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.
CO2 levels below 200 ppm completely halts all plant growth. CO2 levels of 1,500 ppm increases plant growth rate and the flowering rate of growth by anywhere from +20% to +100%. CO2 is a necessary component in photosynthesis, without which none of us would be here. Virtually all complex life forms require the waste gas the process of photosynthesis produces. Yet no one takes into consideration that reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere ultimately means reducing the oxygen content in the atmosphere.
The Taiga (boreal) forests refresh our atmosphere with 33% of all the oxygen, the Amazon rainforests add another 28% to our oxygen levels. By attempting to reduce CO2 levels we are, in effect, cutting off our nose to spite our face. What we should be doing is increasing CO2 levels as much as possible without it adversely affecting the other life forms that require oxygen. However, too much oxygen is just as bad (for us) as too much CO2. While it is true that we can breathe 100% oxygen, when levels of oxygen get above around 30%, forest fires will be virtually impossible to put out.
One thing their Venus models does not take into consideration is water-vapor. Venus only has 0.002% water-vapor in its atmosphere, while Earth has 0.40%. The reason is because Venus lacks a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping off hydrogen and oxygen atoms into space. Venus actually behaves like a comet during strong solar winds, with a tail of particles streaming away from the planet into space. Earth obviously has a much stronger magnetic field, which makes water-vapor the predominant "greenhouse gas" on the planet. But since it is not even a consideration on Venus, nobody bothers looking at it as a source of increasing temperatures on Earth.
Which is better science...man causing global warming or the theroy of creationism to explain human evolution?
What does one have to do with the other? If you only want to believe in science, then you believe in nothing. The definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural. Science is always being redefined. "Good Science" in the middle ages would have been that the world was flat and blood letting would cure disease. What is defined today will be absurd in fifty years.
The great thing about science is that scientists can turn on a dime with no oversight.
Oops, we got it wrong, moving on.
Theories are just waiting to be replaced be new theories. Science, for the most part, is based on theory. Many theories are proven correct, such as "the atom bomb shouldn't burn up the atmosphere"
Thank God they were correct on that one.
Man causing global warming is bad science and self serving. If you stood to make trillions, you'd probably stretch the truth too.
Most rediculous quote: Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather - Al Gore
BTW, he stands to make billions off perpetuating the lie, yet he invested $12M in a mansion on the beach. That's like Fermi investing in Hiroshima real estate in 1945.
We are either sheep or wolves. Gore wants to hunt you for sport.
It's clear that you and others of the duped left don't. Toxic waste dumping does not cause global warming unless you think CO2 is an industrial pollutant, which clearly it is not
32 years ago we didn't have the tools we have today....
Now that's interesting point, for example we can accurately measure the extent of arctic ice since the late 70's becsue of satellites. The question is are we seeing something new with the shrinking ice or is cyclic over centuries?
Now that's interesting point, for example we can accurately measure the extent of arctic ice since the late 70's becsue of satellites. The question is are we seeing something new with the shrinking ice or is cyclic over centuries?
Shush! No details here, only blind adherence to an ideology.
These folks know they are in deep crap, which is why the only thing you will get from their defenders is attacks. Wait for it, incoming disdain and dismissal with a side of arrogant condescension!
32 years ago we didn't have the tools we have today...Climate change is happening, and your denial will change nothing.
The denial that is happening on your side is that you deny that your policies will result in the wealthy benefiting at the expense of the middle class, and the lives of the world's poor. What's going to kill more people in the long run? Implementing policies that will further hinder the plight of Africa's poor, never giving them a chance to develop and die at the ripe old age of 45 from HIV/AIDS, cholera, and other diseases on the basis that something might happen after half of us alive right now are dead? Or changing climate that we, as a reasonably technologically advanced species, will most likely overcome anyway? Both scenarios involve a lot of money, one of them benefits all of us while the other only benefits the ultra rich. Why do you hate the poor so much and coddle the rich?
The denial that is happening on your side is that you deny that your policies will result in the wealthy benefiting at the expense of the middle class, and the lives of the world's poor. What's going to kill more people in the long run? Implementing policies that will further hinder the plight of Africa's poor, never giving them a chance to develop and die at the ripe old age of 45 from HIV/AIDS, cholera, and other diseases on the basis that something might happen after half of us alive right now are dead? Or changing climate that we, as a reasonably technologically advanced species, will most likely overcome anyway? Both scenarios involve a lot of money, one of them benefits all of us while the other only benefits the ultra rich. Why do you hate the poor so much and coddle the rich?
Look closely at the ideology of their movement. These folks are seeking maximized casualties of population. They want people to die, they want massive fatalities. They see humans as a plague that infects the surface of the earth. They don't care if their policies result in the loss of life. They do not care if people suffer due to the change. Keep in mind, these people "worship the earth" loonies think mankind should suffer a massive genocide in order to serve the will of their belief.
I had a Social Anthropology professor who believed this. They wanted mankind to suffer, be eliminated and reduced to the point where their "Goddess" based religion ( very old religious earth based belief) would dictate the result of humanity. They believe that ANY and ALL means are necessary to achieve such a goal. That is, these "freaks" believe that lying, cheating, stealing, and eventually killing is needed to establish their position.
This is why you see blatant contradictions in many of the positions of these groups. These people are cowards, who are too afraid to attend to their belief through physical force and serve the means of politics and civil lethargy as a means to solidify their rule.
The are Alinksy masters, lying and misdirecting to serve their goal.
The question is, will we serve them, or will we eventually recognize and place them in their hole?
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.
unless you think CO2 is an industrial pollutant, which clearly it is not
