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.
Climate change, remember we had an ice age. We as gnats on this planet are so arrogant to think we can control the environment. Mother nature will set everything straight for you arrogant gnats.
And during that Ice Age there was 10x the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and the planet didn't vanish.
Global warming got changed to Climate Control because their predictions of warming didn't happen. The planet got cooler instead. Bingo - theory just shot down..back to square one cause your model don't hold water anymore.
Heck..Darwin's theory is still a theory..it's NOT a proven fact.
The fact that Gore and his scientists refuse to debate the issue shows the politics are taking front seat to the science. If they were truly interested in the science over the politics & business they would gladly welcome debate and new data.
Oh..and Gore predicted, by his model, that NY would be under water in 2014. That's not being touted so much now but 30+ years out is and that cannot be refuted since it is in the future.
The global warming alarmists can't provide facts to support their claims, only concensus. Concensus is not a valid reason upon which to base policy or the economic future of this country.
Show us what is the definitive cause of global warming, with peer reviewed data and factual data which supports the claim that X causes global warming. Once again, concensus (i.e. intellectual laziness) doesn't cut it.
And during that Ice Age there was 10x the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and the planet didn't vanish.
Global warming got changed to Climate Control because their predictions of warming didn't happen. The planet got cooler instead. Bingo - theory just shot down..back to square one cause your model don't hold water anymore.
Heck..Darwin's theory is still a theory..it's NOT a proven fact.
The fact that Gore and his scientists refuse to debate the issue shows the politics are taking front seat to the science. If they were truly interested in the science over the politics & business they would gladly welcome debate and new data.
Oh..and Gore predicted, by his model, that NY would be under water in 2014. That's not being touted so much now but 30+ years out is and that cannot be refuted since it is in the future.
Ok, fair enough. Let me lock you up in an airtight 8 x 10' room with just CO2 in it. Maybe I'd throw in a little oxygen in the mix but not much. The point is that too much CO2 is not a good thing.
And this would be the exact opposite argument ,too much CO2 will kill you... I did some calculations based on this EPA page on what is harmful CO2 concentrations:
The health effects associated with exposure to carbon dioxide are paradoxical. At the minimum design concentration (34 percent) for its use as a total flooding fire suppressant, carbon dioxide is lethal. But because carbon dioxide is a physiologically active gas and is a normal component of blood gases at low concentrations, its effects at lower concentrations (under 4 percent) may be beneficial under certain exposure conditions. ( Appendix B discusses the lethal effects of carbon dioxide at high exposure levels (Part I) and the potentially beneficial effects of carbon dioxide at low exposure concentrations, as well as the use of added carbon dioxide in specialized flooding systems using inert gases (Part II))
At concentrations greater than 17 percent, such as those encountered during carbon dioxide fire suppressant use, loss of controlled and purposeful activity, unconsciousness, convulsions, coma, and death occur within 1 minute of initial inhalation of carbon dioxide (OSHA 1989, CCOHS 1990, Dalgaard et al. 1972, CATAMA 1953, Lambertsen 1971). At exposures between 10 and 15 percent, carbon dioxide has been shown to cause unconsciousness, drowsiness, severe muscle twitching, and dizziness within several minutes (Wong 1992, CATAMA 1953, Sechzer et al. 1960). Within a few minutes to an hour after exposure to concentrations between 7 and 10 percent, unconsciousness, dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, mental depression, shortness of breath, and sweating have been observed (Schulte 1964, CATAMA 1953, Dripps and Comroe 1947, Wong 1992, Sechzer et al. 1960, OSHA 1989). Exposures to 4 to 7 percent carbon dioxide can result in headache; hearing and visual disturbances; increased blood pressure; dyspnea, or difficulty breathing; mental depression; and tremors (Schulte 1964; Consolazio et al. 1947; White et al. 1952; Wong 1992; Kety and Schmidt 1948; Gellhorn 1936; Gellhorn and Spiesman 1934, 1935; Schulte 1964). Part I of Appendix B discusses human health effects of high-concentration exposure to carbon dioxide in greater detail.
In human subjects exposed to low concentrations (less than 4 percent) of carbon dioxide for up to 30 minutes, dilation of cerebral blood vessels, increased pulmonary ventilation, and increased oxygen delivery to the tissues were observed (Gibbs et al. 1943, Patterson et al. 1955). These data suggest that carbon dioxide exposure can aid in counteracting effects (i.e., impaired brain function) of exposure to an oxygen-deficient atmosphere (Gibbs et al. 1943). These results were used by the United Kingdom regulatory community to differentiate between inert gas systems for fire suppression that contain carbon dioxide and those that do not (HAG 1995). During similar low-concentration exposure scenarios in humans, however, other researchers have recorded slight increases in blood pressure, hearing loss, sweating, headache, and dyspnea (Gellhorn and Speisman 1934, 1935; Schneider and Truesdale 1922; Schulte 1964). Part II of Appendix B discusses these results in greater detail.
And this page on how much CO2 has risen in the last 50 years , note the scale of the graph is only 1%:
If I remember correctly it was something like 40,000 years before the earth would reach 4% based on the graph. Purely academic but the amount of fossil fuels available on the planet will most likely run out within the next century or two so even we tried out hardest we could come no where near creating an environment that was toxic to live in burning fossil fuel.
The coalman has it..we'll have peak oil before we have peak carbon dioxide.
We've already reached peak oil. It's all downhill from here as far as this resource is concerned
All you climate change deniers should know one thing: All the easy oil, all the purest oil, all the most easily renewable sources of oil (i.e., the kind that do not require huge amounts of energy (more oil) to extract) has already been recovered, much of it already consumed. It's a finite resource. Using coal as a substitute has dire consequences for the planet.
I would have to say that climate change deniers are perhaps extremely selfish people who dont care at all about their impact on the climate and the world they are leaving to other generations.
It's too bad, but at its core, its a combination of selfishness and ignorance. There are widely differing combination's, with most heavy on the ignorance, and usually because they listen to radio blowhards or politicians in bed with the fossil fuel industry for their talking points.
We've already reached peak oil. It's all downhill from here as far as this resource is concerned
All you climate change deniers should know one thing: All the easy oil, all the purest oil, all the most easily renewable sources of oil (i.e., the kind that do not require huge amounts of energy (more oil) to extract) has already been recovered, much of it already consumed. It's a finite resource. Using coal as a substitute has dire consequences for the planet.
I would have to say that climate change deniers are perhaps extremely selfish people who dont care at all about their impact on the climate and the world they are leaving to other generations.
It's too bad, but at its core, its a combination of selfishness and ignorance. There are widely differing combination's, with most heavy on the ignorance, and usually because they listen to radio blowhards or politicians in bed with the fossil fuel industry for their talking points.
The deniers is a label coined by the Al Gore group. Most are not denying there is a problem..they are questioning the source..carbon dioxide from humans.
The deniers is a label coined by the Al Gore group. Most are not denying there is a problem..they are questioning the source..carbon dioxide from humans.
Science and politics don't mix.
Exactly. In order to devise a solution to a problem the cause needs to be known. As of now the cause or causes of global warming remain undetermined. Al Gore and his followers can't seem to grasp this very basic concept: no proposal to 'fix' the problem of global warming can be considered until the cause(s) are known. Of course, the amount of hot air their sky is falling rantings generate has to be considered as a cause too because the problem sure seems to have gotten a whole lot worse since they started wringing their hands about it.
Right wing politicians and pundits obviously depend on the invincible ignorance of a certain percentage of the population. Karl Rove had a formula which stated Republicans should support education, "...up to a point. Too much education and they'll vote Democrat." ROTFLMAO!
Casper
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.
