Ted Cruz Destroys Fool On Climate Change

[SilentBull]

This is great:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

[phill4paul]

Lol.

But...97% consensus. 97% consensus. 97% consensus!!!!%$#$@

[kcchiefs6465]

Lol.

[timosman]

These assholes are not used to discussing the subject matter with anybody not supporting their views 100%. :rolleyes:

"Are you familiar with the phrase 'The Pause' ?" :)

Reason to like Cruz +1

[ZENemy]

Once they have you afraid of the weather, what else do they need?

Be afraid of the climate

Be afraid of your neighbors

Be afraid of guns

Be afraid of anit-vaxxers

Be afraid of the Muslims

Be afraid of the communist

Be afraid of..........Just be afraid


what do all these things have in common? Fear, what does it take to control humans? Fear.

"Polar bears will be extinct by 1995.. I mean 1999... I mean 2002... I mean 2007... I mean 2012... I mean 2015... I mean 2018."

"There will be no ice left in the arctic by 1995... I mean 1999... I mean 2002... I mean 2007... I mean 2012... I mean 2015... I mean 2018." "The East Coast will be under water by 1995... I mean 1999... I mean 2002... I mean 2007... I mean 2012... I mean 2015... I mean 2018." "Global warming is racist!" "How dare you deny global warming, you global warming denier!"


This concludes our lesson for the day.

[Danke]

Climate Change affects minority communities, oh my!

[timosman]

Climate Change affects minority communities, oh my!

Is there anything that Climate Change does not affect ?

[Acala]

"If 97% of scientists agreed that you are in idiot, would you concur?"

[morfeeis]

All they would have to do is to show the data that prove they are right, it's that simple.

[AngryCanadian]

The same Ted Cruz who would want a regime change in Syria :rolleyes:

[AngryCanadian]

These assholes are not used to discussing the subject matter with anybody not supporting their views 100%. :rolleyes:

"Are you familiar with the phrase 'The Pause' ?" :)

Reason to like Cruz +1

Yes another reason to like Cruz and his Syrian foreign policy.

[timosman]

All they would have to do is to show the data that prove they are right, it's that simple.

Problem is they do not have any data except the false 97% meme. Your duty as a citizen is to shut up and not question how your government spends money. The asshole answering Cruz's question was not even aware of basic facts. These people live in an echo chamber where everybody is on the take.

[timosman]

The same Ted Cruz who would want a regime change in Syria :rolleyes:

Nobody's perfect. ;)

[alucard13mm]

Even if we fuck up the climate and environment, the planet will go on and life will go on. Humans will die off one day, like every animal that ever lived.

Itll take a huge ass asteroid or the sun going super nova to kill ALL.. ALL life on earth.

[timosman]

Even if we fuck up the climate and environment, the planet will go on and life will go on. Humans will die off one day, like every animal that ever lived.

Itll take a huge ass asteroid or the sun going super nova to kill ALL.. ALL life on earth.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/33f7c21a61e18c4922648f84e3066835/tumblr_inline_ntsz5vC8x71rkf4dx_500.gif

[Danke]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/33f7c21a61e18c4922648f84e3066835/tumblr_inline_ntsz5vC8x71rkf4dx_500.gif

Not sure why you think that. Am I a troll for posting this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

[timosman]

Not sure why you think that. Am I a troll for posting this?

I do not think Carlin was ever suggesting we should all die. His act was to make people chuckle and be aware. I am missing that in alucard's post. Also nobody in their right mind wants to "fuck up the climate and environment".

[Sola_Fide]

The scientific priests have spoken! How dare you question them!

[RabbitMan]

Problem is they do not have any data except the false 97% meme. Your duty as a citizen is to shut up and not question how your government spends money. The asshole answering Cruz's question was not even aware of basic facts. These people live in an echo chamber where everybody is on the take.

What? There is plenty of data to suggest climate change is both real and significant.
Do I seriously need to dig easy to find information up for you?

Guys, I get that social control sucks and that a situation like the one we are facing may require it in order to make marked progress towards fixing it, but please don't go all anti-vaxxer on climate change. Don't deny something that is definitely happening, instead find ways to use liberty to fix it. That should be our contribution, since currently Liberty individuals have ceded the entire solution portion of this massive problem to liberals.

[dannno]

What? There is plenty of data to suggest climate change is both real and significant.
Do I seriously need to dig easy to find information up for you?

Guys, I get that social control sucks and that a situation like the one we are facing may require it in order to make marked progress towards fixing it, but please don't go all anti-vaxxer on climate change. Don't deny something that is definitely happening, instead find ways to use liberty to fix it. That should be our contribution, since currently Liberty individuals have ceded the entire solution portion of this massive problem to liberals.

