crockett

Yea there are skeptics that think 9/11 was a inside job, that the moon landings were faked, let's all just give them the time of day... It's one thing to be skeptical about things and it's another thing to ignore all evidence regardless of how strong because you don't want to believe it's true.

crockett

Actually Al Gore wrote his book and made his movie "after" he was out of public office. At that point it was a non partisan issue and you can even find videos of George Bush from that time agreeing that global warming was a serious threat.

Then Gore's movie became popular and the right wing went ape shit crazy and tried to used his movie against the Democrats in the next election by attempting to claim there was doubt about GW, even though the only doubt came at the hands of their big oil lobbyists. Up until that point the GOP had the position that global warming was a threat.

It was the right that first made it a partisan issue and they continue to do it today and you just buy into it.

aka123

What both ways? Don't plants grow right now, or didn't they grow 150 years ago?

That your last question is so stupid. You don't seem to get even the basics of this subject. We are not talking about growing plants in a fucking greenhouse. Or growing plants in aquarium, I have done that and pumped some extra CO2.

dyna mo

the koch brothers make their political moves without being politicians, just like gore has and does.

I know you don't think or believe that gore needs to hold a political office to have democratic sway in this.

Vendzilla

Al Gore put his face on it, making it somewhat legitimate.

Never mind that first it was called global warming, then out of embarrassment, then had to change it to climate change. Never mind that the temperatures haven't changed in over 17 years

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

aka123

It has always been climate change (as that is what it is when climate changes), but to make it simple, it is often called as global warming. Although, previously it was called as global cooling, as some decades ago it was thought that the extra CO2 would cool the climate. This CO2 issue is not a new thing.

_Richard_

so you admit it's legitimate!

onwebcam

Yes so if there is so much CO2 floating around out there why don't these greenhouses just open up the doors and let the plants suck it all up. Could it be because maybe there's not as much floating around out there that you would like me to be scared enough to believe in?

We agree that we need CO2. What you would like me to believe is that there is too much and my argument is we need more. Al Gore and you would like me to buy a plant, sit around it farting all day while I'm writing Al checks. I say you both should kill yourself and remove yourselves from the CO2 emitting equation. I'll go on feeding the plants and keep my money.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

aka123

Greenhouses are made to grow plants. If you don't see the difference between that and Earth's climate.. "something censored". I don't make some assumptions about Earth based on what is optimal for my aquarium. Or growing geese for goose liver, another example of mass production (like greenhouses for plants). Do you get enough food? Are you sure we shouldn't force feed you, to make your liver larger?

So, your argument is that we need more CO2? Well, at least you think the welfare of the plants. Kudos for that.

onwebcam

I get plenty of food because I eat vegetables that feed off of CO2 and meat from animals that feed off of those plants and oh btw I don't write checks for Al to cash so I can buy more of all of those CO2 made up things.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

Vendzilla

Legitimate, but not to worry about. 17 years of no change

You look at any graph that the Kooks are pointing at and they are thinking like chicken little over .01 degrees of change

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

_Richard_

no change over 17 years? wiht the melting of the antarctic.. aren't they saying something like an extra 5 feet for the sealevel over that period of time?

crockett

gore's book and movie did not wage war against Republicans or Promote Democrats. The movie talked about Global warming and encouraged that we take action. It was Republicans that turned it into a political football after Gore made the movie.

Prior to this they all agreed that global warming was a issue.. Even now it seems Republicans are split on denying global warming and accepting it, as it's mostly the fruit loops from the tea party that deny it.

__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

Robbie

I disagree with you 100%

Al Gore's movie was an infomercial for "Green Energy" companies to make himself a nice pile of money.

I'm not a Republican and I thought the movie was full of shit when it first came out. I just never have respected Al Gore at all. He's always seemed as phony and plastic as Mitt Romney to me. And when I learned that he was making a fortune investing in the "green energy" industry...then his advocacy of it made complete sense. Especially when he doesn't live his lifestyle "green".

You are so fixated with seeing Republicans making money off of oil...that you miss the Democrats doing their scams at the same time.

I see them ALL as crooks. They don't give a flying fuck about you and me. They are only interested in making themselves rich.

I read a report that said Al Gore is worth 50 times more than he was as Vice President!
He is now worth 200 MILLION dollars. That's "Romney Rich".

