climate change

[trichrider]

consequences being our own demise.

how is it that man is so arrogant to think he can change these types of events.

why not include man in those events?

why is it not a natural thing for man to be the cause of the next extinction event?...we don't fit that category?

 

[trem0lo]

Another thing that's kinda sad is the plurality of Americans who will go to their graves imagining it's all Al Gore's greed for more money, like the guy couldn't start a hedge fund and make just as much w/o all the frantic back-and-forth.

Well, no, he couldn't. He's a politician. They make money off the backs of taxpayers and by trading favors with their friends and cronies. To start a hedge fund, he'd need to help pass favorable legislation, taxpayer funded of course, to benefit a friend in the hedge fund business.

During the time that he was pushing climate change, there was still debate about carbon tax legislation, which is a much better way to make money off the backs of taxpayers.

It's brilliant really. Banks create the carbon credits, sell them off to corporations and businesses, then gamble with them in the stock market knowing full well their value will increase. All the while the sheeple think they're saving the environment. Get in at the ground level and you'd make a lot more than with a hedge fund.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be mindful of the Earth. We absolutely should. But when the US and EU are foaming at the mouth to push climate change laws as a way of extracting more money from us, then call me a skeptic. We should not have to give up any liberty to take care of the Earth. We can start right in our backyard without laws telling us otherwise.

 

[D. B. Doober]

the polar bears are the ones really suffering now. These bears now have to swim WEEKS on end getting north to the ice where they feed and breed. The bears scientists have come across on average lose about 50% of their body weight by the time they get there.
The polar bear will be extinct in the wild within 100 years.

 

[trichrider]

Unprecedented Greenland ice melt alarming: NASA

Washington: The rapid melting of ice sheet in Greenland in July has left NASA scientist stunned and alarmed, raising fears of the consequences of climate change in future.

unprecedented...

Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/24/NASA_Greenland_sees_sudden_massive_melt/

i'm convinced. convinced of NASAs audacity.

 

[WelderDan]

consequences being our own demise.

how is it that man is so arrogant to think he can change these types of events.

why not include man in those events?

why is it not a natural thing for man to be the cause of the next extinction event?...we don't fit that category?

I just posted known facts regarding the climate history of the planet. The fact we are poisoning our planet without regard to the consequences pretty much speaks on its own, no?

Animals do not destroy their environment. Man is the only animal (aside from the Beaver maybe) that has the ability to significantly change his environment, but unlike the beaver, we tend to destroy rather than benefit our ecosystem.

As for arrogance, man has the market cornered. To look up at the sky at night and see all the stars, each having the potential to harbor a planet like our own, and to think that WE are the sole living beings in the entire universe is the ultimate in arrogance.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well, no, he couldn't. He's a politician. They make money off the backs of taxpayers and by trading favors with their friends and cronies. To start a hedge fund, he'd need to help pass favorable legislation, taxpayer funded of course, to benefit a friend in the hedge fund business.

No sir, he could start any private enterprise with private money. And as far as making money off the backs of taxpayers, you're exactly who I'm talking about perpetuating baloney canards.

During the time that he was pushing climate change, there was still debate about carbon tax legislation, which is a much better way to make money off the backs of taxpayers.

It's brilliant really. Banks create the carbon credits, sell them off to corporations and businesses, then gamble with them in the stock market knowing full well their value will increase. All the while the sheeple think they're saving the environment. Get in at the ground level and you'd make a lot more than with a hedge fund.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be mindful of the Earth. We absolutely should. But when the US and EU are foaming at the mouth to push climate change laws as a way of extracting more money from us, then call me a skeptic. We should not have to give up any liberty to take care of the Earth. We can start right in our backyard without laws telling us otherwise.

I don't have time to read more floating bananas. Democrats once joked Gopers wouldn't mitigate Ozone depletion until their industry buddies were able to profit from it.

Cap and trade allowed us to directly deal with Ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons and our Ozone layer is returning.

Even the Kock brothers own stooge is now saying "it's all due to man".

Let's sing it together...
"it's all due to man".
"it's all due to man".
"it's all due to man".
"it's all due to man".
"it's all due to man".

I know the bells ringing in your ears still spell G-O-R-E but it's just a poor excuse about a RETIRED lawmaker.

