Hate Al Gore all you want. Global warming is real

[Kansasdad]

Please answer this. How much carbon emissions does one volcano produce and how much carbon emissions did the US produce this entire decade?

Sure, annualized Carbon Emissions from resulting from human activity is roughly 150 times that resulting from Volcanic Activity.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference will any reductions we try to do make? Further we know that in the earths history we have seen carbon levels much higher then what we have today. Long before we had our industrial revolution. The Earth has seen spikes in the carbon before and it had nothing to do with humans. Now, are humans contributing to some of the carbon? Yes, but nature out does us every time we turn around. Just look at the energy released by one hurricane. Should we be good stewards of our planet, yes. But lets make sure it is really not about power and money.

Ok we put about 5 or 6 billion tonnes and nature puts 150. So we contribute about 3%. Lets say we can cut our emissions down by 30%. Now we will be contributing around 2%. Do you really think cutting 1% of the total carbon emissions will make a great difference?

God Bless,

K.D.

The 150 billion tons of carbon that is naturally emitted is naturally sequestered. Prior to the industrial revolution, natural carbon emissions were in balance with natural carbon sequestration. We have upset that balance and that is why CO2 ppm has increased steadily since the industrial revolution.

Actually forest I read through all this stuff and I knew you would bring up the "balance" issue. Dig a little deeper and you will see that the whole balance theory is based on assumption and not data. The saturation of carbon has seen periods of great flux and is in a constant state of change, so one can not claim a balance unless you are referring to a large amount of time to achieve the balance. If that is the argument then 150 years easily fits into just another part of the on going cycle that has occurred many many times. AND it still does not account for the fact that we still can only attribute at max 3% of the total to human activity, and realistically how much of that 3% can we eliminate? And would it make one squat bit of difference.

I also know by reading through pages of arguments on this that it is far too complicated to "argue" on this forum so lets not go there. My point is that we can do all the things some are suggesting and it will make no impact on the problem. The agenda behind the dramatic changes, tax increases, and mandated programs is money, period.

God Bless,

K.D.

[forrestkc]

Actually forest I read through all this stuff and I knew you would bring up the "balance" issue. Dig a little deeper and you will see that the whole balance theory is based on assumption and not data. The saturation of carbon has seen periods of great flux and is in a constant state of change, so one can not claim a balance unless you are referring to a large amount of time to achieve the balance. If that is the argument then 150 years easily fits into just another part of the on going cycle that has occurred many many times. AND it still does not account for the fact that we still can only attribute at max 3% of the total to human activity, and realistically how much of that 3% can we eliminate? And would it make one squat bit of difference.

I also know by reading through pages of arguments on this that it is far too complicated to "argue" on this forum so lets not go there. My point is that we can do all the things some are suggesting and it will make no impact on the problem. The agenda behind the dramatic changes, tax increases, and mandated programs is money, period.

God Bless,

K.D.

Well I think what the IPCC is stating is that we need to make a 90% reduction of Carbon Emissions resulting from human activity by 2050 to mitigate future warming. Of course, even if we had zero emissions going forward, we would still warm at least another degree or so. Moreover, if you look at the peer reviewed science on this, over the last few years there is a lot of hard data on the carbon cycle.

What we have to do though is avoid warming in excess of 2 degrees Celsius worldwide. It is at that point that warming shifts from being just a problem to something catastrophic. In fact, the world bank did a study last year that found that the costs of mitigating Anthropogenic Global Warming would be about 1% of Global GDP Per year. The costs of dealing with unmitigated Global Warming will be about 20% of Global GDP per year. The fact is, we have the technology to do this, we just don't have the political will yet.

[Fraught]

i'm going to be the paranoid one again.

i am afraid that the global warming issue is over-hype for a purpose and that the purpose is get the public to agree to build more nuclear power plants.

one previous poster has said it is much safer now. i don't know about that. i do know that the government is able to get the general public hyped-up and scared of something so as to make them change their mind over something they previously would not accept. (like nuclear rods that never go away)

[JustinM]

i'm going to be the paranoid one again.

i am afraid that the global warming issue is over-hype for a purpose and that the purpose is get the public to agree to build more nuclear power plants.

one previous poster has said it is much safer now. i don't know about that. i do know that the government is able to get the general public hyped-up and scared of something so as to make them change their mind over something they previously would not accept. (like nuclear rods that never go away)

If that were the case, most of the pollution from creating energy would go away, therefore eliminating one of the "causes" of global warming. Too many people have invested too much money into the global warming scare, to just simply give it up, there's too much money to be made, in "carbon offsets" and carbon taxes, and also by selling anti-global warming stuff.

What is wrong with nuclear energy? We have the technology to develop miniature nuclear reactors that could provide electricity at a local, county or even smaller level. Right now, though, too much environmentalist interferance and litigation makes the cost of building those reactors much more expensive than, they're worth. Besides, it takes nearly 20 years just to build a new refinery or power plant.