He is indeed part of the "1%" that you hate. And he made it all off the backs of people believing his bullshit.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Dvae

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/an.htmTime and time again its proven to be growing in size. Why do you continue to deny it?


http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...ry.html#page=1


From World Atlas:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/an.htm
Antarctica is the coldest and windiest spot on the planet. In fact, the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth was recorded in Antarctica (-129.3ºF) and the mean winter temperatures range from -40º to -94ºF. Winds are commonly measured at up to 200 miles per hour.
Current Weather at the South Pole -73ºF

Do you know how f'n cold that is?

__________________
.
.

Arguing with a troll is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig, after a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it.

crockett

What makes you think I hate the 1%? I don't have any agenda against anyone other than the bat shit crazy republicans that have completely destroyed the right and made it an absolutely worthless party, I'd love to have a challenging choice when it came to election time. However the only challenge is to decide if I vote for a Democrat or for a Buffoon.

As for the 1% I don't give a shit about them unless they are "like" the Koch Brothers whom use their money to dumb down this country by convincing you and others that global warming is fake or the other idiots that spend loads of cash on govt lobbyist to push religious agenda.

As for Global Warming, trust me it's no surprise that you know better than all the other scientist, that actually study it.

_Richard_

i never denied any of this.. but there is a definite difference in the land-based ice that we are losing, versus the sea-based ice that we are gaining.

dyna mo

I'm not the only one that sees the movie as political.:::::::


"In 2007, following an investigation of the movie, Sir Michael Burton, a judge in London?s High Court, ruled that it can be shown in secondary schools only if accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore?s ?one-sided? views.

Judge Barton pointed out that its ?apocalyptical vision? was politically partisan, and not an impartial analysis.

He stated: ?It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming?

It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.?

dyna mo

the U.S. Government Accounting Office can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from those many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change. A May 2011 GAO report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

The Obama administration’s attempt to justify these economic regulatory burdens conjures statistical sorcery purporting to assess a “social cost on carbon.” This is supposed to represent an accounting method to quantify market externalities attached to human fossil- burning emissions, whereby each ton of CO2 leads to a future societal cost of about $40 (in today’s dollars).

The idea is that any newly-proposed regulation intended to reduce future CO2 emissions will get to claim an equivalent social cost credit for each ton avoided. This scheme is intended to enable EPA and other regulatory organizations to build stronger political cases for their burdensome policies.

At the same time, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to finally admit that global temperatures have been flat for at least 16 years despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

IPCC has also confessed that their theoretical simulation models have grossly exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2.




.

Robbie

The first part I quoted...Change the words "Koch Brothers" to "Al Gore", the word "you" to "myself" and the word "fake" to "real" and you'll see what I see when I read a post like that.

As for the second part...I've already shown you over and over and over that the data has changed. The computer models that "climate change" were built upon are no longer valid. And there have now been 2 very highly publicized leaking of emails showing that the scientists who are funded by the govt. and "Green Energy" are talking amongst themselves on how to keep this scam going (and their funding).

But you always ignore that or run off to try and find some new article by another biased person to "debunk" what is very evident to other people.

Everyone on GFY knows that you are a very loyal Democrat. I think that is your biggest mistake.

But I know a lot of very intelligent people who are party loyalists (both Republican and Democrat).
I also know a lot of very intelligent people who believe in "Jesus".

I guess even otherwise smart people can be fooled on occasion.

Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

David Hannum criticizing P.T. Barnum's fleecing the people out of their money: "There's a sucker born every minute"

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

crockett

Honestly, who gives a shit about his movie or his book? I only said he drove you right wingers crazy which is evident by how hard you guys try to ignore all other evidence but make a big deal about picking apart his book. You can throw Al Gore's movie and book in the trash and it still doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of the world's scientist agree that man has expedited Global Warming at an alarming rate.

What is even more ridiclious is you guys try to claim it's all a big scam so e Al gore and big business can make money. Meaning you support the world biggest conspiracy theory because all the 99.9% of scientist would have to be in on the scam.. Meanwhile the 1% of scientist whom claim there is no man made GW actually do work for big business and are linked to people trying to profit by denial.

It's amazingly ironic, however it's worthless to argue with you guys because no amount of evidence will ever change your minds.

__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

crockett

Oh gee Robbie your "new data" again.. Oh could it be about the ocean sucking up all the CO2 that every time you bring it up, we show you more up to date studies that show how bad the extra CO2 is to the ocean.. You know things like Algae blooms, ocean acidification and rodent plankton that uses up the resources of the beneficial plankton..

