Carbon Dioxide Levels Are at 820,000-Year High

That's nonsense! How can they be at a 820,000 Year High, when the earth is only but around 6000 years old? Sounds like maybe they are using that myth of the geological column, that the further down you go, the older it is. That's only true if sentiment accumulates at a fixed rate, and never erodes or melts away. But probably quite a lot of the ice all came at once, during the time period of the Great (Genesis) Flood, which was quite a sudden cataclysm.

Also, if CO2 is so high, couldn't it be due to water or ice losing CO2? How long does an uncovered soda keep its CO2 fiz? Not long at all. Or couldn't it be due to, that they are just making it all up?

Rush Limbaugh was saying on his radio program, within the last few weeks, that "Global Warming" is a scheme to promote socialism and big government. Actually it's far worse. It's lies to take away prosperity and freedom from the common people, and give more power to politicians and corporations to retard progress, ultimately towards a tyrannical world government leaving no place for the refugees to go.

Global warming is such an incredibly weak theory. They can't prove that there is any global warming, they can't prove that it is significant, they can't prove that the effects will be dire, they can't prove that humans are the cause, and they can't prove that there is anything we can do right now that is practical or affordable to "fix" it.

 

and you can't prove that anything in the bible is true :beatdeadh

 

Wow. Your ignorance is staggering ... just ... staggering.

Or is this irony? Shitting Jesus I hope so...

 

Theories are unprovable. Tis why they remain theories.

Have you heard of Ecology?
All nature is on a delicate balance, an equilibrium.
However, we as a species have upset this balance, both locally and globally. When that balances upsets, it seeks to re-balance itself.
So is it not logical to see, that the pollution we've been releasing into the atmosphere may have an affect on the system?
Do you agree we pollute? Do you believe in pollution? In ecology? In science?

We drive cars. Cars run on gasoline. Gasoline is primarily octane. Octane is a hyrdo-carbon. When hydro-carbons burn they produce CO2. Because this hyrdo-carbon come from deep within the earth, they have been out of the carbon cycle for many millions of years. Now they are re-entering the carbon cycle and combined with our bio-sphere's reduced capacity to re-uptake that carbon, it is lingering in the atmosphere as CO2. CO2 is known to have an insulating effect. THE GREENHOUSE effect. And THUS the excess CO2 is contributing to the warming.
I say contributing because there are many other factors that can affect warmth.
But it therefore logical to assume that human beings are contributing to the warming of the planet.

Yes, you can say that I am just making it up. That education is in fact a grand-conspiracy of the liberal-left wing government seeking to eradicate you religion.
HOWEVER, you can not disprove science that is easily testable and provable.
Seriously. Go take a chemistry class, maybe some ecology classes... geology.
Just get an education and make up you OWN mind before you listen to idiots like Rush Limbaugh.
Isn't it entirely possible and plausible Rush Limbaugh is just pushing an agenda too?

I will even agree with you. Globabl warming can be used to press for certain social issues, but can it also not be said that perhaps some people are just concerned for the well-being of the earth?

Your thoughts?

 

i suppose this is why i have always advocated a kibbutz like living arrangement for people of a like mind.

if you want to change the world, it is unlikely from a statistical perspective.

by like minded people living in close proximity (but in their own houses) on commonly owned land, the greenhouse effect can be reduced simply because these people will have the foresight and resources to act upon all of this knowledge. they can install solar etc and be drastically greenhouse gas reduced. the average individual can do very little.

 

The hell? 6,000 years old? wtf are you talking about? ()

 

Oh really? So why the mad rush to implement anti-human, anti-freedom policy, based upon the theory of "Global Warming," formerly called "The Greenhouse Effect" and now trendily being called "Climate Change." Why the name changes? A new name every half decade or so, just for propaganda value once the sensationalistic "shock value" wears off, and people begin to suspect that the world may actually go on, almost as usual?

Uh, yeah.

Then how come we humans are in a constant battle, to chase away the jungle from moving into our own very yards? Consider what happens, if you don't trim your bushes or mow your grass for a few months. Somehow, nature doesn't appear very "fragile" or "delicate" to me.

And what happens to an "upset" balance, logically? It naturally finds a new balance, in this case, a "balance" that is tilting more and more towards favoring the many humans, considering how many of us there is now.

And not all "upset balances" seek to re-balance acccoring to the old balance. Does the evil politician with the cement shoes, soon float back to the surface? (That question inspired by a Totally Twisted screen saver module, entitled "Toxic Swamp," probably programmed by somebody bored with pretty "aquarium" screen savers.)

And why do you think I advocate replacing the millions of smoky cooking fires in growing cities within the developing countries, with modern clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens? Yes, it could have an effect, but generally very local and very temporary. Forest fires have an effect too, but they are said to be "natural," so does that make it "okay" since it is nature that does it? Well maybe, when out in some remote unpopulated area where they aren't too much trouble.