 

[headband 707]

the polar bears are the ones really suffering now. These bears now have to swim WEEKS on end getting north to the ice where they feed and breed. The bears scientists have come across on average lose about 50% of their body weight by the time they get there.
The polar bear will be extinct in the wild within 100 years.

yes it does did you know this FACT : That they will not do shit for the North or South pole unless "they" feel an animal is due for extinction!! Well WTF do they think they are doing to the Polar bear when the bear is heading down the BC coast and mixing with grizzlies which they are now calling the "Spirit bear" to stay alive for the first time since it's exsistence. Yeah tell me the oil companies don't run this place to the ground.

There was an interesting question posed here as to how many species is what I types in go extinct everyday: Now Wiki was a bit hard to pin down but the numbers I got where crazy unless anyone else can find other numbers. I got 35 to 150 a day which seems crazy to me but this could be true as I did type spiecies. If I typed just animals or just insects then the number narrows of-course. I would like to know the whole number everyday.. headband 707

 

[igrowone]

we know how these threads tend to end, but c'est la vie
watching the latest radar images up at the north pole, things are cooking this year fast and furious
the northwest passage is very close to opening, that and the whole polar sea ice sheet is beaucoup shrinking
the latest fuel for the anger games we have on threads like these: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[mr.brunch]

just plant millions of cannabis and hemp plants to suck up al that co2.
job done

 

[Ununionized]

These old threads bring up a lot of history. People believed the world was going to get hotter and hotter there, for awhile. Then it was discovered Dr Mann's hockey stick generator always makes hockey sticks, and when none of Mr Hansen's bizarre end of the world predictions happened, AND the world's storm systems went almost utterly quiet in the face of the most advanced instrumentation the planet's ever dreamed - the urgency went away.

Now of course it's not considered nice to ever bring up classical thermodynamics and the law of it written to bridge and bond - merge all the gas laws, make them work together - the observed physics of atmospheres on other planets, this one - at any website that teaches the so called 'scientific view' on climate change.

Everyone realized, they were hoaxing. That's why, there was a universal outcry among media owners to stop airing the opinions of people who said the world wasn't going to end.

Those people were blowing the credibility of their news cycle, and between Academics, N.G.O. environmentalists, both professional and amateur, and media, an agreement was reached.

Simply refuse to discuss the issue of scientific fraud in Academia particularly regarding so called atmospheric energy research and energy research altogether.

Now Solyndra ran off with 500 MILLION dollars in grants. Some of the other companies made two hundred MILLION in cash vanish down undocumented drain holes.

And now I'm going to relate to you what is taught in schools where the atmosphere is described as being added to a planet. You're going to remember it because it comes from grade school: you're taught it, and asked to name, about four things. These things are called modes of cooling and they are at the basis of all this: why the men who claimed they were the smartest in the world,

couldn't predict which way a thermometer would go when Al Gore and Bill Nye put them in jars of CO2 and tried to show the ''greenhouse gas effect'' and it not only, didn't work but the green house gas jars got cooler.

When you are teaching someone fundamentals of thermodynamics, there is a manner used to discuss atmospheric thermodynamic flow. It is called the no-atmosphere to atmosphere stepped model and it's use is widespread and always will be,

no matter how many loopers believe the sky is a heater.

The model goes thus, with test questions.

You have a sphere rotating in vacuum illuminated by a light, service covered with energy/heat sensors.

Without an atmosphere describe energy transactions.

Energy levels at the surface are Maximum/Minimum in (maximum) in regard to amount received vs amount available.

What physical entities exist to diminish light from the source reaching the sphere? (None)

Modes of energy gain are called (warming)

number of modes of energy gain at sensors are (1)

Name them (radiant)

Modes of energy loss are called what? (cooling)

Modes of energy loss number (1) in current conditions.

Name them (radiant)

Name the frequency energy emitted by the rotating sphere? (infrared)

Is infrared energy emitted by the source illuminating earth? [yes/no] (yes)

Name the percentage infrared energy emitted by the source illuminating earth: (40%)

An envelope of reflective insulating gas is suspended around the rotating sphere. Composition of the reflective gas envelope is such that 20% energy arriving is deflected into space, reducing energy to the planet 20% by a class of gases named (green house gases)

Name the primary green house gas responsible for reduction of 20% energy to the sphere's surface. (water)

The creation of a mode of energy loss is referred to as (cooling).
There are now two modes of energy (loss) and there remains one mode of energy (gain)
Therefore there exist two modes of (cooling) and there remains one mode of energy (gain)

Name the additional mode of (cooling) created by the atmosphere: (Diffraction cooling)

When the sphere's sensors depict steady-state conditions after addition of the gas envelope the turbulent gas bath the sphere is immersed within, remains many degrees

[colder/warmer] (colder) than the surface of the sphere. Therefore in accordance with

thermodynamic laws energy begins to migrate from the (surface) to the (atmosphere)

Creation of this method of energy (loss) by the sphere is named (conduction) and comprises the (second) mode of energy (loss) due to existence of an atmosphere.

