Posted on 05/31/2017 12:32:52 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
First - to hear Big Media and the Climate-Panic Lobby tell it, we humans are the only major source of the "pollutant" CO2. But there's actually another, even bigger "polluter" - Mother Nature. Every year, volcanoes produce about 20 times as much CO2 as humans - a whopping 95% of the total. So even if we all shut down every single engine, furnace, and fire on Earth and all went back to living in cold dark caves, total CO2 output would ONLY be reduced by 5% ... which is nothing. Worse, volcanic output is highly variable, so even any painful sacrifices we make could easily be negated by an extra-heavy year of eruptions. Obviously, any political agreement that only reduces human output by a few percentage points (and leaves out big polluters like China and India) is, in the total scheme of things, useless.
The second issue here that the Panickers don't like to talk about is that there is NO "climate-change smoking gun". That is, there is NO clear, NO direct, NO scientifically-proven linkage between human CO2 production and climate change - there's only a simplistic, inferred, implied one (a "rise" in world temps over the last ~150 years, the same time that human industry grew a lot). THAT'S why the Panickers always have to mention phrases like "the great consensus among scientists" or "95% of scientists believe", to try and impress the skeptical public. Problem is, Science is not (and never was) a popular contest or democracy where the idea with the most number of followers wins ... in fact, many times it has been the lone rebel who bucked the "established consensus" who discovered a scientific truth - Galileo, Pasteur, even the Wright Brothers. So please be aware of, and challenge, this false argument whenever the cowards try to use it to shut down the debate.
And Macron's amateurish "intimidation handshake" was probably the clincher for Trump, the final humiliation.
Even if Globull Warming existed, there is no way for us puny Humans to reverse it.
They now choose to call it Climate Change. They think the entire Earth can be maintained at a comfortable 72 Degrees.
Just call a good HVAC Guy and it’s all good.
They are delusional. They watch Science Fiction Movies full of CGI Effects and think what they see is actually possible.
two devastating facts-
1: Man’s CO2 amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- that’s it= NOWHERE near enough to cause climate to change EVEN IF CO2 caused climate change, which it doesn’t as will be pointed out in the next devastating fact
2: Temperatures always rise first- then 800 or so years later CO2 rises- ice core samples prove that- meaning that CO2 can not be causing temperatures to rise- just the opposite-
Bonus fact: Despite rising CO2 levels the last 20 years- there has been no warming- proving further that CO2 does NOT drive temperatures
What is their null hypothesis? Make them state one.
Is it that, absent human industrial activity, the “earth’s climate” would be invariant? (I put “earth’s climate” in scare quotes because I’m not sure there is such a thing.
The main fact about “Climate Change” is that it isn’t about the climate, it’s about money.
..yeah, but volcanoes can’t cough up the cash to keep the scam going...so shuuuush!
Vanities are not news....they are general chat
What is the reference for the 95 percent CO2 from nature?
As far as I can tell, the entire hypothesis that CO2 can heat the earth is derived from its fluorescent profile in the infrared. CO2 has an unusually wide band in the infrared where it absorbs and emits fluorescence (light energy). Most fluorescent materials have a fairly narrow band in which they absorb and emit. Fluorescent materials typically absorb light of a certain frequency and emit the energy as light of a lower frequency (lower energy). The energy difference is retained by the material and contributes to its internal energy, thus heating it up. That heat is then shed as infrared radiation.
What the hypothesis omits is that 1) CO2 is not the only material that fluoresces; many materials have that property, and 2) that a system can never contain more energy than was inserted into the system. In addition, the CO2 emits the fluorescent energy in every direction, so that it is as likely to go back into space as it is to be directed towards the ground. Most of the sun’s energy is contained within the visible portion of light and thus passes right through CO2 to heat the solid material on the ground, and this is responsible for the bulk of the earth’s warmth. The people whipping up such hysteria over the life-giving gas CO2 might want to address the practice of paving roads with dark materials, because those materials do more to warm the earth than the CO2.
Climate Change Is Interplanetary - Earth Not Only Planet Heating Up!
To who? Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have gone from 200PPM to 400PPM which sounds like a huge increase but when you realize that there have been times when the earth's atmosphere contained over 2,000PPM CO2 then the change seems insignificant. It is all relative. Also when the earth's atmosphere contained 2,000PPM CO2 the earth was teaming with life and covered in lush jungles.
You’re still buying into the premise that there is a problem. Take it back some steps further.
1) Climate is not static. Never has been, never will. The hysteria over change is comparable to “warning” everybody that the sun will go away tonight, and without the sun we will all freeze to death, etc., without ever mentioning that the sun comes back in the morning.
2) Warmer is better, not worse. In case you haven’t noticed, life depends on water. More liquid water, more life. Compare the amazon jungle to the antarctic. Antarctica is considered a desert because the water is frozen up. Warmer world means more liquid water. Which environment seems more amenable to life to you?
3) Based on past cycles, you would actually expect it to get warmer. What you are also not told is that we are still in an ice age. Geologists define that as ice at sea level, 24x7x365. Current ice age is 4 million years old. Within ice ages are “glaciations” where the ice advances significantly. The last maximum was wooly mammoth time about 15k years ago. There have been 60 such glaciations this ice age, identifiable geologically by moraine layers. So, based on that maximum and the average cycle of 66k years, half cooling, half warming, we would be 15k years into a 33k year warming cycle.
Finally, also do not buy into the premise that we can do something about it. We can change the climate about as easily as we can change earth’s orbit.
I’ll believe the alarmists are serious when they call for a ban of all carbonated beverages, beer, colas, champagne, etc.
They’ll never do it.
For example, although volcanoes produce CO2, they also produce ash and sulfur dioxide, which have cooling effects. Other sources of climate variation include variations in solar output, the details of cycles of the earth's orbit, and meteorite and comet impacts. The last is implicated but not yet proven as the cause of the Younger Dryas, a notable rapid cooling that took place about 12,900 years ago.
Entirely apart from a warming climate, the vast output of CO2 is thought to be acidifying the oceans and endangering marine life.
In the end, in addition to a carbon reduction strategy, geoengineering may be needed. When the left begins urging that step, we will know that even they believe their climate alarmism.
In the end this whole thing is an attempt to enslave men. Making public policy on the supposed fact that maybe the earth's atmosphere may heat up a whole degree 200 years from now? Insanity. Talking about UFO's used to get you thrown into the loony bin. It should be the same for "global warming".
You’re a loon.
They don’t need facts. Just feelings. Duh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.