Of course. I agree that humans are getting so populated, that we can't just go on doing everything the same old ways. But there is no need for draconian nonsolutions. But rather the modern adaptations that people want anyway. Say like modern stoves, toilets, refrigerators to preserve food, etc. Even the population-driven technology helps to accomodate more and more population. Some things tend to work themselves out, even when humans don't completely understand how.

So? Why don't you hold your breath, that is if you think it will make any difference? Humans breathe out CO2 too. But we can't help it. Why not accept that God probably knew what he was doing when he created the Earth?

And this effect, is adding carbon and organic material to the earth, helping to increase the abundance of life, most notably, human life, but perhaps also increasing the quantity of animal life. Why all the obsession of the supposed need for carbon sequestering? Can't even human bodies store up some of that "excess" carbon? Or maybe the wood in our homes and furniture? Or maybe all that wood and paper just "lingering" in the landfills?

While the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might have increased slightly, there is no conclusive sign that it is excessive nor soon will be.

Well good. We may be helping to stall the next ice age then.

But why would enviro wackos want to prevent the earth from returning to a Garden-of-Eden-like paradise? Does nobody else find it curious, that the Garden of Eden was so warm, that at first, Adam & Eve didn't even notice that they were naked? And why do humans so concentrate near the equator? Apparently, we like it warm.

Hmmm. Maybe like all that body heat of billions of people? Oh but that would be a neglible factor, as it would be quickly lost to outer space. But then people seem to like bad news and to worry, so why let a little "science" stop the enviro-wacko crackpot theories? There is also the urban "heat island" effect, a pretty much neglible effect at the global scale, except of course, for manufacturing phony "evidence" of global warming based upon slightly rising temperatures, taken within cities, as they grow larger and slightly warmer locally.

If so, then apparently we can't help it, and why should it bother us anyway? My heating bill is too high as it is. A warmer planet would help me stay warm, for less expense.

Or that you are parroting the junk-science lies of globalists.

Yeah, pretty much. Liberals have much corrupted so-called "education."

Oh really? Well I took some science classes, and I have yet to see any CO2 "warming" in a test tube or anything. Surely I am not expected just to "take their word for it?"

And what "agenda" would that be? Truth? Excellence? Alternative views? His $2 million a year isn't enough, so he's taking payoffs from the greedy rich oil corporations? Why is it, anytime somebody comes out and says that "global warming" is a distortion or lie, it is often suggested that it is the oil companies funding such studies or views? Everybody has an agenda, but nobody cares what the truth might be?

I find it awfully convenient that "environmental" extremists choose to pick on CO2. Most anything humans do, to lift themselves out of poverty, somehow involves the release of CO2, because humans by themselves are weak and puny, and so our machines need power. So why pick on CO2? Obviously to promote poverty and globalist tyranny throughout the world. There are alternate technologies, that supposedly don't release much if any CO2, but they aren't ready yet. And not always economically competitive or viable. Can people in the developing world, use a windmill to boil their dirty water, to make it more drinkable? Well maybe if they had one, but a campfire or propane might work more readily. I don't find more population + more poverty, to be an ideal combination, but rather more population so that all the more people may experience life + less poverty, more the ideal. To population more densely and efficiently, more comfortably and safely, for the greater good of the many, likely requires some increased use of newer technologies, and I see most so-called "environmentalists" as standing in the way of such progress, being technology-phobic luddites, and to top it off, being very dishonest about their agenda and motives. Especially at the highest levels of leadership, where they surely should know better. At the lower level of followers, I find the "environmentalists" to be incredibly intellectually lazy, not even bothering to ask the right questions of their anti-human, anti-business, anti-progress movement.

And what's wrong with listening to Rush Limbaugh anyway? He sure is more "entertaining" that that bore, full-of-hot-air, Al Gore.

But their anti-human actions, show that they are not concerned for the well-being of the earth. Aren't humans part of that earth or part of nature or whatever?

 

Now I *know* you're joking

 

...the clown that no one laughs at...

 

Well it is true that the largest emmsisions of CO2 aren't human industrial activity, their natural process like volcanism and ocean flows.

However, we are clearly responsible for this. Deforestation of old growth forests is a major concern. The rain forest no longer photosynthesis, (the huge trees) and when they are cut down, much of that CO2 they've been turning into O2 is released.

We need to control carbon output by making more fuel effecient vehicles. IMHO switch to nuclear power, but if not, another form of power.

We need new groth forests set up more proactively, and we need to research more in phytoplankton, which should be allowed to survive

Phytoplankton are responsible for the vast majority of the O2 production on earth. Much of this comes from the barrier reefs. Iron fertilization of the
southern oceans would also make phytoplankton survive better.

Although there are other concerns there. Heres a wiki article about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

 

you most definately cannot, i agree.
besides just push the fool on the hill over, man.

 

Why is it, that whenever someone defends the environment, they are labeled globalists? Or Communists?

I am not a one-worlder or a communists.
I believe the Earth is sacred. End of story.