TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Global Warming 'very likely' man made.
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]
This guy disagrees..
| quote: |
| President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. In an interview with "Hospod�rsk� noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions: Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?� A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.� This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.� Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...� A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. � Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?� A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.� Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.� Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.� Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?� A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.� Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...� A: ...I am right...� Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?� A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.� Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?� A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.� It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.� That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX To whoever its using Wikipedia to use as reliable data its scary.. Id go to Peer-review scientific articles. They may be very complex in language but you get a better idea there. I dont know why some people want their word against most if not all of the scintific community. blah I still dont know what is it that people don't understand about human behaviors effect on climate change. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium See two posts up (my posts) for a link to a scholar report on this issue, referenced well including some Ph.D's. The truth is, there are Ph.Ds on both side of the issue. So what? |
| quote: |
| I wouldn't take a bullet. Why? Because first of all, this is not going to happen. |
| quote: |
| And the issue is not LESS people, because people, our civilization especially do damage anyways, like the globally attributed extinction of horses in North America due to humans, according to some experts in book LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT. |
| quote: |
| There's strong evidence that humans caused the extinction of mammoth as well. But thats of course debatable. |
| quote: |
| I think overall humans are bad. if it meant that 99.9% of humans perished, leaving with permanently less than 500 million in total and stay that way, and if the damage to Earth done by us is restored, its well worth sacrifice, to take the bullet. That way I would know that something positive has been achieved. |
| quote: |
| The reason taking the bullet is worthless right now is because I know, I am certain that most of humans will be wiped out sometime in the future for any number of reasons: disease, climate change affecting food supplies/production, war, possibly nuclear annihilation with all the WMD's all of us have especially the western world, destruction of environment. |
| quote: |
| For me our current advancements for most part are meaningless. Watching TV 4 hours a day is a stupid accomplishment, when there's so much to learn, explore, love ... Its stagnant. People spend boring lives in their "boxes" (homes), doing daily repetitive chores, not caring or not doing anything about the important issues, surrounded and enchanted by our lifestyle that goes against nature and naturall ways in so many aspects ... |
| quote: |
| Most people in developed world cant afford or dont want or dont have time for more than one child. Thats why our population is naturally dropping. |
| quote: |
| While in Africa, Asia, people live in terrible poor conditions, barely enough to survive ... earning a dollar a day in most parts, and yet decide to have 5,6,8,10 children. Where's the logic? Why create the conditions for the children's suffering? |
| quote: |
| Why should we be blamed for that? If you help one child, and then the family has even more children (as their population is booming), how much of a difference will your donation do? |
| quote: |
| Education is much more important, invest in buying condoms for these people and invest in their education system would save many more children from suffering. |
| quote: |
| All life is important. |
| quote: |
| I cant make a decision here, both deserve to live. Tree is life, child is life. |
| quote: |
| I hate when people think that trees are insignificant. Well, they say, cut down one tree no big deal. Equal logic is kill one child it wont make much difference either. Tree, however, is more important to the child and its surroundings than a baby because tree provides life, home, support for other life. |
| quote: |
| Baby, when grows up, takes advantage of tree's resources, often in a terrible negative way. If trees are gone, this will destroy us. On the other hand, with or without a child means nothing to the tree. The tree does what is has evolved to do. The child in the long run is more damaging than a tree. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I know time will tell, common sense prevails ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Consensus by scholarly association would be yeah the earths' ice caps are melting and we have colder winters and warmer summers or colder summers and warmer winters. The same would be for wikipedia. Consensus by stupidity if 100 people say something is fact in wikipedia, just like Stephen Colbert was alluding to. |
| quote: |