The atmosphere is responsible for creation of a mode of energy [loss/gain] (loss) by the sphere surface due to a unique form of energy handling called (phase change refrigeration) which has a specific name.

In this atmospheric thermodynamically unique mode of energy (loss) the species evaporates from the surface. Evaporation creates energy (loss). Energy rises in accordance with (gravitational) law to eventually emit energy to lower energy regimes above the surface, condensing to solid and returning to the surface faster than if it remained in gas state. Evaporation to gas and condensing to solid matter are referred to as changes of (phase).
This acceleration of the second mode of energy handling described above has a name of it's own. What is it? (Convection)

This mode of energy handling accelerates energy (loss) by the surface due to existence of an atmosphere.
This mode of energy handling is unique to what gas in the atmosphere? (Water)

Is the gas which creates this mode of energy handling a green house gas? (Yes)

How many modes of energy gain are there for the rotating sphere illuminated by the light?
(One)

Name them.

(Radiant heating)

How many modes of energy loss are there for the rotating sphere? (Four)

Name them.

(Radiant cooling)

(Diffraction cooling)

(Conduction cooling)

(Convection cooling)

How many of these modes of energy loss are created as a result of existence of the atmosphere? (Three)

How many of these modes of energy loss are created almost solely due to the green house gases? (Two)

Name them and name the gas MOST responsible for the mode of action.

(Diffraction energy loss) by (Water)
(Convection energy loss) by (Water)

Bonus questions:

In the second mode of energy handling created by existence of the atmosphere, one gas can handle more energy per molecule than any other. Name it. (Water)

When this species is participating in the second energy handling mode it is participating in a mode of energy (loss) as noted above making it the gas species which is responsible for more of that energy handling per mole than any other atmospheric species.

In the above discussion, note was made that the existence of the atmosphere created a mode of energy handling reducing energy to the sphere surface by 20%.

Question: When conditions go from Emax in, to Emax minus 20%, energy sensors will depict as per the answer above, an energy (loss) of 20%.

Energy sensors would therefore depict (less) energy arriving,
than when (more) energy was arriving.

This thermodynamic condition where energy arriving is changed as described is referred to as a mode of [warming/cooling] (cooling)

If sufficient diffraction gases were suspended until 25% of Emax was blocked, this would represent additional gain/loss (loss) of energy arriving at energy sensors.

Energy handling difference would comprise ___ (Five) percent additional energy (loss)

In order for conditions to be normal energy sensors would depict (less) energy arriving than when (more) energy was arriving.

In the theory known as ''climate change theory'' and ''Green House Gas Effect'' climatology,

putting more of the gases into suspension that currently block 20% E to earth would create (Warming).

Therefore in accordance with
Magic Gas Made The Sky Hot

when 25% energy no longer reaches sensors on a sphere's surface,
energy sensors should depict ________ (more) energy arriving, than when

there was ______ (more) energy arriving.

Has analysis of the creation of atmospheric energy handling modes made clear the atmosphere creates energy loss or gain?

From discussion above there is one class of gases which creates more modes of energy handling than any other. What class of gases creates the most modes of energy handling due to presence of an atmospheric envelope?

Do the modes created by this class of gas involve energy loss or gain by the surface of the illuminated sphere rotating in vacuum?

Describe how this class of gases can create heating?
Name another instance when a frigid fluid bath, many degrees colder than the energy sensor it shielded from energy, simultaneously

shaded
scrubbed
refrigerated
and
heated it?

If you personally had control of a sphere suspended in vacuum, and illuminated by a light,

and then immersed it into a gas bath many degrees colder than the sphere and it's embedded sensors,

and you observed the frigid gas envelope keep 20% of incoming energy from the sphere,

and you observed the frigid gas envelope turbulently washing heat from the rotating sphere

and you observed phase change refrigeration due to the gas upon the rotating sphere,

would you expect the sphere to be colder or warmer than in conditions where there was

no atmosphere available?

Would conditions on the sphere surface gain energy if those gases deflecting 20% energy away weren't there? How much would you expect temperatures to change if 20% more energy arrived at the sensors on the sphere?

