Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

only if there's enough plants to process it. I'm sure you've heard of people dying from drinking too much water or sufficated from too much oxygen.
Another gibberish! You sound like a typing monkey on drugs. More CO2 results in larger and stronger plants, and more of them. And you cannot suffocate from oxygen, just as there are no square circles. People can breathe 100% oxygen. It has been proven by experiment numerous time. Besides, "suffocation" by definition means LACK of oxygen. So you are posting oxymorons, i.e. self-contradictions.
 
Another gibberish! You sound like a typing monkey on drugs. More CO2 results in larger and stronger plants, and more of them. And you cannot suffocate from oxygen, just as there are no square circles. People can breathe 100% oxygen. It has been proven by experiment numerous time. Besides, "suffocation" by definition means LACK of oxygen. So you are posting oxymorons, i.e. self-contradictions.

so you should have no problem posting an example of people breathing 100% oxygen.

I can show you an example of hyperventilation from excess oxygen.
 
so you should have no problem posting an example of people breathing 100% oxygen.

"Non-rebreathing masks for delivery of 100% oxygen" for oxygen therapy:
http://www.smiths-medical.com/catal...oxygen-masks/first-breath-nasal-cannulae.html

I can show you an example of hyperventilation from excess oxygen.
And I can show you an example of people being hit on the head with an oxygen tank. Doesn't mean though they are suffocating from oxygen. As I said, you sound like a typing monkey, post self-contradictions, and make ZERO sense.
 
Last edited:


There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.
In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

Read the rest of the article


Testimony by Dr. Patrick Moore PhD. Feb. 25, 2014


 
Last edited:
@ Foundation_Of_Liberty

i didnt read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been covered.

can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?
what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?

do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?

is it possible to separate "global warming" from "mans mismanagement of the environment" ?
better yet, what do you think of mans management of his environment?

thanks,
 
@ Foundation_Of_Liberty

i didnt read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been covered.

can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?
what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?

do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?

is it possible to separate "global warming" from "mans mismanagement of the environment" ?
better yet, what do you think of mans management of his environment?

thanks,
The only just way to manage environment is through Private Property rights.

No one has the right to pollute his neighbors environment. Thus Free Market Private Property is the best and only just way to preserve the environment.
 
do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?

thanks,

of course, just like microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution and small doses of thimerisol ultimately guarantees you get autism or death.
 
The only just way to manage environment is through Private Property rights.

No one has the right to pollute his neighbors environment. Thus Free Market Private Property is the best and only just way to preserve the environment.

that assumes pollution can only be limited, confined and contained. this may be true if you're talking about dump yards and buildings, but not true if you're talking about air and water, which flows around.

what you seem to be suggesting, is that people would have a right to sue polluters IF ONLY they owned the land and air, and it's the government getting in the way of people owning more land and more air which is facilitating pollution. in current reality, the government enforces environmental protection on the basis that people can be affect even if they don't own any land or air, so the person need not be a property owner, he/she merely needs human rights and an imagined right to clean air and clean water.
 
Global warming.

12816081143_74e495aa57_b.jpg


I'm just not feeling it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PRB
that assumes pollution can only be limited, confined and contained. this may be true if you're talking about dump yards and buildings, but not true if you're talking about air and water, which flows around.

what you seem to be suggesting, is that people would have a right to sue polluters IF ONLY they owned the land and air, and it's the government getting in the way of people owning more land and more air which is facilitating pollution. in current reality, the government enforces environmental protection on the basis that people can be affect even if they don't own any land or air, so the person need not be a property owner, he/she merely needs human rights and an imagined right to clean air and clean water.

No, that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Public property is based on private property. Public property is defined as property to which all have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, each person's equal share in public property is his private property, and must not be violated.

If someone pollutes Public Property, he is actually violating Private Property of everyone, because, again, everyone's equal share in Public Property is their Private Property and thus, must not be violated.

Therefore, Private Property, being the bed-rock foundation of all other property types, takes care of the Public environment perfectly.

See more here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.
 
Last edited:
No, that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Public property is based on private property. Public property is defined as property to which all have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, each person's equal share in public property is his private property, and must not be violated.

If someone pollutes Public Property, he is actually violating Private Property of everyone, because, again, everyone's equal share in Public Property is their Private Property and thus, must not be violated.

Therefore, Private Property, being the bed-rock foundation of all other property types, takes care of the Public environment perfectly.

See more here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.
sounds good, in that case, it doesn't sound like you'd have a problem with national border enforcement
 
Talking about things we can ACTUALLY SEE.

article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg

Limbaugh took Rose’s misleading claims about Arctic sea ice, and then made them even wronger by saying the ice was at record size for this time of year. That is complete and utter bilge. The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations (think of a standard deviation like a letter grade; if the average is a C, then this year’s ice level is an F). The actual sea ice “death spiral” is dramatic, scary, and all too real.

www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html
 
I don't see government in my backyard, so it must not exist.

Either you aren't looking,,or you have no backyard.

Or Both.

Oh,, and it is -20F tonight.
In a state and county that I was born and raised in,, and weather I grew up with,, we are breaking records for cold this year.

Global warming is bullshit,, based on a thoroughly flawed computer program that was fed disinformation,, and for the purpose of imposing taxes on the air we breath.
Nothing more.
 
article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg

Limbaugh took Rose’s misleading claims about Arctic sea ice, and then made them even wronger by saying the ice was at record size for this time of year. That is complete and utter bilge. The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations (think of a standard deviation like a letter grade; if the average is a C, then this year’s ice level is an F). The actual sea ice “death spiral” is dramatic, scary, and all too real.

www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html
Yes, and you should end it by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes?!"

There is more ice there at the same time of year. Nothing you say can change that fact.
 
article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg

Yes, and you should end it by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes?!"

There is more ice there at the same time of year. Nothing you say can change that fact.

as if global warming means ice never increases, ever...lol

facts are useless without context. I guess using your logic, any increase in employment means there's no recession, depression or economic problem, because nothing you say can change the fact that employment has increased!

"The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations". You don't need to believe me, but it may help you if you stopped looking at only what you want to see.
 
Last edited:
as if global warming means ice never increases, ever...lol

facts are useless without context. I guess using your logic, any increase in employment means there's no recession, depression or economic problem, because nothing you say can change the fact that employment has increased!

"The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations". You don't need to believe me, but it may help you if you stopped looking at only what you want to see.

And it is a LIE.
I don't care what they say to attempt to justify and continue the LIE.
It is simply not true. It never has been. How hard is it to get through your head.
The Globe is not Warming, There were a couple years that were slightly warmer than normal. Not "caused" by anything other than normal earth cycles.

AL Gore is a lying Politician. The idiots that pushed this with false data fed into a flawed Computer Program to predict "Global Warming" were lying.
This has been proven and documented.
It never was anything but a Scam to create a TAX. To Line the pockets of the Scammers.

Global Warming never had any basis in fact. It was pushed to the point of Mass Hysteria.
And you bought it.

Oh,,and the shipload of "scientists" that went to document that decrease in polar ice,, got stuck in the ice hundreds of miles from where they were going. They were spectacularly WRONG.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top