I don't mean it right now. But when the time comes and the balance of nature lies in the extinction and extermination of man, would you sacrifice yourself? After all there are no humans in those tree hugging commercials if you actually watch them. Just happy bears, frogs, elephants but no humans yessiree boss. |
| quote: |
The issue is not less people but the solution. Not one that I agree with, but just one the tree hugger types ignore. |
| quote: |
Horses were not native to North America until the conquistadors brought them over. Some might argue that there were species of horses tens of thousands of years ago. But contemporary history shows us that the Spanish brought them over. |
| quote: |
There's strong evidence that humans are making themselves extinct due to issues on preserving nature. But that is debatable as well. |
| quote: |
Make up your friggin mind already. See previous post |
| quote: |
Enough with the flip-flopping "I don't know what brand of toothpaste to buy" nonsense. |
| quote: |
But seriously why run around all confused when you can still beat them to the punch. |
| quote: |
Yours is a mind ripe for brain washing. Oops too late. |
| quote: |
Just because you say so doesn't make it fact. |
| quote: |
By that logic you mean kill off any that are living now? They're useless eaters aren't they? Just like you. |
| quote: |
Everyone that is for abortion or population control do not realize they're alive because their parents wanted them alive. If you had a say in your probable abortion you would scream out "hey, not me kill some other kid". Thats' the whole point they've just educated you into that useless dribble on population control. They got you in their box and you don't even acknowledge it. |
| quote: |
Simple: if that child was you wouldn't you want to live? But forget what I just said since you're more tied up in useless tripe on conservationism to actually be able to save your own life. People live in houses not trees. Trees and humans have seeds. Hence biology in it's simplest of forms. If tree falls on a person how is the person doing harm if they sit in their house or car when struck by a tree? Don't pretend trees don't kill people. So does lightning, rain, snow and oceans for starters. Nature adapts, look at the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl and Mount Saint Helen's destructions of natural resources and natures' eventual comeback. But they got suckers, err I mean people like you to believe the sky is falling. I doubt you can be a standard bearer for common sense. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Is Al Gore, Thom Hartmann, Carl Sagan and others not experts in the field? |
| quote: |
| How come you are all of a sudden the judge of who's right and who's wrong? Its debatable, and just because you stick to the bandwagon doesnt mean its right, history has shown this over and over. Many of the Wikipedia articles I've posted are linked and referenced, in some cases are books, reports, articles by scientists, historical data, etc..... Throw in these above authors for my support base of arguments, they've just made the wrong conclusions on the facts. But I guess these people are wrong, too? You are right, they are wrong! Eh? |
| quote: |
| Yeah, sure, if you're OK that this will come at the cost of many species of frogs/bears/elephants extinct because of direct human actions. |
| quote: |
| You dont get it. Nature can live quite fine and prosperous without us, and yet we can't live without it. Put that in emphasis. |
| quote: |
| Haha, wrong. There was horses before in North America. Strangely, everywhere humans migrated to, it has coincided with extinction of some large mammals. |
| quote: |
| Here's a professional paper on that: http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/Publ...ceMastadons.pdf |
| quote: |
| Ummmm ... lemme guess - the rising human population is the evidence for that? |
| quote: |
| I am sorry to sound rude, but I've said it many times, and aren't my posts long enough for you to understand my point, or you just skipped through the material? I stated clearly that there's a difference between climate change / global warming and human-induced extinctions of species, pollution bla bla. Issue of emissions cuts have little or nothing to do with extinctions or destruction of rainforest, for that matter - because most of the destruction is caused not because of climate change, but because of us and for the millionth time - no Kyoto Protocol will EVER EVER EVER stop the destruction of environment, pollution. Please pay attention. |
| quote: |
| Bwahahaha ... Oh, my, you crazy Kyoto Protocol hippies make me sick. The environment is doomed because of such dumb policies. |
| quote: |
| Great way to deal with issues at hand ... beat up the opponent and problems will be solved! |
| quote: |
| Yours lack common sense. Tell me, what do you see at the end of the Kyoto Protocol? Stablilization of world temperatures? Reversal of environmental destruction? Decrease of human population? Less pollution emitted? You are so dead wrong, you are brainwashed, I am just using common sense. |
| quote: |
| Anything can be proven wrong nowadays, especially with lack of common sense and twisting of information. Whats at hand, the basic information, the history especially is nearly always ignored by humankind and thats why we're doomed. We will continue making the same dumb mistakes over and over again, as shown by history. |
| quote: |
| Yes, I am quite useless to the environment. We abuse it, we pillage it, we give nothing positive back. Thats a great contribution to the life cycle. The happy ride will end one way or another - at this pace an inevitable immediate and painful crash of civilization is at hand. Planning to fix problems in the future is a futile task, putting things off for later will not solve the problem. |
