It's long but an excellent presentation. The last 20 minutes or so are Q&A.

Instrumental temperature records starting being kept in the 1850s. Now everyone is a expert.

It's more like an hour and forty but goes by pretty quickly.

The guy giving the presentation actually is an expert.

Well, Dr. Tim Ball certainly has had his share of problems regarding his particular brand of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

Climate change is real, but man has zero influence on it.
This was about getting into pour wallets to fund a UN govt.
Obama tried, Trudeau is still trying. Both are full of shit and useless eaters.

Here's a conspiracy for y'all.

Who benefits from denying climate change is due to human activity?

Follow the money?

Quote:All eight companies maintain membership—and in many cases have leadership positions—in trade associations and other industry groups that spread disinformation about climate science and/or seek to block climate action.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fig...JdFMPIpqSo

CO2 is the last thing a real scientist worries about. It's the tons of pollution belched into the skies anyone with any real scientific background worries about.
Believe me, the media is screwing you and doesn't even bother to take you to dinner.

(02-05-2017, 06:43 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  CO2 is the last thing a real scientist worries about. It's the tons of pollution belched into the skies anyone with any real scientific background worries about.
Believe me, the media is screwing you and doesn't even bother to take you to dinner.

That is what these scientists (not MSM) are saying, the gases (pollution) belched into the sky (from vehicle emissions and industrial processes) (human activities) keeps in the heat.

Best to keep my eye on real problems, and CO2 emissions are the least of anyones worry. Increased CO2 means more food, larger forest growth and an increase in oxygen. Being a carbon based life form, I don't see a downside.
It's the pollutants not seen in nature I fret over.

(02-05-2017, 06:46 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  

(02-05-2017, 06:43 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  CO2 is the last thing a real scientist worries about. It's the tons of pollution belched into the skies anyone with any real scientific background worries about.
Believe me, the media is screwing you and doesn't even bother to take you to dinner.

That is what these scientists (not MSM) are saying, the gases (pollution) belched into the sky (from vehicle emissions and industrial processes) (human activities) keeps in the heat.

Try watching the video.

I would say the relentless rise of CO2 emissions is a real problem, but everyone is free to believe whatever they want.

I happen to believe it is business as usual - profits above all else.

Quote:If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resou

Then there's methane released from fracking - or 'releasing the lid on Pandora's box'. So, here is what they don't want you to know.

Quote:According to Ingraffea, it is true that natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than other fuels when burned. What is not talked about enough is how fracking unleashes methane, which has devastating effects on climate change. Natural gas is primarily methane, and when methane is leaked into the atmosphere, it is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by a factor of 30 to hundreds, depending on the time period over which it is emitted and other factors. Every gas well leaks to some extent, but the current industry standard is that one out of every 20 wells leaks large amounts of methane before it is discovered to be failing.

It is known that shale oil wells release over 100 million of cubic feet of gas each day as the oil is collected. This gas is burned on site rather than captured because it does not make economic sense to capture it. Only recently have studies started to ask how much methane is leaking overall from shale gas fracking, and it looks like the answer is twice as high as initially anticipated. Rather than serving as a bridge to a clean energy future, Ingraffea states, natural gas will hasten climate change, and is a climate bomb with greater potential impact than the Alberta Tar Sands.

That brings the question: Is natural gas worth it because it will bring energy independence and security? The wars fought by the United States are largely over resources such as oil, and the US military is the worst polluter on the planet. So it would be a huge benefit to the planet, not to mention our domestic spending needs, if the United States reduced its military carbon footprint. It turns out that the idea of natural gas as a real source of energy independence and security is false.

http://clearingthefogradio.org/us-climat...u-to-know/

Did you know that greenhouses add CO2 to maximize plant growth? Did you know that submarines routinely run with levels of CO2 at those levels and it is not harmful to humans? Did you know that with the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere there has been a greening of the planet? Did you know the CO2 levels of the planet have gone up and down throughout history as global temps have gone up and down? Did you know that the greenest point in the history of the world had a CO2 level of over 4,000 ppm? Did you know that as CO2 levels go up and the world becomes greener that more O2 is produced and all life benefits from it?

CO2 has the least impact on global temps and climate change of all the gasses in the atmosphere. The biggest contributor to warming and climate change is water vapor.

Spit out the Kool Aid.

Look at this mess...

Nordic climate project disrupts lives in Uganda: "We’ve been driven away"

Part-funded by Finnish taxpayers, this forestry project in East Africa is billed as a win-win for all involved – but the reality is less rosy.

“We used to grow rice where the forest is. Now we’ve been driven away. We have nowhere to grow our crops,”

The Swedes can avoid cuts in greenhouse gases emissions at home in relation to the amount of pollution soaked up by the Ugandan woods. In terms of the global climate, the net effect is apparently the same as if the reductions were made in Sweden and the forest had not been planted.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/nordic...ay/9409077

ffs

(02-05-2017, 08:21 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  Did you know that greenhouses add CO2 to maximize plant growth? Did you know that submarines routinely run with levels of CO2 at those levels and it is not harmful to humans? Did you know that with the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere there has been a greening of the planet? Did you know the CO2 levels of the planet have gone up and down throughout history as global temps have gone up and down? Did you know that the greenest point in the history of the world had a CO2 level of over 4,000 ppm? Did you know that as CO2 levels go up and the world becomes greener that more O2 is produced and all life benefits from it?

CO2 has the least impact on global temps and climate change of all the gasses in the atmosphere. The biggest contributor to warming and climate change is water vapor.

Spit out the Kool Aid.

I spit it out long ago. Now I'll be spitting out smog.