You know all that stuff you ignore every time you bring up your "one" guy and his report that has been debunked..

astronaut x

The last time I checked, Al Gore wasn't a scientist. It's pretty safe to say that not many people listen to scientists (especially here), which is why they turn to people like Al Gore. Scientists need ways to get their message to the masses. I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue or debate with you, or anyone else for that matter. However, man has always adapted. Building codes and advances in engineering are always being updated (thanks to science, go figure). Long story short, by denouncing Al Gore, you are really just denouncing science. He is just getting his information from scientists. The facts are in and an overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists agree that we are causing climate change and the rate will continue exponentially. Really, do you think Al Gore is going to show up at your door someday trying to sell you a fucking windmill or a bunch of solar panels? Carbon credits.... lol yes, maybe.

To sit and say that human beings are not changing the environment, is like saying Currently Sober's week long McDonalds binge isn't going to turn into a few days of hot dog water shooting out of his ass.

Oh and the next time you try and resort to elementary tactics like calling someone out on their grammar (old, and usually brought up by people who can't make their point any other way), maybe you should try and remember what you learned in biology or geology.

astronaut x

First they called themselves "teabaggers" then out of embarrassment they had to change it.

Robbie

There is no "we". It's YOU. And you are in denial.
Nothing has been "debunked" by you. You are not only in denial, but you are in an egotistical fantasyland as well.

And it's not "one guy". It's scientific fact. You just keep denying it.

Matter of fact, as I recall...your "debunking" was that since the ocean is taking up the CO2 that it was going to cause acidizing of the ocean.
So even YOU admitted that it was stopping global warming but you were worried that it was going to cause a new problem.

And I told you that nature will solve it. Just like it always has.

You are ignoring historical weather and climate changes and the fact that the Earth has been much cooler and much warmer at different times.

YES...climate change happens.
And a major volcanic eruption does more harm to mankind climate-wise than all the CO2 that mankind has ever put in the air combined.

Dude, the Earth is over 4 billion years old. Human beings aren't even a pimple on it's ass.

Manmade climate change is a scam in my opinion.

And I'll ask you again: Why doesn't Al Gore live a "green" lifestyle? Why do govts. charge a carbon tax instead of actually DOING something about it? Why are people making fortunes buying and selling Carbon Credits?

I'll tell you why...because it's a scam. They are making money off of it. Plain and simple.

You really, really should be a lot more inquisitive and question authority. Instead of being a sheep at every turn.

You need some testicular fortitude in life.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

NewOldPlayer

Thanks, I haven't had a good laugh all day.

2MuchMark

Al Gore didn't lie about Global Warming. It is true that there were some errors in his film, but he did not lie.

What Al gore got right:

Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.

Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.

Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.

Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.

What Al Gore got wrong:

Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions. More on Dr Thompson's thermometer...


SkepticalScience.com said it best: "the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame."

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

2MuchMark

I'm sorry OnWebCam, but you sort of have this wrong.

CO2 is not an element. It is a molecule made up of 2 elements, Carbon atoms and Oxygen atoms. There are 2 oxygen atoms for every carbon atom. When all 3 atoms come together, they form the molecule called Carbon Dioxide.

During the day, Plants make food by photosynthesis and need Carbon Dioxide to do it. They essentially inhale carbon dioxide and exhale excess oxygen. At night, there can be no photosynthesis so plants exhale excess carbon dioxide.

More CO2 does not mean more plants, or healthier plants, or more food for us to consume. Plants use only what they need and excess gasses remain in place. And at the same time, LESS plants mean LESS CO2 Consumed and turned into food and oxygen. (Think: Deforestation).

The main problem in how it relates to climate change is that there are is too much Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This doesn't make it harder or easier for plants to breathe. Instead it has everything to do with heat and sunlight. Too much CO2 in the air traps heat.

Normally, a certain percentage of the sunlight we get is reflected back into space. What used to be reflected a long time ago vs what is being reflected back today, is the source of the concern. Less light and heat reflected back into space means more light and heat being absorbed on earth, warming the planet.

So now put the 2 together. Cars and factories and coal plants pollute like crazy, sending tons and tons of CO2 into the air. Plants breathe in CO2. The problem? We are tipping the balance. There is too much CO2 going into the air, and not enough plants to drink it all up. Too much CO2 is bad.

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

2MuchMark

Maybe you should say "I *Hope* nature will solve it quickly, like it always has. "

The problem Robbie is this: Nature doesn't "solve problems". Nature, is the natural course of things, and it is science. Things don't "reset". They evolve. We humans are polluting the world because it is natural for us to do it.