| quote: |
| Population control is a doomed strategy. Tell it to China, who passed the one-child policy in late 1970s, and look how badly its working in China. First of all, the population is on the rise. Secondly: Wifeless future for China's men http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6346931.stm Plus think of the murder of the many thousands of female babies in India and China ... yeah, and that solved what problems? As for the birth control issue, I'd rather not discuss it here, its irrelevant to the topic. Also, we are alive because nature led it happen, and our suicidal methods of focking up our only known place in the universe to sustain life is very pathetic. We are a pathetic, dumb, ignorant human race. |
| quote: |
| Hahaha .... well, well, nature doesnt adapt, its is forced to try harder to SURVIVE. Tell it to the concentration camp survivors - they couldn't adapt (many of them died, sadly), they did everything possible to survive as long as possible. Nature is TRYING TO SURVIVE, not trying to ADAPT - adaptation is not the explanation for the high number of extinct species - did those manage to adapt? ADAPT is a dumb word for those who are trying to justify the continuous plunder of resources by humans. Yeah, try to adapt when you're stripped of basic needs for survival - in case of many species its either fresh clean water (aquifers) or space for existence. A deer cannot adapt to roads, they dont understand traffic signals very well, their intelligence is not like ours. |
| quote: |
| Natural cycle has been broken, we are a threat to the stability of life on this planet. And we cant stop ourselves, the statistics speak for themselves. Lack of proper education is one of the reasons, ignorance is another of many others. |
| quote: |
| Plants make their own food, and we, other creatures NEED plants to live. Tell me this - who is more important - humans or plants? Noone needs humans - we are a menace not only to others but to ourselves, we cant establish an equilibrium with nature as all other life has. Yet everyone needs plants/autotrophs, every lifeform depends of them, even in oceans (plankton are considered to be the most important lifeform by many). Judging by our (human) actions of the last 6000+ years, pattern and statistics of what we've done, it would be very dumb and ignorant for me to believe that we will ever stop the damage. So I stick to common sense, to facts, statistics .. you rely on some global warming crap that will not solve anything because quite frankly its the trees that convert CO2 to oxygen than smokestacks. We should therefore stop cutting trees (not provided by Kyoto) because they cut down CO2 levels along with oceans. Cutting smokestacks will not decrease destruction of forests. And when people will realize that Kyoto has failed miserably, it will be too late. 6+ billion of people today will make much more damage to the environment than much smaller populations of previous generations, who inflicted heavy damage as well (see book COLLAPSE - How societies choose to fail or succeed) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. Psychotherapist Thom Hartmann I know nothing about, nor care since I don't listen to talk radio. Carl Sagan, since you like wikipedia, has redacted a few of his ideas and he was a pot smoker: Carl Sagan: toking astronomer. But this is normal behavior coming from people that are put on pedestals. I believe you're wrong should I go against my instinct and join you? No I don't think so and you have a problem with that because you keep replying. Let's forget about over-population of animals that have to be put down in order to "balance nature". Yeah let's forget where we have to help nature by killing it before it overkills itself. If at times there is over-population of the animal species should we leave them alone so they can die off in larger numbers? see previous post Contemporary: 1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources. What is the History of Wild Horses in North America? Although horses evolved in North America there are many different opinions as to why no horses or burros existed on this continent at the time of European exploration. Spanish explorers reintroduced horses to North America beginning in the late fifteenth century and Native Americans helped spread horses throughout the Great Plains and the West. Until as recently as the mid-twentieth century, horses continued to be released onto public lands by the U.S. cavalry, farmers, ranchers, and miners. Contemporary proof, in this case would be that there were no horses prior to the Spanish introducing them in NA. The theory (not fact) is that they where there millions of years ago. There is a difference. In cased you missed this: "Numerous anthropological and ecological hypotheses have been proposed to explain the extinction of many large-bodied mammals at the terminal Pleistocene" or "Furthermore, as with the climate change hypothesis, the disease hypothesis does not easily explain the size selectivity of the extinction." You've missed the point of sarcasm. Hypothesis: Assumption, theory, guess, conjecture are synonyms. You make no sense with all your replies combined. Last time I checked, plants need CO2 which the Kyoto Protocols state should be reduced. More CO2 would make plants thrive more. They produce Oxygen as waste and last time I check we need oxygen to live and in return we give off CO2. What don't you get if it's basic biology and a cycle of life? Plants need water too