Reply With Quote
How do you control people with global warming? We was going to try to go green whether this happened or not because it's the smart thing to do.
I am always surprised to be 90% of the time on the same page with DoK ...lol these dumb libertarians who think global warming is a tool to control people
For too long the alternative energy industry has had its boot on the throat of big oil
control people with global warming
How do you control people with global warming? We was going to try to go green whether this happened or not because it's the smart thing to do.
Lol.
Yes, global warming is real. It's just not something you can feel. The earth's average temperature has increased something like 1 degree Celsius over the last decade or so. That is too small for us to notice with daily temperature fluctuations. But certain creatures are much more sensitive. There's also a lot of chemistry that depends on the appropriate temperatures for equilibrium.
So yeah, global warming in real, but it really doesn't matter until something we care about dies.
the first of all solutions to the issue of global warming, if there is such an issue, is that those so-called scientists should fart less so there'll be less greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, imho.
Can't you make an argument that anything and everything can be dangerous to planet Earth?
i think global warming is real and i think we cause it. the past few years its been warmer. just a tiny bit. its alot of things. mostly, more carbon dioxide in the air from less trees, more live stock needed to feed the growing populations omitting gas, and more cars on the street. i have no research to back it up. just from things ive read over the years it seems to make sense. im 50.5 % republican and 49.5 % democrat. not going off anything CNN or Fox has tried to brainwash into anyone.
Fear is the control. People buy in to the alarmist point of view.
Ever watch Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth?"
There is only one aspect of AWG that all scientists agree on and I agree we should take action on. That is greatly reducing, and preferably eliminating, the aerosol emissions from fossil fuel burning.
Actually, the balance of plants and trees is growing, if anything. Primarily through control of forest fires. Even the destruction of the rainforests give way to crops that are maintained and grown as fast as possible.
I agree global warming is real. I have no doubt that we haven't stopped warming from the last ice age, that the sun changes in output, and that soot on ice is a problem. I will disagree that CO2 is a problem however. CO2 is not as powerful of a greenhouse gas as H2O is, and we have more water vapor in the lower troposphere than CO2 by at least a factor of 50. The changing temperature of the ocean surface drives the moisture content, and the ocean is most influenced by the sun. spectral emissions from CO2 effectively reflect off of water, causing no warming, but visible light and UV are more than 90% absorbed by the oceans. For the few microns that the spectral emissions from CO2 do penetrate water, if anything, it cools the water by what little extra H2O it excites to evaporate. Therefore, the net effect is zero. The extra heat the H2O requires to evaporate, takes it from the water. It's like how you feel colder as the wind picks up. Moisture is evaporating from the skin, robbing heat from you.
I think the most apparent way we see global warming is the melting of ice sheets and the thermal expansion of the oceans, causing a sea level rise. However, how do you distinguish, with any accuracy, what is natural and what is anthropogenic?
"climate change" is hilarious. if literally anything happens to the weather, its artificial now
climate change is not a new phenomenon. the earth had an ice age (many, in fact) and it went through warmer periods as well. were those climate shifts caused by greenhouse gases, tbh?
Let's not forget all that hot air spewing from Gore's mouth.
niceyou've don your homework on this.
5 year old vid, but not bad
LOL...
I don't recall seeing this before, but I was laughing from the start!
I like this:
1:40
So why don't we talk about the suns contribution to the global warming problem... well... because we can't regulate it, tax it, or make it feel guilty for what it's doing.
The sun has been cooler during the warming trend
the earth accounts for it's own CO2 emissions through natural means. That's the way it's always been. It's our contribution that leads to the imbalance of a sensitive climate.
There is a mountain of empirical evidence that subsumes our annual 'it's cold today SEE NO GW!' and it all points to the same thing. Every, and I mean every science foundation in the world including our National Academy is in concord on this.Not seeing how it "controls people," but even you have to admit that 90% of the climate change drama is geared towards convincing everyone to pay extra for "green"
Yet for some reason people that don't know a ing thing about frequency analysis or conduction across thermal layers think they know whats up.
It's been well do ented the political style fundraising and campaigning that creates this illusion that its not really 99.5%of scientist are in agreement.
While I am not surprised that you think climate scientists don't include solar radiation in their calculus, it is nonetheless pathetic.
My favorite is when they claim publicly funded scientists who get paid the same regardless of what they research/publish are the ones with an agenda and special interests, NOT the scientists funded by Exxon Mobil and Koch Industry. They're the honest ones with no agenda
That theory is about as scientific as Al Gore's whole movie, tbh....
No he hasn't. He is regurgitating something else as he is wont to do. Bertrand Russell has a quote that describes WC to a tee.nice
He used to claim that they didn't consider black carbon. Now he claims they don't consider water or feedback cycles. He is a dumb that doesn't even know what the parts he changes do.
No Sherlock ? Issue is not on the fact it happened before, issues are on the fact it's probably not natural and the pace is much faster. Other issue being ocean level affecting desert lands thousand years ago and now it's affecting potentially entire cities and millions of people. With 8 or 9 billion people consequences of climate changes are much more impactful. Screw a rice harvest and you will see the consequences.
Has it? What are you defining as the warming trend? I see it as 1750 to present day. Different papers have different values, but they all show relatively little change since around 1950, and an increase since 1750:
Yet to date, there is no math formula released that shows warming from CO2 in an atmospheric mix.
Again, there is more than 50 timers more H2O in the lower troposphere than CO2. Please show me the math that shows how CO2 makes any notable difference.
Did you watch the Youtube, or not?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