The Sky Is A Heater is a government scam. It is as big a scam as Pot is Like Heroin and Marijuana is worse for you than Methamphetamines. It took off and went worldwide like wildfire.

It is designed so you can be guilt tripped and told because you are using fire and might heat the earth, through making the atmosphere become more of a heater, you owe.

You don't owe squat: the atmosphere is not a heater. It is a frigid fluid bath, first shading,

(that's created BY the green house gases) then scrubbing (they participate in that) then phase change refrigerating (green house gas water alone does this part) the planet.

Do you think that ''pot is like heroin and worse than methamphetamines'' is funny?

Then you are going to love ''The Sky is a Heater So You Owe Us For Using Fire.''

The two stories are exactly the same: nobody sane denies the science, the government doesn't need more scientific input from people on the outside, because outsiders can't understand science.

Various names are made up for unbelievers.

Various techniques to make unbelievers seem quaint, out of step, isolated are used.

NOT being a MEMBER of the HERD means you're ''ONE of THEM.'' How Ever that is achieved is fair, whenever you reveal what authority worshipping dipsticks the believers in the government sponsored hate religion are, they instantly become wheedling, manipulating, sociopaths; acting offended they even have to discuss their religion with
people who ''aren't mature enough'' to ''understand how important the topic is.''

When in fact the entire thing is nothing but government employee scam. Pot is Heroin claims to have hundreds and thousands of critical peer reviewed papers, spanning 75 years showing
every
single
symptom
you can imagine
being connected to marijuana.

But whenever you get by yourself, you - and every OTHER honest person you know - find yourselves going - wait a minute this is cooked. This data, is cooked up.

Well there's another element to this: in 2009, a huge repository of kind of incriminating emails was released, between the main ten or fifteen guys who had originally been running the ''The Sky Might Be Turning Into A Heater'' computer programming/modeling scam.

Everyone saw the main players in the activist scientist movement, admitting that not only had it not warmed for years and years, they were all busy lying to make sure nobody found out.

In fact the most powerful one of them named Phil Jones, got caught admitting it hadn't been warming for years, to a colleague, outright: and also revealed, how THEY all told between themselves, what the global temperature really seems to be: the raw data posted online specifically for the reason, of dissapating weather scams.

Jones also got caught sponsoring enormous data destruction crusades going through global records allegedly stored for use, and destroying the databases, eliminating cold thermometer stations.

What he said initially that made everyone stop so you could hear a pin drop was ''the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Okay it has but it's only seven years of data (every year from '98 to 05 when he typed it to a friend) and it isn't statistically significant.''

In '05, the global temperature records that indicated there hadn't been any warming since the mid '90s and that the cooling had been jusssssssst a little: was the raw databases placed online that way by LAW: SPECIFICALLY to STOP men like Jones and Hansen and Mann from committing all KINDS of infrastructure fraud by claiming to be dishing up honest climatological data but simply LYING; to EVERYBODY: farmers, plant breeders, aerospace professionals, event planners, emergency mitigation services planners, insurance compilers, commodities stocks like ENERGY...

so he got caught doing that and then, some people saw him and Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth, all plotting a MONTH before the massive cache of 'Climate Gate' emails was released - to destroy a BBC reporter's career, for saying EXACTLY what JONES said, ABOVE, on t.v.

Michael Mann was energetically telling them all to arrange to do press releases claiming the reporter was an idiot whose word was worthless, and that he didn't deserve to be covering their critical world issues if he couldn't understand what's going on..

the political scandals around it are huge and involve at this point primarily Democrats but soon the Republicans are going to be in on the scam; and you are going to be told s.t.f.u. and that pot is like heroin; and that if you weren't on it, you would be able to understand a little more but that light shining on a thermometer is too deep for you to understand.

I say this because I don't really want the whole globe to have to undergo another hundred years of ''pot is like heroin'' science scamming.

Don't think Academics can be silenced? Look up ''Nixon announces moratorium on cannabis research'' where Nixon simply told the Universities of this country that there would BE no more PRO marijuana research to come out of ANY federally funded institution.

How cozy, Huh?

Beware and you guys go over it all in your head and realize why these guys can't find their thermodynamic butt with both hands. Their fake physics religion, requires the cold atmosphere somehow have this magical heating component they're all trying to make sure doesn't run out of control.

The atmosphere is a phase change refrigerator that is lying several thousand feet deep in liquid refrigerant, and sometimes the entire effing ice box ices up and we have what ya call a glacial.