so more water means more plants and more plants need more water. It's so simple you don't see it. So I had to dumb it down for you. Being that you must have skipped your English as a second language course let me explain: Beat to the punch means to make the first decisive move. I don't follow the protocol, nor will ever since I am not in treaty with the UN. If one is in treaty with another then they would have to honor the treaty and lose sovereignty to the signatory. But this topic is about global warming and not contracts. If only you heeded to your own words. I am looking out for number one, me. Sounds like deja vu. This is what I mean by you being an unknowing shill, you repeat what they want you to say. You're paraphrasing an old Pogo cartoon quote: "we have met the enemy and he is us". Adapt: Synonyms are adjust, conform, alter, change and assimilate. Global warming/cooling or climate change is an theoretical ideology bordering on religion. Although deer are stupid, they are a good food source. All that typing over a theory that your capitalizing on. Try conceptualizing on the fact that you'll be dead one day and live for yourself now. You just keep running on about stuff in a confused state of mind. What you should be concerned with is your family and food on the table. If not them and you want to do good, then the local homeless should be your next step. Or become a big brother to some orphan or only child. Scratch that idea about the kid, you might mess up his mind with that tree hugger crap. To answer the first question: Humans, since they are harder to replace than plants. Women conceive (normally) one child at a time. Plants offer many spores or seeds that can take root. Smokestacks, in your example, can be fitted with air cleansing technology to reclaim waste gasses and solids. If you've ever worked in a auto painting shop you would see water filtration of air for example. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I said it a billion times on this thread that CO2 IS VERY GOOD (you missed mym earllier points, HAAHAHAHAHA), and Kyoto is bad because it is trying to cut it down. Its you who thinks I am only helping your points, THIS IS my point. I dont care aboout the misery of humankind. Quite frankly, I'll give money to rebuild nature than rebuild our destructive character. Human misery means nothing to me considering how much misery WE, HUMANS, have inflicted on nature. I am not singling anyone out. Just because I didnt cut any trees doesnt mean I am innocent, as both you, me, others have directly been responsible by buying the products of this destruction. You care about homeless people - well, when our food production will suffer a blow from the developing natural calamities, we'll see about who's you'll care about. OH WAIT, you already said you care about YOURSELF first, and thats what people do. They dont give a flying fock about no nature problem. Me first, whatever else is later. And thats my whole point. |
Magnetonium, you need to read and understand Blackman's law re: CO2 and plants.
I won't get into pissing match over this as its basic biology.
good gawd dude its class 101, you do understand the concept of a chain?
every link depends on each and every link in the chain. change just one link...
More CO2 = greater need for water/nutrients.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dale Gribble Magnetonium, you need to read and understand Blackman's law re: CO2 and plants. I won't get into pissing match over this as its basic biology. good gawd dude its class 101, you do understand the concept of a chain? every link depends on each and every link in the chain. change just one link... More CO2 = greater need for water/nutrients. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium More CO2 - more oxygen because plants convert CO2 to oxygen. Higher levels of CO2 result in explosion of life, because CO2 is fuel for plants to live, their food. Life was abundant, diverse before dinosaurs were extinguished, because of abundance of CO2. Even spiders, bugs, trees WERE GINANTIC - because there was so much food for plants and animals ... However, today there are less trees every day, so not enough CO2 converters to do the job. CO2 makes up ONLY 0.4 percent of atmosphere. Is that too much? This number WILL DECREASE and has been decreasing over the hundreds of thousands of years up until recently, because plants store carbon in the ground, not all is released back for the cycle - there's a reason why millions of years ago there was a lot more CO2 in atmosphere and today, over the long period of time it is a small number now. Nitrogen is increasing in the atmosphere as a result, and oxygen is decreasing. Some scientists estimate that anywhere from 20 million years from now the drastically low levels of CO2 and dropping levels of oxygen will make our atmosphere unsustainable to life. If you are saying that high levels of CO2 is poisinous to life, what about the Kambrian explosion (sorry for bad spelling), what about the dinosaur era? There were higher amounts of BOTH CO2 AND oxygen it atmosphere. Plants loved, animals loved it because there was lots of plants. Cut off 0.4 percent of C02 to less and we'll see who will suffer. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MrSquirrel You are just making this up aren't you? Put forth some sources on your surmissions about CO2 levels decreasing. MrS |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium blah blah blah kyoto protocol blah blah blah |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium "human misery means nothing to me considering how much misery WE, HUMANS, have inflicted on nature." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LoneGunman (another forum) The powers that be have long been following various global depopulation agenda's - the general thinking being not that there should be an improvement in all lives, but that the world population itself, needs to be culled down in order to maintain life for the 'elite' populations. Despite the fact that Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture....rchive%5C200212 %5CCUL20021206b.html Here's a page dedicated to Henry Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fo...sm_jb_1995.html Here's a report: The plan to poison S-E Asia http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...l?oneclick=true "World-famous microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the Nobel prize winner revered as Australia's greatest medical research scientist, secretly urged the government to develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia. The revelation is contained in top-secret files declassified by the National Archives of Australia, despite resistance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases." Here's a 1991 quote from oceanographer Jacques Cousteau: "The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics � it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer....This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it�s just as bad not to say it." Against this backdrop of thinking, its not surprising that we read U.S. to create a bird flu virus mutation http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...30452-8400r.htm "Atlanta, GA, Mar. 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has begun a series of experiments to see how likely the bird flu virus could result in a human pandemic.. The six-month series of experiments seeks to simulate the mixing and matching of genes from the H5N1 avian flu virus that has plagued Asia and a common human flu virus that public-health experts fear could turn avian flu into a pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. CDC scientists inside an ultra-secure laboratory have started swapping the genes of the H5N1 avian virus with the genes of an H3N2 virus, the strain behind most recent human flu outbreaks." It's also not surprising that this current SA government seems to be not minding that 600 people a day are dying from AID's. (If they 'cared' we'd see emergency measures and major clampdowns and enforced testing) speeches of 'concern' while 600 deaths a day continue, indicate its exactly what they want in reality. A useful removal of 'excess people' - who'll never be needed to be employed, schooled, housed, fed. Good for the ANC budget projections. Callous, sure - but absolutely in keeping and in line with the overall global depopulation agenda. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 I never said I believe in the kyoto protocol nor even support it. You're your own enemy but savor this knowledge: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium First, read about how good oxygen was to early lifeforms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe That shows that its not about "poisoning", life evolves to sustain in CO2, oxygen, methane, nitrogen compositions. It is CO2 today that is in danger of decline - 0.4% (proof for this can be found anywhere, from high school biology books, to britannica and wikipedia) is a much smaller number than before, though not necessarily the smallest amount in the last million years. "Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly 78% nitrogen,21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to water vapor. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air." http://des.memphis.edu/lurbano/Geog...er_03/img7.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...proportions.svg BY MASS COMPOSITION: 75.523% nitrogen 23.133% oxygen 1.288% argon 0.053% carbon dioxide 0.001267% neon 0.00029% methane 0.00033% krypton 0.000724% helium 0.0000038 % hydrogen I ACTUALLY LIED, THE ATMOSPHERE IS MADE NOT FROM 0.4% CO2, BUT ACTUALLY 0.04%!!!!! HAHAHA .... LOL |
| quote: |
"One of the earliest types of bacteria were the cyanobacteria. Fossil evidence indicates that bacteria shaped like these existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms. They were responsible for the initial conversion of the earth's atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic state (that is, from a state without oxygen to a state with oxygen) during the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere. Photosynthesising plants would later evolve and convert more carbon dioxide into oxygen. Over time, excess carbon became locked in fossil fuels, sedimentary rocks (notably limestone), and animal shells. As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to release nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen. But most of the modern day level of nitrogen are due mostly to sunlight-powered photolysis of ammonia released steadily over the aeons from volcanoes. As more plants appeared, the levels of oxygen increased significantly, while carbon dioxide levels dropped. At first the oxygen combined with various elements (such as iron), but eventually oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, resulting in mass extinctions and further evolution. With the appearance of an ozone layer (ozone is an allotrope of oxygen) lifeforms were better protected from ultraviolet radiation. This oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere is the "third atmosphere". 