The planet is warming on a natural cycle in the medium term, but it has little or nothing to do with our CO2 output. If it did, then the models they produced back in the 90s that showed we should be going through exponential warming would have come to fruition - instead we have had an 18+ year global warming pause with no warming according to satellite data.

Even most of the data showing warming in the medium term, the 50-100 years is all adjusted - old data is negatively adjusted and newer data is positively adjusted. There may be good reasons for it, or maybe they are just excuses for why the data doesn't quite tell the story they want it to.

I'm not a Ted Cruz fan, but he is right on this issue.

[alucard13mm]

I do not think Carlin was ever suggesting we should all die. His act was to make people chuckle and be aware. I am missing that in alucard's post. Also nobody in their right mind wants to "fuck up the climate and environment".

Regardless of what we do. humans will die off. Maybe tommorow. Maybe in 150 million years.

George carlin is funny dude.

[Cleaner44]

It would sure be great if we could get Angela to come in here and scream at everyone for rejecting the scientists.

[timosman]

Maybe in 150 million years.

And you feel the need to bring it up NOW ? :confused:

[timosman]

What? There is plenty of data to suggest climate change is both real and significant.
Do I seriously need to dig easy to find information up for you?

Yes, please. Make sure the guy from the Sierra Club gets it as well, as despite the claimed abundance of data he was not able to produce anything. The anthropogenic global warming is nothing else than using a solar eclipse to beat the population into submission. Remember that scene from Apocalypto ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ULxjgF58dM

Keep convincing yourself you are too smart and would never fall for this kind of crap.

[rg17]

Global Warming is just an excuse for Communism and NWO

http://consciouslifenews.com/global-warming-hoax-convenient-excuse-new-world-order-2/1158164/

[timosman]

Goebbels's quote:


The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#Goebbels.27s_use_of_the_expression

[enhanced_deficit]

It is a toss up whether end times will be brought by global warming or by Cruz heating up.


http://www.bcrmc.org/ih.constantcontact.com/fs115/1101870214364/img/5624_1aba0b5c.jpg



October 17, 2013 http://www.alternet.org/sites/all/themes/custom/alternet/images/talk_box_speakeasy-blog.jpg
Ted Cruz's Father Suggested His Son Is 'Anointed' to Bring About 'End Time Transfer of Wealth'

"The pastor [Huch] referred to Proverbs 13:22, a little while ago, which says that the wealth of the wicked is stored for the righteous. And it is through the kings, anointed to take dominion, that that transfer of wealth is going to occur." - Rafael Cruz, August 26, 2012
In a sermon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy074QLV2D8) [2] last year at an Irving, Texas, megachurch that helped elect Ted Cruz to the United States Senate, Cruz' father Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as "kings" to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the "Seven Mountains" mandate, and "bring the spoils of war to the priests", thus helping to bring about a prophesied "great transfer of wealth", from the "wicked" to righteous gentile believers. link to video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9js48s) [3] of Rafael Cruz describing the "great transfer of wealth" and the role of anointed "kings" in various sectors of society, including government, who are to "bring the spoils of war to the priests".
Rafael Cruz' dominionist (http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm) [4] sermon given August 26, 2012, at the New Beginnings Church of pastor Larry Huch, in Irving, Texas has already received considerable scrutiny due to an excellent Huffington Post commentary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/the-theology-of-governmen_b_4020537.html) [5] by Methodist Associate Pastor Morgan Guyton, who noted the explicitly dominionist nature of pastor Cruz' sermon, which concerned the divine mandate for believers, with anointing of "kings" in their respective spheres, to take control over all sectors of society.
Cruz spoke of "Kings who are anointed to go to war, win the war, and bring the spoils of war to the priests."

http://www.alternet.org/print/speakeasy/brucewilson/ted-cruzs-father-suggested-his-son-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer

[RabbitMan]

The planet is warming on a natural cycle in the medium term, but it has little or nothing to do with our CO2 output. If it did, then the models they produced back in the 90s that showed we should be going through exponential warming would have come to fruition - instead we have had an 18+ year global warming pause with no warming according to satellite data.

Even most of the data showing warming in the medium term, the 50-100 years is all adjusted - old data is negatively adjusted and newer data is positively adjusted. There may be good reasons for it, or maybe they are just excuses for why the data doesn't quite tell the story they want it to.

I'm not a Ted Cruz fan, but he is right on this issue.