These times where the world isn't encased in ice are the SHORT and WONDERFUL times.

So that is something I know a little bit about and I hope you all don't have the same scam forced down your face as the world before you had, with the ''pot is like heroin and we have the critical peer review and world's top scientists to back that up'' thing.

government scam science religions are nasty. You guys are being bullied into accepting one however much you'll sit still and even listen to it.

 

[HempKat]

Dude, climate change is not a myth. That's been a long accepted fact, what is not established though is if it is caused by man or is it all part of a natural cycle which is greater then the span of recorded history? Such that it seems like something new to us but is nothing new to the earth.

Still looking into gas emissions caused by man's use of energy is important to rethink as it is harmful to mankind then just that it might be connected to global warming. With population growth being what it is and the pollution developed in or population centers is affecting us in harmful ways and will only get worse as the population continues to grow exponentially.

Solar I last heard was on the verge of some major break thrus in efficiency which has been one of it's main drawbacks. Then there is still wind, hydrogen fuel cells, hydro, geothermal, bio-fuel. With what we now know there really is no reason not to drive for greener energy. What's needed is for a few young 1%'ers like Zuckerberg to invest in the future. What is lacking is the proper infrastructure to support these new, green, technologies. Also it needs to be mass produced and mass marketed at a very reasonable price to get everyone onboard. Then eliminate the old petroleum based energy infrastructure. Once you get everyone comfortable with it is when you start making money with it. Kind of like how Ford did it with the early automobile industry by making it easy for the common man to afford one. Once everyone had one is when it mushroomed out into a top money making industry. Investors these days all seem to want to take low risk quick pay out investments. Too few movers and shakers willing to go long and take bold risks

 

[50YardLine]

Wait a minute, it's 2015 and the ice caps are still here..... What happened Al Gore? The research vessel that went to check the ice caps, got stuck in ice. Then had to be rescued and then got stuck in more ice with the rescue vessel. lol. Global warming.....lol.

The world is flat, and we are alien slaves also.....

The part of the Global Warming theory I like the best is the fact that they say the "science is settled". When in the history of scientific process has the science ever been settled? How arrogant. What would have happened if the science was settled on Issac Newtons gravity? We would still think planet Vulcan is in our solar system. It wasn't until Einstein 290 years later finished the theory of relativity that we fully understood gravity. I guess that is how you know Global Warming is purely political, otherwise the science should always be challenged.

 

[trichrider]

right on! someone with a modicum of insight...ooops... more than a modicum.
this was said earlier, but not as succinctly or with such detail.

thanks for that input....and welcome to the show.

 

[HempKat]

Wait a minute, it's 2015 and the ice caps are still here..... What happened Al Gore? The research vessel that went to check the ice caps, got stuck in ice. Then had to be rescued and then got stuck in more ice with the rescue vessel. lol. Global warming.....lol.

The world is flat, and we are alien slaves also.....

The part of the Global Warming theory I like the best is the fact that they say the "science is settled". When in the history of scientific process has the science ever been settled? How arrogant. What would have happened if the science was settled on Issac Newtons gravity? We would still think planet Vulcan is in our solar system. It wasn't until Einstein 290 years later finished the theory of relativity that we fully understood gravity. I guess that is how you know Global Warming is purely political, otherwise the science should always be challenged.

Global Warming as presented by Al Gore, yes that is only a possible theory. It seemed to get traction because at the time the changing climate supported that. See it's climate change that's the fact. Global warming is one possible answer to climate change.

Your making a common mistake by thinking there being colder conditions is proof that global warming is false. Being colder is only proof that the climate there has changed. To say it's colder means there is a warmer temperature that is more normal.

We actually have to some degree mapped out ice age cycles that pre-date modern man and we also have evidence of earlier ages where the surface of the earth was very different and about all that lived were plants. The air was loaded with CO2 making it a much hotter period of time. Fortunately now we have breathable air because the plant life thrived off the CO2 and gave off lots of oxygen. These changes take millennia. Man's time in the scheme of earth history is barely a blip. It's only our arrogance this is it, the planet has stopped changing and mankind will be around forever. All we can hope for is that the inevitable day mankind ends is still a few generations down the road.