200 - 250 million years ago, up to 35 percent of the atmosphere was oxygen (bubbles of ancient atmosphere were found in an amber). This modern atmosphere has a composition which is enforced by oceanic blue-green algae as well as geological processes. O2 does not remain naturally free in an atmosphere, but tends to be consumed (by inorganic chemical reactions, as well as by animals, bacteria, and even land plants at night), while CO2 tends to be produced by respiration and decomposition and oxidation of organic matter. Oxygen would vanish within a few million years due to chemical reactions and CO2 dissolves easily in water and would be gone in millennia if not replaced. Both are maintained by biological productivity and geological forces seemingly working hand-in-hand to maintain reasonably steady levels over millions of years." REFERENCES: Alfv�n, Hannes; Gustaf Arrhenius (1976). �ORIGIN OF THE EARTH'S OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE�, Evolution of the Solar System. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. |
| quote: |
"In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller sent an electrical current through a chamber containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, yielding amino acids, considered to be the building blocks of life. "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept." In the new CU-Boulder and UW scenario, it is a hydrogen and CO2-dominated atmosphere that leads to the production of organic molecules, not the methane and ammonia atmosphere used in Miller's experiment, Toon said. Tian and other team members said the collaborative research effort will continue. The duration of the hydrogen-rich atmosphere era on early Earth is still unknown, they said." REFERENCE: http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348 (Professors, Ph.D's doing experiments proving importance of CO2) |
| quote: |
After all, plants came first. They needed CO2, not oxygen to live. CO2 is very important for life to exist. The main point of this report, well-referenced and detailed, is to show that CO2 is a positive aspect of current developments. Human destruction is not. "Air pollution is a chemical, physical (e.g. particulate matter), or biological agent that modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. Stratospheric ozone depletion due to air pollution has long been recognized as a threat to human health as well as to the earth's ecosystems. Worldwide air pollution is responsible for large numbers of deaths and cases of respiratory disease. Enforced air quality standards, like the Clean Air Act in the United States, have reduced the presence of some pollutants. While major stationary sources are often identified with air pollution, the greatest source of emissions are actually mobile sources, principally the automobile. Gases such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming, have recently gained recognition as pollutants." THERE'S THE PROBLEM, not C02. We need CO2. There's only 0.04 percent of it in atmosphere, and its been dropping in the last few million years, and eventually if the drop continues it will extinguish life, as stated by Ph.D's, scientists alike. |
| quote: |
Hmmm, below article: "If 10 years' growth of the Amazon rainforest were released in one year's fires this would add an additional 10 x 1.7 = 17 ppm C02 into the atmosphere in that year. If the Amazon rainforest becomes savannah then 90% of the carbon currently locked up in bio-mass would be released. Can we estimate how much carbon this represents? Assume trees at 20 metre spacing, therefore 5 x 5 = 25 trees per hectare. (100m x 100m) Assume 10 tons of carbon per tree, therefore 25 x 10 = 250 tons of carbon per hectare. 1 square km = 100 hectares. Therefore weight of carbon = 25,000 tons / sq. km. The total area of the Amazon rainforest = 4,000,000 sq. kms. approx. Therefore weight of carbon in trees = 25,000 x 4,000,000 = 100 billion tons If 90% of this carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2 this would increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.9 x 100 x 0.85 (see (B) above) = 76 ppm. The increases in atmospheric CO2 levels described above are significant increases when compared to historic levels (280 ppm in 1850 and 170ppm.in the recent geological past) and also the rate of change is accelerating. We are entering unknown territory. However we can project what might happen on the basis of what we do know and the possibilities are awesome. These possibilities will be described in future articles to be published soon." http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/jo...bal_warming.htm YEAH, SURE, emissions cuts will stop CO2 increases, specially from deforestation (sarcasm) ... YEAH! AND RAINFORESTS ARE GETTING CUT DOWN RIGHT NOW, LOTS OF TREES! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Irrelevant, your confusing effect size with volume. There does not need to be an incredible amount of volume to produce an incredible effect, you're using false logic. Also it would serve you well in your arguments to stop thinking that we are at the beginning of the earth when single cellular organisms thrived with CO2. Humans, i.e. us, do not thrive on CO2. Don't believe me? Go lock yourself in the garage with your car on and see how that goes. About the atmosphere of today: Again, this is irrelevant to the effect CO2 is having NOW on our climate. The earths biological composition is not the same as it was millions of years ago. We don't have the same cyanobacteria, we don't have the same abundance of trees and other CO2 absorbing organisms. Get over these old models. There is a reason why newer models and contemporary scientists don't use models from the earths inception to predict future weather patterns. This is also irrelevant. Why do you insist on quoting things that are meaningless