I literally did a 10 second Google search and came up with a convincing article with a very plausible concept with scientific data to back it up. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

I'm going to summarize the argument how I understand it.
Feel free to dispute anything I say, although it is difficult to dispute scientific fact.

We know there are global warming and coolings, so why is this one man-made?
Let's look at science for the answer. The Moon and the Earth are both approximately the same distance from the Sun, but one is freezing and the other is not. What is the major difference? It is our atmosphere filled with a variety of particles and gasses held in place by gravity. We call them "Greenhouse Gases" for short.

We KNOW that greenhouse gasses, like CO2, trap energy in the surface of our planet from the Sun, instead of letting it bounce away. Like a blanket.
There has been a sharp rise in the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere that correlates ENTIRELY with the exponential increase in the amount of CO2 that has been pumped into the atmosphere.
And at the same time we have seen an acceleration of problems associated with climate change, of which we really are on the precipice.

You may be following, but shaking your head because of whatever data you had not cited that backed up your claim that the earth's temp did not heat up to the model espoused by scientists studying the issue.

If I recall correctly, the major oversight of climate scientists over the past couple of decades was under-estimating the amount of heat that the planet's oceans would absorb.This is double bad, as it both masks the effects of dramatic climate change in the short term while also ensuring some dramatic, fast changes in the future. Ocean currents are driven in large part by the differences in temperature of the water, which in turn translates to movement in the energy that creates the weather patterns and climates we know today. As the ocean warms up and becomes more uniform in temperature (think "El Nino") you get glacial melting increasing at an accelerated rate (happening RIGHT now), which aside from increased sea levels means that the ocean temperature is even MORE uniform in addition to destroying natural habitats and mass extinctions in the ocean as environments change at a fast clip.

As the ice caps melt, the warming will become much more severe.

With slower currents, there is less cool wind coming to hot, dry places. Expect more droughts.
With slower currents, there is less of a moderating effect on weather. Expect more extreme weather in areas prone to it.
And while humans can deal with temperature change just fine, whole ecosystems based on plant life migrates and are pushed into different areas causing mass extinctions for organisms that can't adapt fast enough.

We are already past the point of no return, we just need to ante up and be responsible in our response.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Science doesn't work on consensus.

[timosman]

We are already past the point of no return, we just need to ante up and be responsible in our response.

Yawn. :rolleyes:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/480896173230653440/MnLVyI3t.png

[rg17]

What? There is plenty of data to suggest climate change is both real and significant.
Do I seriously need to dig easy to find information up for you?

Guys, I get that social control sucks and that a situation like the one we are facing may require it in order to make marked progress towards fixing it, but please don't go all anti-vaxxer on climate change. Don't deny something that is definitely happening, instead find ways to use liberty to fix it. That should be our contribution, since currently Liberty individuals have ceded the entire solution portion of this massive problem to liberals.

You believe what the government is telling you!

http://i2.wp.com/hotnerdgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/double-facepalm11.jpg

[ClydeCoulter]

If we pay enough for our "so cheap that only the rich will use candles" electricity, and goods produced using it, then the bureaucracies handling those funds will put them to good use in stopping the climate change that is happening but is difficult to determine the cause of except to promote the giving of more money to those bureaucracies that need it...for something...

[phill4paul]

If I recall correctly, the major oversight of climate scientists over the past couple of decades was under-estimating the amount of heat that the planet's oceans would absorb.

Oh. Well, shit. What other things are they over or under guesstimating?


This is double bad,

No! It's double-plus good!

[timosman]

RabbitMan is so anxious he did not even watch the OP video !

[CPUd]

We know there are global warming and coolings, so why is this one man-made?
Let's look at science for the answer. The Moon and the Earth are both approximately the same distance from the Sun, but one is freezing and the other is not. What is the major difference? It is our atmosphere filled with a variety of particles and gasses held in place by gravity. We call them "Greenhouse Gases" for short.

We KNOW that greenhouse gasses, like CO2, trap energy in the surface of our planet from the Sun, instead of letting it bounce away. Like a blanket.
There has been a sharp rise in the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere that correlates ENTIRELY with the exponential increase in the amount of CO2 that has been pumped into the atmosphere.
And at the same time we have seen an acceleration of problems associated with climate change, of which we really are on the precipice.


I have an issue with them using those plots as evidence, because all they really show is an apparent correlation; a similar plot could be made for number of corn plants grown, but that by itself isn't enough to link corn with climate change.

That work appears to be at least 7 years old. One thing we know now that was not widely known/accepted back then is that the rivers release significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, whereas the bulk of it was previously assumed to be trapped in the riverbeds.