It is also natural for us to realize that we are polluting too much, and natural to realize that we are making things much worse for us, and making the planet much harder to live on.

So then why isn't it natural for us to realize what we are doing, and take steps to fix it?

It's easy to say "Nature will fix everything", but if that could happen, it will take millions of years, just like it has always done. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who cares about like a million years from now. I care alot more about the next 25 to 50 years. And if you have kids, maybe you should care about their lives or their future kids too.

Just because you don't like Al Gore or think he's doing something rotten is no reason to dismiss the science. There is lots of evidence that global warming is real and granted that evidence is hard to see if you aren't a scientist or don't know what to look for, but I urge you to try.

Did you know that the Planet Venus is extremely hot, but not because it is closer to the sun? Venus is hot because of the endless buildup of greenhouse gasses. t?s believed that plate tectonics on Venus stopped billions of years ago. And without plate tectonics burying carbon deep inside the planet, it was able to build up in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide built up to the point that any oceans on Venus boiled away. And then the Sun?s solar wind carried the hydrogen atoms away from Venus, making it impossible to ever make liquid water again. The concentration of carbon dioxide just kept increasing until it was all in the atmosphere.

Nature!


Unfortunately, you're right. This is the only kind thing it takes to for some people to dismiss science.

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

EonBlue

I don't recall saying 400,000 PPM but I do recall I post where I made a typo which implied a much higher number than I meant to write. I also recall acknowledging my mistake and correcting it. So no I am not sticking to a point which I admitted was an error.

CO2 only starts to have a mild effect on people at 10,000 PPM. CO2 levels are known to have been as high as 7000 PPM in the past 600 million years. As high as 7000 PPM is it still would not have any toxic effect on humans.


The difference is I did begin with doubts. I continue with doubts. Unlike all of the alarmists here, I am still not certain of much. People here claim prediction as fact. They repeat propaganda as fact. They state falsehoods as fact. And they do all of that with a degree of certainty that leads one to believe that they are incapable of doubt.

aka123

Well, that onwebcam doesn't even get this whole subject, but he is right about plants. The plants capacity to use the CO2 is quite large. Actually modern plants are evolved to cope with lower CO2 concentrations. Plants had somewhat different biological mechanisms when CO2 concentrations were much higher.

So, kudos for some plants. Of course if CO2 concentrations rise much and climate with it, the whole fucking ecosystem of plants changes. So some plants win and some not. Same with animals. So, it's not the same thing as mass producing plants in greenhouse, as that onwebcam seems to think. How in fuck someone can't see the difference between mass producing plants in somewhat closed environment (greenhouse) and messing with the whole Earth's ecosystem?

dyna mo

so fill us all in on the science then, **********. SHow us all the science that proves we humans can "fix" climate change.

dyna mo

since all the liberals here skipped right over this little gem:

aka123

He didn't talk about "fixing". But here is a suggestion, stop throwing plastic trash into nature. Do you want to see some science about how you can do it?

Here is some "science" about it: when your hand is about to throw some plastic trash into nature you do "No hand, no! Don't throw it into nature."
We can use similar science to many other things. It's called as prevention. Some mega science stuff, top notch really.

EonBlue

Conspiracy theories do not equal scientific skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Any scientific theory must be open to skepticism otherwise the scientific process breaks down.

As for evidence I don't ignore any. It is you and people like you who ignore evidence that runs counter to your beliefs and agendas. Evidence does not equal proof or fact. As long as there is evidence out there that counters the "popular" evidence then nothing is settled and doubt of all of the alarmist claims remains valid.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". - Albert Einstein

dyna mo

you need to reread his post or else not reply for markrprince, he's a big boy troll and can reply for himself. NEvertheless, I, in fact, quoted him saying we should "fix" the problem, his word, not mine.

and you can spare me the 3rd grade pseudo-science lesson, that's just silly and shows you are completely missing the point.

EonBlue

Making the reference to Venus in this argument is ridiculous. Earth is not Venus and never will be in our lifetimes or even in the entire course of humanity.

dyna mo

but since you brought up plastics,

this is how humans "fixed" that problem:

Two words: biodegradable plastics.
After all, nobody likes those plastic bags flitting on tree tops or floating in the ocean, essentially forever.