to the actual discussion? How does the above paragraph prove that CO2 is not the problem? You are an idiot if you think this is not a multiple step solution process. I've told you before, we don't just need to stop cutting down trees, we need to do multiple things. Cutting down emissions is one of them. Why can't you just highlight the importance of other measures to complement this one instead of just trying to deny something that is actually happening? You're damn posts and information contradict your stupid whinnying about CO2 not causing warming. Yes there are other important things and maybe even more important but you won't enlighten anyone by trying to deny something so basic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Just like I thought. You just brushed my points aside, because I wasnt giving you the article you wanted to see. You dont want to believe, you dont have to. Have fun waving your Kyoto Protocol, but you should know full well that it will not slow down increase of CO2 levels in atmosphere. Human damage is not covered by Kyoto. I am just using logic here. You dont believe it, well thats your problem. Dont cry about environmental damage then, and if you dont think its happening then you are ignorant. All those articles I posted are important to do with current situation: history, importance of CO2 (life depends on it), the real problems like destruction of rainforest and its effects on levels, and you even dispute the SMALL amount of CO2 in atmosphere!!! I GAVE YOU TWO approches on it, BY VOLUME and BY MASS. and you still think its dubious. Man oh man, well well ... thats what I call ignorance! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail Kyoto protocol calls for less CO2 emissions. I do believe this would have an effect on CO2 in the atmosphere no? No one on earth is disputing the importance of CO2, not sure why you keep bringing that up. CO2 can be comparable to fat-soluable vitamins in humans. It is needed in very small doses. If you increase the dosage, even so that its still a tiny dose, it will kill you. |
Exactly, anything is harmful is unnatural doses. So when carbon levels in the atmosphere increase 70%, things are going to get fucked up.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Just like I thought. You just brushed my points aside, because I wasnt giving you the article you wanted to see. You dont want to believe, you dont have to. Have fun waving your Kyoto Protocol, but you should know full well that it will not slow down increase of CO2 levels in atmosphere. Human damage is not covered by Kyoto. I am just using logic here. You dont believe it, well thats your problem. Dont cry about environmental damage then, and if you dont think its happening then you are ignorant. All those articles I posted are important to do with current situation: history, importance of CO2 (life depends on it), the real problems like destruction of rainforest and its effects on levels, and you even dispute the SMALL amount of CO2 in atmosphere!!! I GAVE YOU TWO approches on it, BY VOLUME and BY MASS. What else you want to know - its composition by AREA???? and you still think its dubious. Man oh man, well well ... thats what I call ignorance! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX I did not contradict, or imply that those articles are untruthful, I do contend that they are not very relevant to future weather patterns and the effect on us humans. Humans did not develop with high levels of CO2 present, we can't handle CO2. You're making inferences from facts but you have no data to support you're inferences, that's my beef. It's perfectly fine that CO2 is important for life, and it's obviously true that it contributed to the beginning of life on earth. The problem is that even at 0.04% in the atmosphere it's causing change, and that change is noxious for us humans. What i did say was that you are confusing actual volume with the effect size of that volume. You do not need to have a great volume to have a significant effect. Case in point: CFC's and the Ozone layer. What i also said was that you are confusing past conditions that are not relevant to us humans because we didnt live in them, and present conditions that are different than those in the past and more relevant for our future. Now, if you wouldnt mind addressing those points and getting off your high horse we could actually get pass this silly stalemate of you claiming that because CO2 was important in the past it is important now, and hence the small levels of CO2 are not significant enough to cause global warming. |
Anyhow, I noticed I have been very pushy on this topic, so to conclude this well, I am not saying that I am right you are wrong hail to me blabla (I go to great deals to present my point sometimes), it could be either way. This field is very debatable, but one thing is for sure - environmental damage is the main concern. Kyoto treaty has some positive aspects, but main issues are still to be tackled.
Though if I consider, for example, that in my opinion its not a cataclysmic disaster that glaciers are melting, doesnt mean I am not environmentalist (glaciers melted and retreated many times before). I do think CO2 is playing a role, its just the sources of these CO2 emissions is my issue here.
The main concern should be the protection of environment, the halt to its destruction. And thats what I was stressing here. Please alter your ideology to include some soft of alarm or warning sign in your mind that things need to be done quickly soon to prevent a major ecological disaster. Climate change and human-caused destruction, when joined together can create massive damage to the environment.
