Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ummm... since when is .4% of .038% of the atmosphere a serious threat to life on Earth as we know it??? That's our output of CO2.Do you know the difference between a pollutant and a naturally occurring gas?You don't think CO2 is a pollutant?
Lets try an experiment. Get a plastic bag and place it over your head. Seal it with a rubberband around your neck. Don't like it? Its just good ole CO2
Why don't they regulate water vapor? Its the most significant green house gas in the atmosphere right now?
It doesn't mattter if it is naturally occuring. Too much of a good thing is still a pollutant. If it upsets the natural chemical balance it is harmful
Ummm... since when is .4% of .038% of the atmosphere a serious threat to life on Earth as we know it??? That's our output of CO2.Do you know the difference between a pollutant and a naturally occurring gas?
Why don't they regulate water vapor? Its the most significant green house gas in the atmosphere right now?
It doesn't mattter if it is naturally occuring. Too much of a good thing is still a pollutant. If it upsets the natural chemical balance it is harmful
BTW, every moderate sized volcanic eruption releases as much pollution into the atmosphere as mankind did throughout it's entire history.
Gotta cork to help deal with that?
Because reality refuses to conform with their ideals as they demand it should.Ummm... since when is .4% of .038% of the atmosphere a serious threat to life on Earth as we know it??? That's our output of CO2.It doesn't mattter if it is naturally occuring. Too much of a good thing is still a pollutant. If it upsets the natural chemical balance it is harmful
BTW, every moderate sized volcanic eruption releases as much pollution into the atmosphere as mankind did throughout it's entire history.
Gotta cork to help deal with that?
Why is real Science so hateful and hurtful to Libruls?
Everything is toxic. It's the dosage that makes the difference.Do you know the difference between a pollutant and a naturally occurring gas?
Why don't they regulate water vapor? Its the most significant green house gas in the atmosphere right now?
It doesn't mattter if it is naturally occuring. Too much of a good thing is still a pollutant. If it upsets the natural chemical balance it is harmful
Horseshit.
That's like saying too much oxygen is a pollutant.
This is a fucken scam.
A way to tax us for naturally occuring emissions.
A fucken joke.
The proof is the sales of carbon credits. Making money off of the gullible.
Everything is toxic. It's the dosage that makes the difference.It doesn't mattter if it is naturally occuring. Too much of a good thing is still a pollutant. If it upsets the natural chemical balance it is harmful
Horseshit.
That's like saying too much oxygen is a pollutant.
This is a fucken scam.
A way to tax us for naturally occuring emissions.
A fucken joke.
The proof is the sales of carbon credits. Making money off of the gullible.
What a shame Conservatives failed science class. It seems they failed history too, but that's a different thread.
If you are science literate, then step up and tamp down the ignorance!Everything is toxic. It's the dosage that makes the difference.Horseshit.
That's like saying too much oxygen is a pollutant.
This is a fucken scam.
A way to tax us for naturally occuring emissions.
A fucken joke.
The proof is the sales of carbon credits. Making money off of the gullible.
What a shame Conservatives failed science class. It seems they failed history too, but that's a different thread.
Post #21 is mine. I'm a conservative. Post #41 is pretty conservative too. Oh look, science in our posts. I have a science degree from a well known university. You fail.
If you are science literate, then step up and tamp down the ignorance!Everything is toxic. It's the dosage that makes the difference.
What a shame Conservatives failed science class. It seems they failed history too, but that's a different thread.
Post #21 is mine. I'm a conservative. Post #41 is pretty conservative too. Oh look, science in our posts. I have a science degree from a well known university. You fail.
Every time a Conservative realizes science has proved a method of doing something as harmful (read insulating pipes, painting houses, making steel, refining oil, generating electricity) he stands on his hind legs and eschews fact and claims "Junk Science"!If you are science literate, then step up and tamp down the ignorance!Post #21 is mine. I'm a conservative. Post #41 is pretty conservative too. Oh look, science in our posts. I have a science degree from a well known university. You fail.
Already have in many threads on this subject. You are supporting junk science. How is that for tamping down ignorance?
Obama and crew will not wait for the outcome of Copenhagen or the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, predicted for 2010 at the earliest. Obama will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant this week.
The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.
