Climate Change Is Extremely Political And Agenda Serving, Unfortunately It Is Also True

[BeyondET]

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I am asking why you fear global warming and Co2.  Based on what do you have this fear?

I don't fear it at all, it is what it is. I do think man can effect earth with its machines, earth is quite delicate. I wasn't kidding when i mentioned that a man-made dam capable of slowing earth's rotation just a fraction but still. 

Either choice in energy is going to cost its the world. But non fossil fuel applications makes sense regardless if someone is making money, companies have already been doing it to the population for years.

Edited November 11, 2022 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

52 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

I don't fear it at all, it is what it is. I do think man can effect earth with its machines, earth is quite delicate. I wasn't kidding when i mentioned that a man-made dam capable of slowing earth's rotation just a fraction but still. 

Either choice in energy is going to cost its the world. But non fossil fuel applications makes sense regardless if someone is making money, companies have already been doing it to the population for years.

I am talking about Climate Change, not pollution or using oil, or any of that.  It does not sound like you have any evidence of it.

[BeyondET]

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

I am talking about Climate Change, not pollution or using oil, or any of that.  It does not sound like you have any evidence of it.

It wouldn't matter what evidence shown, you wouldn't even consider it no how.

[servant4christ]

14 hours ago, Sparks said:

I noticed you are a little light on evidence for that. 

https://www.desmog.com/science-and-public-policy-institute/

Unsurprisingly, Heartland Institute is also financially supported by Exxon Mobil.

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

It wouldn't matter what evidence shown, you wouldn't even consider it no how.

What matters is that you never show the evidence.

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, servant4christ said:

https://www.desmog.com/science-and-public-policy-institute/

Unsurprisingly, Heartland Institute is also financially supported by Exxon Mobil.

I thank you for this link, but I don't see that SPPI was sponsored by Exxon from this document.  Instead, SPPI was a co-sponsor of the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change that might have stood along side Exxon, although according to the program for the conference itself where sponsors and co-sponsors are proudly listed, I could not find Exxon's name listed when I did a quick search.  See the attached PDF, and scroll all the way down to see the sponsor's bios.  There are lot of other 'despicables' listed, though.

Even if SPPI had been directly sponsored by Exxon, I don't see the offensive issue.  Except for the The Exxon Valdez oil spill, how is Exxon different from any other oil company?

If you can trust a liberal activist's blog (Desmog Blog), it appears that Heartland was given funds from Exxon.  If it is true, how does this counter the lies of the IPPC, and their failed predictions?

ICCC6.pdf

[Eman_3]

On 11/11/2022 at 12:13 PM, Sparks said:

On 11/11/2022 at 10:49 AM, BeyondET said:

It wouldn't matter what evidence shown, you wouldn't even consider it no how.

What matters is that you never show the evidence.

The beginning of burning oil kicked into high gear at the turn of the 20th century. Oil is extracted from the ground, converted into consumable fuel, and carbon dioxide is released into the air. Carbon dioxide is considered a "greenhouse gas" because it reflects the heat coming off the ground back to the ground. The sunlight passes right through because of it's wavelength. But the heat reflected from the ground is of a wavelength that  carbon dioxide does reflect back.

The problem is that nature's method took time, carbon dioxide was slowly buried into the ground, and slowly released. But mankind's activities now release approximately 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

 

[Sparks]

3 minutes ago, Eman_3 said:

The beginning of burning oil kicked into high gear at the turn of the 20th century. Oil is extracted from the ground, converted into consumable fuel, and carbon dioxide is released into the air. Carbon dioxide is considered a "greenhouse gas" because it reflects the heat coming off the ground back to the ground. The sunlight passes right through because of it's wavelength. But the heat reflected from the ground is of a wavelength that  carbon dioxide does reflect back.

The problem is that nature's method took time, carbon dioxide was slowly buried into the ground, and slowly released. But mankind's activities now release approximately 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

Sorry, I have seen too much of the fake math debunked, and the temperature stations all over the world placed wrong, fabricated computer models, and I just know it's a scam. 

But thanks for your reply.

[Eman_3]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

But thanks for your reply.

And I wish to reciprocate by thanking you for the respectful reply.

Obviously we differ in our conclusions.

[S33k3r]

On 10/10/2022 at 3:45 PM, Space_Karen said:

An attempt at proving climate change true in 3 parts.

1. Over the last 2,000 years humans have cut down more than 50% of natural forests on the planet to make way for highways, shopping malls, real estate development, factories and farmland. 

2. The hardness of a diamond comes from its carbon content. Likewise the hardness of wood and trees comes from carbon they absorb from the soil and atmosphere. A single acre of forest can store (sequester) tons of carbon over time. 

3. People having chopped down more than 50% of forests in the world. Should it have a negative effect on the planet's capacity to absorb and store carbon? What would we expect to happen to a human populated base on mars with a small forest of plants and trees to generate oxygen and scrub carbon from breathable air, if more than 50% of their plants and trees were lost? 

 

Even if climate change is real.

I'm not a fan of Greta Thunberg. Not a fan of protestors blocking roads and highways in protest of climate change. Not a fan of politicians and activists using climate change as an excuse to push agendas. 

That said.

Imagine the audacity of people thinking they're entitled to chop down more than half of the forests on their planet, without it having any consequences or negative effects whatsoever. 

The Climate is changing, or at least the weather, drastically. There is no doubt. 

As to the cause, we have been told nothing officially that is the Truth on the matter.