some cases. This is because it occurs gradually over time and, because of this, assets are worth less due to depreciating the existing capital (infrastructure and buildings) and also because the weight of discounting over time reduces the value of the new investments.
Exactly, a nice orderly relocation and retreat. It's pretty stupid to live on the ocean anyway in most topographical situations. And our coastal cities are obsolete anyway. Most of NYC cannot withstand a moderate earthquake. And forget Wi-Fi. The sewer and water systems are ridiculous also.
Now is a good time to rebuild these old cities farther inland and modernize the infrastructure. Jobs and wealth and human progress will be happy side effects of AGW. Bring it on! We can deal with it. Dump the defeatist envirofascists who never produce anything and are always dreaming up new ways to limit, steal, or destroy things.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this Earth and has been at higher levels than it is now many times and for very long periods since the Earth was formed.
It has also not been clearly established that the Earth warms as a result of increased carbon dioxide.
Correlation is not causation. In other words, if the planet had been proven to have warmed in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels, it would not automatically follow that the increased carbon dioxide levels were the cause of that.
But the inconvenient truth here is that not even a correlation has been proven by these "scientists". The Earth has not warmed as predicted by these people. In fact, it appears that global temperatures have been lower than expected even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase.
Clearly, this is a matter of trust and faith for many of the believers in this politically derived secular progressive religion. Perhaps it would be best for everyone if all of you who fall into that category would just come clean about that.
Do you have any sources on your claims?
CO2 is good for plants. But what happens if you have too much of something?
CO2 will increase temperatures, and thus kill many plants anyways. This will also cause droughts which then kill more plants that require more water.
1. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.
2. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
On the other hand, as predicted by Global Warming, we are receiving intense storms with increased rain throughout of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls down very quickly, it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it builds up above the soil then floods causing damage to the crops. The water also floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean carrying off large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
3. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to be constantly producing artificial fertilizers from natural gas which will eventually start running out. By increasing the need for such fertilizer you will shorten the supply of natural gas creating competition between the heating of our homes and the growing of our food. This will drive the prices of both up.
4. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.
More signs of global warming. I expect the same nonsense, inanities, and vacuous comments from the Global Warming denialists. The rising worldwide temperatures are what are predicted from anthropological climate change. The science is settled on this matter.
Science is nowhere near settled.
After you turn off all the volcanoes, geysers, forest fires and cows belching and farting, you can come back and discuss human caused global warming.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear. NOTHING IS SETTLED in climate science. You need thousands of years of direct measurement to establish trends, and we've only really been accurately measuring temperature for about 200 years, and there were no thermometers in remote areas until the mid 1900s. The rest of the temperature data is proxies and predictions and estimates and out and out guesses. In other words, there is nowhere near enough actual accurate temperature data to come to any conclusions about climate change, and there won't be until about 3000 A.D.
Climate science might be settled emotional opinion, but it is centuries from becoming settled science.
All old people in Quebec have central air and perfect health thanks to government-run single-payer healthcare.
Well Chretien did say that if Canada didn't ratify Kyoto people would start dying in 30 years. So his suspension of death would have been quite the accomplishment.
It's an undisputed scientific fact that when Earth formed, there was no Oxygen in the atmosphere, only CO2, Methane and Ammonia, with some Nitrogen and trace Noble Gases like Helium, Krypton (produced from the decay of radioactive isotopes) and Argon.
That state existed for 2 Billion years, and guess what? There was no runaway greenhouse effect.
There were two major glaciations, the Pangolan and Huronian. That is a scientific fact, too. The only dispute is whether the equatorial band was fully iced over. Some scientists believe it was, others believe it wasn't, and still others believe the equatorial band was filled with floating pack-ice.
Near the end of that 2 Billion years, single-celled organisms in the ocean much akin to plankton evolved. Those organisms engaged in photosynthesis. The by-product of photosynthesis is free Oxygen.
The free Oxygen in the ocean was absorbed by reactive metals and minerals dissolved in the ocean. Iron is one of the most reactive, so it precipitated out first, settling to the ocean floor and forming large bands of Iron rust that are still visible today in Australia, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere.
At that time the Huronian Glaciation took place.
After all the reactive metals and minerals precipitated out in the ocean, the ocean began absorbing Oxygen until it became saturated, and then free Oxygen started leaching into the atmosphere, where it quickly bonded with reactive metals and minerals on the surface of the Pangean Continent.
Once all the reactive metals and minerals on the surface had oxidized, Oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
The bacteria on the Earth's surface were anaerobic. Oxygen was poison to them and they started dying, but one mutated to be able to tolerate Oxygen. Then another mutation allowed bacteria to actually use Oxygen and the course of Evolution was altered.
After 500 Million years Oxygen still hadn't reached 10% volume, and yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, but there was enough Oxygen to allow for the formation of the Ozone Layer.
Those are the scientific facts which you were unable to refute, so naturally you resorted to the standard rhetoric.
To to put it simply there are two problems with your argument. 1) there was initial warming due to ghgs in the early earth atmosphere. We evolved in narrow climatic balance. Its not that any warming is bad, its that disrupting the climatic balance that we have evolved in us a threat. 2) the "not even 10%" figure doesn't really provide any argument because its still about maintaining the environment we are adapted for (as well for the ecosystems we depend on).
Finally the rambling about metals doesn't really provide much context. I would wager this intentionally misleading info overload and posturing. Its a common approach to seed doubt on a subject because it makes it harder for non-experts to parse and critically appraise an argument.
You're exactly right on your observations. I've noticed this approach is commonly used by denialists, usually of the professional level, who will type a wall of scientific text in an attempt to obfuscate the argument. Remember, these folks don't need to prove anything, they only need to instill doubt. Every year we break the record (from the previous year, no less) of the highest recorded average temperature world wide, yet the professionals show up on threads like these to remind everyone that their eyes are lying.
I seriously can't belive people debate protecting the ONLY planet we can call home. This should be something every single human being should be in agreement on, do what we can with what we have to keep our habitat livable. Not just for us, but for future generations.
Can anyone honestly tell me what it's such a bad idea to want to preserve our planet, to help our planet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