See the earth has this orbit that is a wobble that changes the direction the earth's axis points in. The effect is described by what is known as Milankovitch theory which compares where the earth is in two different cycles, one that takes 21 thousand years and the axle tile which takes 41 thousand years. Periods that match up with evidence of ice ages found in deep-ocean core samples have the earth further away from the sun then earlier points in the cycle. Hence the earth is noteably colder. Civilization has only been around for about 6000 year even though primitive man has existed longer. As such we have been around long enough to have at least one full historic record of the full cycle of this "wobble" orbit which is why this change seems new to us.

 

[igrowone]

Wait a minute, it's 2015 and the ice caps are still here..... What happened Al Gore? The research vessel that went to check the ice caps, got stuck in ice. Then had to be rescued and then got stuck in more ice with the rescue vessel. lol. Global warming.....lol.

...

and who was predicting that the ice caps would be gone in 2015?
not the climate scientific community, you're creating your own fiction
the northern icecap is shrinking, ways to go before it's gone
if the ice caps were 'gone', you wouldn't be worrying about it
most likely you'd be dead in the chaos from a 200 foot sea level rise(estimated)

 

[trichrider]

200 ft sea level rise?
right.
estimated by whom?

you say they are melting and are almost gone? (they have a ways to go....your words) and that when they are gone the sea will have risen 200 ft?

so how much has the sea risen for the part that has already melted?

didn't you know that when the northern cap melts the southern cap increases? and antarctic cap has more ice now?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

some shit right there....

 

[igrowone]

200 ft sea level rise?
right.
estimated by whom?

you say they are melting and are almost gone? (they have a ways to go....your words) and that when they are gone the sea will have risen 200 ft?

so how much has the sea risen for the part that has already melted?

didn't you know that when the northern cap melts the southern cap increases? and antarctic cap has more ice now?
...https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=36033&pictureid=892426&1

sarcasm obviously doesn't carry well over in posts
to be clear what i meant was that his implying that the ice caps were still here was not part of any credible prediction from 3 years ago
the part about the sea level rise was referring to that part of his post, and was for humor
please carry on as before

 

[Cannavore]

You're the equivalent of a modern day flat earther if you deny climate change.

 

[Cannavore]

200 ft sea level rise?
right.
estimated by whom?

you say they are melting and are almost gone? (they have a ways to go....your words) and that when they are gone the sea will have risen 200 ft?

so how much has the sea risen for the part that has already melted?

didn't you know that when the northern cap melts the southern cap increases? and antarctic cap has more ice now?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

some shit right there....[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=36033&pictureid=892426&1]View Image[/url]

Sea ice ≠ land ice

 

[50YardLine]

and who was predicting that the ice caps would be gone in 2015?
not the climate scientific community, you're creating your own fiction
the northern icecap is shrinking, ways to go before it's gone
if the ice caps were 'gone', you wouldn't be worrying about it
most likely you'd be dead in the chaos from a 200 foot sea level rise(estimated)

Al Gore said during his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech. He actually said as soon as 2013. I wouldn't think you could get a Nobel peace price if the scientific community didn't agree. Obviously your mistaken.

So, the question begs to be asked again. What percent of those ice caps have melted? Even 10% should equal 20 ft higher sea levels right? Obviously your mistaken again.

You're the equivalent of a modern day flat earther if you deny climate change.

View Image

No, sorry. Satellite data shows no increase in temperatures in 18 years. This is all about control and fear. Tell all the people the sea's will rise and entire cities will be underwater. However, no evidence of this being shown by any scientific models.

99% of those scientist stated temperatures will go up. They haven't

99% of those scientist stated hurricanes will grow stronger and more frequent. They haven't, not a major hurricane since Oct, 2005.

99% of those scientist stated the globe is warming due to CO2. Now they are saying the globe is both cooling and warming? There is plenty of proof in the past that global cooling has occurred at the same time as co2 rise.

What makes me laugh is if you use your brain, especially the growers on this forum, you would realize why plants like higher levels of CO2. Do you think plants could evolve with 200 ft high waves hitting them? Enormous storms on the regular? High temps? No water? No! Plants and animals have survived in temperatures very much the same as we have today, however the co2 levels were 5 time what we have today.

The facts are, the planet goes through cycles, and us as humans have no idea if or how we effect the environment. However what our leaders are proposing in Paris is ridiculous. They are proposing trillions of dollars in taxes and they aren't even talking about reducing any existing co2 levels. They are talking about reducing a potential of .05% of 1 degree in the next 100 years...........If they are right about the science, which they have been consistently wrong on. Technology alone will produce more answers than the trillions they are proposing.



or Just call names.......That works......the liberal way.