For example, if rainforests are cut down, and CO2 levels increase, this could actually result in desertification, violent climate change and other problems. I have not concluded on my views on this point, once serious evidence presents itself to state that indeed emissions play the major role in this global warming, then I'll heed. Until then I'll just simply look and see the trail of human-caused destruction to observe the causes.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium blah blah blah I was a little angry and harsh when said that I dont care about humans - well, I do care, not deeply, but I am a proud homosapien ... but there's little to be proud of, actually. We surround ourselves with destruction, oppression of others, destruction of nature, development and use of diseases blah blah blah you just get very angry to be a human being. blah blah blah. We accomplish things for the richest of our kind, and disregard the lives and future of most of our own species. blah blah blah Human race is doomed, the sooner the more likely nature will recover better. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 One good way to end CO2 emissions would be for hydrogen power. Hydrogen combines with oxygen to make, you guessed it, water which the earth is seventy-five percent covered with. With hydrogen power there can never be a fight for oil nor a fight for water since the planet is always covered in it in one form or another. There can never be such a thing as running out of fuel if that fuel is water. But the powers that be saw to it there was a restrictable commodity such as oil to tie down countries and kingdoms. Where people fight over there being too much humanity while losing the little humanity they have. People that talk about conservationism are a danger to humanity calling for the extinction of man in order for nature to live. Because one of the solutions to the global warming/cooling "problem" is for the extinction of man, plain and simple as Jacques Cousteau once testified: The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics � it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer....This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it�s just as bad not to say it. No one that preaches conservationism is going to sacrifice themselves over their own implanted thoughts on this subject. They just parrot away the same tree hugger crap about the dangers man supposedly does to nature. You can reply all you want but that is it. I can't repeat it anymore than I already have. |
We develop to ensure the amazing existence for the ruling elite at the cost of the bottom 80% of the population in standards of life and wealth. You fail to notice what our system is designed for - without cheap labour from developing countries, cheap resources, profits and such our civilization will falter. It requires some people to live well while many others not well. Because thats what economy requires - something or someone to live off, grow, profit ...
Sorry to revive this thread, but I just read the Kyoto Protocol, and I had a good laugh out of it ... I should've known this earlier to shove it in everyone's face of the bullshit behind Kyoto. Its like a game, to play the environment, LMAO ... what a pile of horseshit. Maybe now you'll listen to me:
"Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.
The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles:
Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN�s aegis
Governments are separated into two general categories: developed countries, referred to as Annex 1 countries (who have accepted GHG emission reduction obligations and must submit an annual greenhouse gas inventory); and developing countries, referred to as Non-Annex 1 countries (who have no GHG emission reduction obligations but may participate in the Clean Development Mechanism).
Any Annex 1 country that fails to meet its Kyoto target will be penalized by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for every ton of GHG emissions they exceed their cap in the first commitment period (i.e, 2008-2012).
By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland. Reduction targets expire in 2013.
Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex 1 economies to meet their GHG targets by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges (such as the new EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex 1 economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), or in other Annex-1 countries under the JI. 
Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (�CDM Projects�) in Non-Annex 1 economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called �Joint Implementation� or �JI� applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).
What this means in practice is that Non-Annex 1 economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but when a GHG emission reduction project (a �GHG Project�) is implemented in these countries, that GHG Project will receive Carbon Credit which can be sold to Annex 1 buyers.
The Kyoto linking mechanisms are in place for two main reasons:
the cost of complying with Kyoto is prohibitive [citation needed] for many [citation needed] Annex 1 countries (especially those countries, such as Japan or the Netherlands for example, with highly efficient, low GHG polluting industries, and high prevailing environmental standards). Kyoto therefore allows these countries to purchase Carbon Credits instead of reducing GHG emissions domestically; and,
this is seen as a means of encouraging Non-Annex 1 developing economies to reduce GHG emissions since doing so is now economically viable because of the sale of Carbon Credits.
"
So how are the emissions going to be cut? HUH? Who the fuck gives a shit ... oh, by the way, Kyoto was signed in 1997. Check out the latest data on CO2 levels. Who's an idiot now? Huh? Are you guys still ignorant enough to believe Kyoto protocol will slow down the CO2 emissions? EXACTLY WHAT FORCES DOES KYOTO PROTOCOL HAVE TO ENFORCE THE OBLIGATIONS??? HUH?
How about dropping the Kyoto bullshit and signing a treaty that will actually STOP destruction of environment for change, not some GOALS and CARBON CREDITS that can be made a game out of. Lame shit ...
Dear Einsteins, tell me why the CO2 levels are still increasing when 160 countries signed and RATIFIED the Kyoto Protocol:
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.