But a new analysis shows that biodegradable plastics, particularly those that break down fast, are contributing to climate change. Because when disposable utensils made from the plastic called PHBO get to landfills, microbes break them down and make methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es200721s



plastic pollution fixed by humans! yay science!

aka123

Again, prevention. Don't throw it into nature. Put it into biotrash can and later on that methane is collected and used to make energy (electricity). If your society hasn't stuff like that, maybe you should upgrade yourselves from the stone age.

Don't be so moron. I don't know is that easy fix or not, but is solves a lot of things.

dyna mo

you can't even follow along a ********** post yet call me a moron for citing actual research?

classic gfy!

aka123

It's quite moron that you didn't get the main point: prevention. Your solution was just to continue the old stupid behaviour but imply some gimmick to try to make it OK.

And what I didn't get from the ********** post?

"So then why isn't it natural for us to realize what we are doing, and take steps to fix it? "

To fix what we are doing aka to change our behaviour. The same point that you didn't get from my message.

dyna mo

there you go again making shit up. Feel free to quote where my "solution was just to continue the old stupid behaviour but imply some gimmick to try to make it OK."

I'll give you some help since you are confused, I've never stated that nonsense as a solution, not in this thread, not irl, not in a fucking neverland fairytale where libs like to hangout and point fingers.

aka123

Here, I felt free to quote:

"Two words: biodegradable plastics.
After all, nobody likes those plastic bags flitting on tree tops or floating in the ocean, essentially forever."

dyna mo

again, classic gfy!

2MuchMark

I am not a scientist, but all of the information and methods that can be used to help fix the problem are available to anyone.

Fixing climate change means cutting greenhouse emissions as much as possible, and exploring and developing other alternative energies such as solar, wind, Hydro geothermal, and even new Nuclear technologies. Other countries are already doing it and well ahead of the US.

Even individuals can help by cutting down on the energy they use. You can even effect change by changing how you shop.

No need to take my word for it. (It's ok, I know you won't). Instead of listening to people that say it can't be done, I encourage you not to be lazy and read about ideas on how it can be done, and maybe put some of those practices into use yourself.

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

dyna mo

I didn't take your word on it, lol. In fact I did the opposite, I asked for some scientific backing that supports your statement that humans can "fix" global warming.


I understand you are confused about the issue, that's why you dumped 20+ tons of carbon pollution onto the rest of us with that chevy volt of yours, nevertheless, a single link supporting your "humans can fix global warming" post is all I am asking.

shouldn't be too hard, since you seem to think you have all the answers re: what the rest of us (excluding you, of course) should be doing.

2MuchMark

Dynamo, you are refusing to accept the facts, because I am the one telling you the facts. If you think I'm wrong, prove it and we can continue the discussion. Taking personal jabs at me does not prove climate change is not happening.

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

dyna mo

from Al Gore's recent WSJ op-ed piece with his trademark alarmist, apocalyptical vision of the future, now it's not just global warming he's using as a scare tactic, it's a opinion that carbon-based fuel investment is a risky venture.

Here he continues to use the computer models that have been proven (and admitted to) being entirely wrong to advance his goal of attracting investors to his anti-carbon scam:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...63663464339836


Surprise! Al Gore and his carbon credit huckstering partner David Blood, both principals at Generation Investment Management (GIM), warn in their October 30 Wall Street Journal op/ed feature of peril to fossil fuel investments due to “The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble”.

They argue that such “unwise and increasingly wreck less” investment strategies pose three broad risks which will cause carbon assets to become “stranded” and lose economic value: through direct government carbon regulation; as a result of market-share losses to “already competitive” renewable technologies; and due to “sociopolitical pressures” causing carbon-intensive businesses to lose their “license to operate”.

dyna mo

feel free to quote where I took a personal jab at you. I trust you won't try and use my referring to you as a troll for that, that's your word not mine. You admitted a long time ago you are trolling these sorts of topics.


and nice dodge and deflect too! I guess your providing 1 simple link proofing that humans can "fix" climate change was too tall an order for you. no biggie.

2MuchMark

Venus is often referred to as Earth's Twin. It has a similar size to Earth the way Mars is similar to earth, and is made of the same materials. It also has similar surface composition and an atmosphere with complex weather system like Earth does. Many Astrobiologists study Venus and its runaway greenhouse gas effect to gain insight as to the earths greenhouse gas issues.

Of course there are differences too. Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2, but get this: The Earth has its CO2 stored on Calcite type rocks. If all of it were converted into atmospheric CO2, it would the same amount as in Venus's atmosphere today. Irrelevant? Maybe, but interesting nonetheless.

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net