We can thank the environmentalists for this. Our restrictions and legal system are being abused in order to discourage industrial progress. Many environmentalists dream of the day when we will all live in grass huts and run around in hemp loin cloths again, or better yet, cease to exist as a species.

[hr.jr.]

Global warming may be real. Who really cares? China and India are the big polluters now. We should be concerned with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They are a much more imminant threat to life as we know it than Global warming. Iran is attempting to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth with nuclear weapons, and all the Democrats can Jabber about is global warming. I would suggest that when Iran and Syria start a war with Israel and Isral unleashes her "Samson Option," that no one will really care if it is 1/10th of a degree warmer at the North Pole.

[JustinM]

Global warming may be real. Who really cares? China and India are the big polluters now. We should be concerned with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They are a much more imminant threat to life as we know it than Global warming. Iran is attempting to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth with nuclear weapons, and all the Democrats can Jabber about is global warming. I would suggest that when Iran and Syria start a war with Israel and Isral unleashes her "Samson Option," that no one will really care if it is 1/10th of a degree warmer at the North Pole.

They also won't care about the latest socialist propostion for our nation.

[forrestkc]

If that were the case, most of the pollution from creating energy would go away, therefore eliminating one of the "causes" of global warming. Too many people have invested too much money into the global warming scare, to just simply give it up, there's too much money to be made, in "carbon offsets" and carbon taxes, and also by selling anti-global warming stuff.

What is wrong with nuclear energy? We have the technology to develop miniature nuclear reactors that could provide electricity at a local, county or even smaller level. Right now, though, too much environmentalist interferance and litigation makes the cost of building those reactors much more expensive than, they're worth. Besides, it takes nearly 20 years just to build a new refinery or power plant.

We can thank the environmentalists for this. Our restrictions and legal system are being abused in order to discourage industrial progress. Many environmentalists dream of the day when we will all live in grass huts and run around in hemp loin cloths again, or better yet, cease to exist as a species.

Yeah, its all the enviros fault. You might be surprised to learn that many environmentalist organizations actually do support nuclear power over coal power plants. You can blame the public for why we are not building nuclear power plants, no one wants one in their community and that is true regardless of their political affiliation.

Earlier you mentioned oil refineries. You guys want to blame everyone for our problems but the people that actually created them. The reason why oil refinery capacity is maxed out in this country has nothing at all to do with environmentalists. For that, you need to blame good old big oil, they intentionally cut their own refinery capacity in the 90s to intentionally constrain capacity, and thus boost prices.

Just read the Oil Companies own memos from the 90s:

Texico

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf

Mobile

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=5110

Chevron

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5103.pdf

You will notice such statements in the memos as:

"[T]he most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline."

Mobile discusses how the company promoted tough regulations in California to shut down an independent refiner. Thats not the enviros that shut down the refineries, its the oil companies themselves, and now, after they shut down refineries, they are using high gas prices as leverage to get more subsidies and less regulation to open up the refineries that they themselves chose to shut down. Those are their own internal memos.

Once we start putting blame where it should really lie, we find that these evil environmentalists that the righties just love to demonize are really the good guys.

[Guest]

Oh No!

Temperature's Rising, Old Gore's Advising - Temper's Are Flaring, Words Are A Blaring

Bible Gathering Dust, It's Worst Than Engine Rust - Weather Man Stop Your Cast, Only The WORD Will Last

Please Forgive The Goofy Rhymes, Must Be These Oh So Hot Times (Or Not)

THE ROCK

Where The Heart's At

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Proverbs 3:5-6

Bowed To God's Chat

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Matthew 7:24-25

By Faith Stands Pat

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Hebrews 11:6

Future Cast - Stewardship, The Lord's Business And Prosperity

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

Psalms 122:6

Maranatha!

Got The Need To Clean The Earth? Start With The Heart And Believe!

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

Hallelujah!

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Guest Biblicist]

Joe... YOU ROCK!

[Hunterpoet]

When the alarmists can explain why the temperature is rising on Mars and other planets also, they will find that there isn't much humans can do to have an impact on the weather of our solar system.

Uh, scientists do know why the temperature is rising on Mars.

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

Click here to find out more!

Kate Ravilious

for National Geographic News

April 4, 2007

Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

If you guys were not so knee jerk to everything science, you might figure out that these "stupid scientists" in reality are pretty smart.

Yes they are pretty smart. When I was 12 they predicted another ice age, when I was 21 they said we would run out of oil,

when I was 49 they said they found rocks in siberia that were from mars and now they are telling me that my pick up truck is causing global warming. They have also told us that yellow mustard causes arteriosclerosis, smoking helps prevent altzhiemers and that drinking 2 shots of booze a day is good for your heart.

As far as their knowledge of mars and other planets...yeah, so what....how does this affect us.

I don't think the knee jerk reaction is limited to the folks here at worthy, from what I've seen over the past 50 years the scientific knee has jerked a few times itself.

G-d bless