An EPA endangerment finding would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions
the full story.... Ummm Isnt Co2 what trees breath??? I thought they loved the tress??? . I wonder if any of us will be the lucky 50 million to survive
Ct Patriots Blog
Any idea how much steel is in a windfarm? Any idea how much concrete, OIL, etc?making steel
Obama and crew will not wait for the outcome of Copenhagen or the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, predicted for 2010 at the earliest. Obama will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant this week.
The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.
An EPA endangerment finding would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions
the full story.... Ummm Isnt Co2 what trees breath??? I thought they loved the tress??? . I wonder if any of us will be the lucky 50 million to survive
Ct Patriots Blog
Wow, a serious Republican scientist. It's what the "trees breathe".
point missed. Insulating pipes? We used asbestos for years! When it was proven harmful, the Conservatives shouted "junk science'! Painting houses? We used lead-based paint. When it was proven harmful, again the shouts of "junk science" were heard from the right. Making steel? We convert coal to coke and in the process release benzene. Oh, but changing the coke making process costs money. "Junk science!"Any idea how much steel is in a windfarm? Any idea how much concrete, OIL, etc?making steel
They're nothing close to green.
I got your point. However you missed mine.point missed. Insulating pipes? We used asbestos for years! When it was proven harmful, the Conservatives shouted "junk science'! Painting houses? We used lead-based paint. When it was proven harmful, again the shouts of "junk science" were heard from the right. Making steel? We convert coal to coke and in the process release benzene. Oh, but changing the coke making process costs money. "Junk science!"Any idea how much steel is in a windfarm? Any idea how much concrete, OIL, etc?making steel
They're nothing close to green.
Then light a match.You don't think CO2 is a pollutant?
Lets try an experiment. Get a plastic bag and place it over your head. Seal it with a rubberband around your neck. Don't like it? Its just good ole CO2
Try 100% oxygen and see what happens. See oxygen toxicity.
gatekeeper-- "faux" leadership? since when is the president's leadership "faux"?
damn, it's funny watching the wingnuts on this thread. the o/p makes an assertion.... undocumented; unsubstantiated.... then extrapolates out into some psychotic wingnut conspiracy theory hysteria and faux outrage....
and the other little wingnuts dance around.
nutters....
Cut the Crap 'j', B. H. Obama is in way over his head, he reached his level of incompetence as soon as he took the oath of office.
No wonder the country will NEVER be,'united', even a small group of bloggers in here there is so much division it looks like a diced meat convention. Obama is NOT a leader in my opinion, he may be highly educated, and is a very articulate "BullChitter", but he has no clue in being an effective leader of a nation, or nations, as other nations have backed off from his 'leadership' inabilities.
We don't need a BS'er, we need a real leader.
The glaciers completed their retreat and settled in their present positions about 1012,000 years ago. There have been other fluctuations in global temperatures on a smaller scale, however, that have sometimes been known popularly as ice ages. The 400 year period between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries is sometimes called the Little Ice Age. Contemporaries noted that the Baltic Sea froze over twice in the first decade of the 1300s. Temperatures in Europe fell enough to shorten the growing season, and the production of grain in Scandinavia dropped precipitously as a result. The Norse communities in Greenland could no longer be maintained and were abandoned by the end of the fifteenth century. Scientists argue that data indicate that we are currently in an interglacial period, and that North polar ice will again move south some time in the next 23,000 years.
Read more: Polar Ice Caps - Polar Ice Caps And Geologic History Polar Ice Caps - Polar Ice Caps And Geologic History
Polar Ice Caps - Polar Ice Caps And Geologic History
When the temperature trend in the "blade" of the hockey stick between 1850 and 2000 is examined in more detail, as shown in Figure 2, it is found that the average global temperature doesn't increase exponentially like the measurements of carbon dioxide do at Mauna Loa. The temperature increases between about 1850 and 1940, and then decreases for a 30-year period from 1940 to 1970, after which it begins to climb again. This is very peculiar if carbon dioxide is driving global temperature, because the greatest increase in output from industrial production and the associated release of carbon dioxide would have occurred during this period. Following World War II, industrial productivity and the release of carbon dioxide climbed rapidly. Yet temperature fell, prompting many climatologists to express concern that we were heading into another ice age. Once again, the average global temperature began to warm in 1970. The temperature and carbon dioxide diagrams do not match up, as one would expect if carbon dioxide concentration is driving temperature.
Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?
Do your own research on how ocean currents effect glaciers and the effect of sun spots on the earth's climate.
