Important News

Climate Change ...
Did you know CO2 is heavier than air?
Therefore it collects near the ground where plants can convert it to O2. That makes it a self regulating system (more CO2 -> more plant growth -> less CO2)

Some news that never made the news:
Search "climategate"
or more recent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

That is not to say we shouldn't take care of our environment, but taxing the probably most harmless waste product is not the way to go.

BTW: sweet trailer!

 

Immor did you know that the production of CO2 far outweighs the earths population of plants ability to process it? We are clearing and cutting plants at alarming rates and pumping higher than normal CO2

http://www.monbiot.com/2008/09/23/the-patron-saint-of-charlatans/

 

The link you posted doesn't say anything about your claim.
Did you know the amount of CO2 produced by humans is a miniscule amount compared to what is produced by nature? [http://m4gw.com/new-nasa-satellite-data-flips-climate-science-on-its-head/]
So if your claim was true we would all have suffocated long ago.

Another interesting fact - the majority of scientists says science DOESN'T support the climate change theory! [http://www.petitionproject.org/]

 

Oxygen (21% in air) is heavier than nitrogen (78% in air) but still they are mixed and we don't live in pure oxygen.

Gases mix by themselves due to their thermal movement and also because of wind etc. Only if you get a huge amount of e.g. co2 in a room it can stay at the bottom for a while but even then it will eventually get mixed up.

 

Yes, you are right tomtom, I oversimplified it. Yet most climate change believers don't know this basic fact about the molecule they hold responsible for climate change and are easy to faze with it
It is a self-regulating system none the less (more CO2 -> more plant growth -> less CO2)

 

It can be self regulating (at least to an extent) but it doesn't mean that extra plant growth can necessarily absorb all the extra co2. After all, there have been variations in co2 levels over the millennia.

 

The link I posted was showing why the guy in the link you posted is an idiot Every thing you are saying is an extreme oversimplification of science which does not factor into account human production of CO2 outside of metabolic activity or the destruction of plants.

The scientific community has reached a nearly unanimous consensus that climate change is happening. Does that mean all scientists think it is happening? No. There are definitely scientists who don't believe it but they are a very minuscule minority of 3%.

I will choose to believe Nasa:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Well, please try sticking to the facts instead of making personal attacks. If an idiot makes a true statement, it doesn't make it less true. Nor the other way around and believe me, both happens.

How are satellite images supposed to separate metabolic activity from industrial activity? No they obviously are the result of all sources.
Destruction of plants .. Well guess what, they grow back. If every square inch of former rainforest would be plastered with concrete, then it would be a problem. Instead what happens is, the carbon is stored in the wood and doesn't get turned into CO2, while new plants can grow in its former place, capturing even more CO2.

Wrong! The majority of climate scientists has reached that consensus. Those are the guys who get paid to produce research supporting the governments plan to introduce a CO2 tax. If their research fails to produce support for their idea, they don't get paid or outright threatened and fired! [http://www.theclimategatebook.com/scientist-fired-for-becoming-climate-change-skeptic/] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html]
If you look at the rest of the scientists, who aren't dependent on that money, the majority have reached the consensus, that the data does not support the climate change theory. [http://www.petitionproject.org/]

And please don't say those scientists aren't qualified enough to see the flaws in the studies.

 

It's clear you didn't read one thing I posted....

 

Funny, I was close to say something like that about you. Then I remembered to stay objective.

Well, I am sorry I can't give you the same feeling of being the center of attention as your feminized boyfriends. Wait, no, I ain't in the least. Get lost if you need to resort to insults instead of properly discussing science.

 

Immor this is completely false. The science behind global warming is the heat radiating from the earth becomes trapped within the atmosphere because of the elevated levels of CO2 in the amtopshere. CO2 does not collect near the ground anymore than regular oxygen, nitrogen or any of the other components that make up the air we breathe.

 

We're not going to do anything in enough time. Climate Summits are all crap. Nothing ever gets done. The large polluters hem and haw and talk pretty but go home and do nothing. The climate apocalypse is coming. Prepare your children!

 

lol, seriously though, we have a negative impact on the environment but we're not about to make or break the climate. The effect we have compared to the impact of historic and ongoing natural events is small

• The sun, which runs like clock work on an 11 year cycle and has been tracked for 100's of years has been going through some significant changes recently personally I find this really scary as changes in the suns patterns have had historically huge impacts on the earth.
• Earths magnetic field is 'close' to flipping, though there is no obvious correlation with "mass extinction" events, the role it plays in keeping the planet hospitable to life is critical, having it go into a state of flux for 100+ years is not something I think will be easy for us t deal with
• Hopefully most remote is Yosemite going off any time soon, nonetheless it goes of roughly every 700,000 years and the last time was 640,000 years ago, we have entered the time frame for the next eruption but we may still wait 100,000 years, still it's impact would be wipe out most life in north america and the effect on the rest of planet would be extreme
• etc. etc.

But even if, magically, for hundreds of years, the earth remains static, with us being the sole contributors to climate change I can't even imagine even then how it will ever end up being our most critical issue. It's harder and harder (and more expensive) to extract fossil fuel, most arab nations are "drying up", we'll run out of oil all together in 35 years, and that, combined with the growth/demand in Asia and the rest of the world is going to be a huge incentive to find alternatives.

 

I am not qualified to speak on climate change, but I will say that I like this new Pontiff. I am not a Christian but I do have tremendous respect for his faith and devotion to public and world service. No matter what side of a controversial issue you are on (climate change, reproductive choice, solutions for income disparities), this dude is a consensus builder and truly wants to make the world a better place for Catholics, Christians and everyone else.

 

It is nowhere near as simple as a "greenhouse effect".

That would help, if we would have been able to see Venus with and without CO2. As it is we only know it is hot. That is probably because it is 42,000,000 km closer to the sun and turns 243 times slower.

Peak Oil most likely isn't a problem either, as most evidence points to oil not even being fossil. And by earlier estimations we should already be running out.

I am all for protecting the environment, but I prefer truth over blind ideology. Otherwise we end up storing CO2 underground when its only serious effect is to make plants grow.
There are enough serious issues to worry about without pseudo science, some of which @JackStrident pointed out. Also polution of all kinds.
Did you know the estrogen in "the pill" does not get taken care of by current waste treatment as it is not biodegradeable and causes serious problems for fish, not to mention comes back in the tap water?

 

@touchtheotherside I watched a great documentary about nuclear energy called Pandora's Promise. Really recommend it. Nuclear energy is the way to go if we want to solve the climate and energy crises but unfortunately it has been given such a bad rap. Even big oil is behind solar and wind because they know it will never ever supply enough energy to make oil obsolete.

 

"When you get a virus, you get a fever. Global warming is the fever, mankind is the virus. Now only one of two things can happen: the host(earth) kills the virus or the virus kills the host."

 

@Andrew0268:
That is an interesting angle. I'm not sure which industries/groups could profit from supporting climate change.
The one supporting any science that supports climate change and suppressing any science that goes against it, is the government though. With climate change accepted they can introduce a new tax on anything from breathing to producing. Also they will get a lot more information about citizens and can justify gathering it. Sounds right up their alley.

You are behind times. These days it is called global weather climate change because it is not getting warmer.