[Dr.3D]

Science doesn't work on consensus.
If it did, it would only take 51% to repeal the law of gravity. :D

[HVACTech]

If it did, it would only take 51% to repeal the law of gravity. :D

yah, it takes brass balls to purport that you can control the forces of Nature. :rolleyes:

pop open a cold one guys and smile. you are making a plant happy!! (plants like CO2)

[timosman]

If it did, it would only take 51% to repeal the law of gravity. :D

Is this a bad idea ? :D

[HVACTech]

Is this a bad idea ? :D

are YOU under the impression.
that we Humans understand or can quantify Gravity?

IF you are. I can fix that for you! :)

Newtons "laws" ONLY apply to Earth.
honest.

[Dr.3D]

Is this a bad idea ? :D
Well, it would get kind of hard to breath if gravity stopped holding the atmosphere in proximity to the planet.

[CPUd]

Yesterday, I weighed myself prior to taking a dump. Afterward, I weighed myself again, and I was 0.7 lbs heavier. Conclusion: my turds defy gravity.

[timosman]

http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/climate-denial-not-option-message-ted-cruz

Comments for the video are disabled.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PSmkbzZofM

This week, Senator Ted Cruz held a hearing to attack the clean air and clean water safeguards that protect millions of families all across America. Sierra Club President Aaron Mair was there to talk about how communities of color, which are disproportionately affected by pollution and climate disruption, rely on these safeguards to protect them.

A friend to big polluters, Cruz unsurprisingly tried to cover all their talking points. His game? To attack the climate science that shows how carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels is causing climate disruption in the first place while assailing the Clean Power Plan, which would allow us to act on climate disruption and protect people’s health.

Well, Sierra Club President Aaron Mair has a few things to share with Senator Cruz. Check out his response.

Senator Cruz,

There’s an old lawyerly adage that “if you don’t have the law on your side, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts on your side, pound the table.” You did a very good job pounding the table this week.

This week, you held a hearing on the clean air and clean water safeguards that protect millions of American families. I testified because I wanted to talk about how these safeguards are especially critical for people of color and low-income communities, who are disproportionately affected by pollution and climate disruption .

But, as a friend to big polluters, you derailed the whole hearing with misinformation, claiming there was a “pause” in rising global temperatures -- misinformation already debunked by scientists and the non-partisan Politifact.com. You wanted to talk numbers, so here you go:

0: The number of accurate data points you shared when attempting to claim that the climate wasn’t changing. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, average global temperatures have been steadily rising for the last three decades.

97%: The percentage of scientists who agree that the climate is changing and that human activity is the cause.

2015: expected to be the hottest ever recorded.

60 and 30: 60% of African Americans and Latinos reside in communities with a toxic waste site and within 30 miles of a power plant

7: 7 out of 10 African Americans live in areas with air that is unsafe to breathe.

48217: that’s the zip code of the neighborhood in Detroit I just visited – one of the dirtiest zip codes in the nation. There, massive mounds of petroleum coke waste and coal incinerators are within blocks of schools – further evidence that the lack of protections has turned Detroit from the epicenter of opportunity into the epicenter of the Asthma epidemic. Schools and smokestacks do not mix.

90,000: The Clean Power Plan can help us prevent 90,000 asthma attacks in children, save consumers $155 billion on energy in the next decade and create 360,000 new jobs . Energy savings, more jobs, healthy families, and safer communities? I think 100% of the American people would go for that.

Sincerely,

Aaron Mair

Aaron Mair of Schenectady, New York, is the president of the Sierra Club's board of directors. An epidemiological-spatial analyst with the New York State Department of Health, Mair's experience includes more than three decades of environmental activism and over 25 years as a Sierra Club volunteer leader, where he has worked diligently for environmental justice.

[Weston White]

Am I missing something, poor neighborhoods somehow breathe different air and use different municipal water than the rest of their city's residents?

And these genius scientists cannot even use the correct symbol, it is not CO2 that is expelled from coal and so-called "fossil" fuels, but CO. ...We are suppose to take these idiots seriously?

Other than that, I agree the climate changes about 4-times each year--as has continued to do since the beginning of the world.

[timosman]

The video from Sierra Club is pathetic. I can imagine the amount of arm twisting that went into making of this video. That is unless Aaron Mair has peas for brain which is a possibility given his responses to Cruz.

[Weston White]

Sure. CO2 is still partially breathable and is able to be scrubbed and reused within airtight spaces, while CO will make you euphoric until you pass-out and die within confined spaces.


Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is slightly less dense than air. It is toxic to hemoglobic animals (including humans) when encountered in concentrations above about 35 ppm,

Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), such as when operating a stove or an internal combustion engine in an enclosed space. In the presence of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, carbon monoxide burns with a blue flame, producing carbon dioxide. Coal gas, which was widely used before the 1960s for domestic lighting, cooking, and heating, had carbon monoxide as a significant fuel constituent. Some processes in modern technology, such as iron smelting, still produce carbon monoxide as a byproduct.

Worldwide, the largest source of carbon monoxide is natural in origin, due to photochemical reactions in the troposphere that generate about 5×1012 kilograms per year. Other natural sources of CO include volcanoes, forest fires, and other forms of combustion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide


Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth. ... Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth and its concentration in Earth's pre-industrial atmosphere since late in the Precambrian was regulated by photosynthetic organisms and geological phenomena. As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is produced by plants during respiration.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a product of respiration of all aerobic organisms. It is returned to water via the gills of fish and to the air via the lungs of air-breathing land animals, including humans. Carbon dioxide is produced during the processes of decay of organic materials and the fermentation of sugars in bread, beer and winemaking. It is produced by combustion of wood, carbohydrates and fossil fuels such as coal, peat, petroleum and natural gas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide


Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries. Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, but highly toxic. It combines with hemoglobin to produce carboxyhemoglobin, which is ineffective for delivering oxygen to bodily tissues. In 2011, 52% of carbon monoxide emissions were created by mobile vehicles in the U.S

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas#Carbon_monoxide_.28CO.29

[timosman]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a product of respiration of all aerobic organisms. It is returned to water via the gills of fish and to the air via the lungs of air-breathing land animals, including humans. Carbon dioxide is produced during the processes of decay of organic materials and the fermentation of sugars in bread, beer and winemaking. It is produced by combustion of wood, carbohydrates and fossil fuels such as coal, peat, petroleum and natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide



Do you even read your own quotes? :eek: I owe you -rep

[ZENemy]

If the "solution" is "taxes" I doubt the problem was ever legitimate.

[TheNewYorker]

Here is a graph of three data sources; marine samples of 14C from the Canary Islands, atmospheric samples of 14C from Heidelberg, and CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels in Heidelberg. I have added a line which represents the natural decay rate of 14C. In the twenty years shown in the graph, that decay rate would result in a decrease of 14C of about 0.2% (from 340 to 339.5). There are several things of note which can be seen with a comparison of these data.
http://s1.postimg.org/76mujuinv/sw553dbfc0.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/76mujuinv/)

1) In 1978 there were still relatively high levels of 14C in the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1960s.

2) A long term decline in atmospheric CO2 in Heidelberg corresponds with a long term decline found in marine samples.

3) The long term decline in both atmospheric and marine 14C far exceeds that of the decay rate.

4) Seasonal spikes in CO2 production correspond with seasonal declines in 14C.

5) While there is little long term trend in the production of CO2 in Heidelberg, the long term declining trend in 14C is readily apparent.


What does this comparison say?
From #2 we can see that the amount of 14C in the atmosphere and in the ocean has been declining since the peak in the 1960s.

From #3 we can see that the reduction of 14C has nothing to do with the natural decay rate of 14C.

From #4 we can see that at a localized level there a clear relationship between 14C levels and the combustion of fossil fuels.

From #5 we can see that, apart from localized effects, there has been a long term decrease in both atmospheric and marine 14C levels.

What overall point do these observations make? We know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising. This data demonstrates that because fossil fuels contain virtually no 14C (due to millions of years of radioactive decay), the combustion of those fuels leads to a dilution of the 14C/12C ratio found in the atmosphere. It's like putting water in whiskey. Put water (containing no whiskey) in a glass of whiskey and the ratio of whiskey to water goes down.

What does this tell us (besides putting water in whiskey is bad)? It tells us that the primary cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. Pretty simple, actually.


http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6862/1/LevinRAD2000.pdf

[Dr.3D]

I put water in my whiskey to make it less likely to cause stomach problems.

[TheNewYorker]

There is a global warming issue. And man does contribute to it.

The primary problem with getting anyone to really care is because nothing reasonable will be done about it.

Solutions for carbon sequester have been provided by many brilliant people but nothing will be done except the implementation of a "Carbon Credit Scam".

This "carbon trading", which is nothing more than a wall street trading scam, will enrich the "right" people at the cost of the citizens paying more for energy for no damned reason other than a transferring of any remainder of wealth from the common people to the "Establishment".


Alarmist have also falsified data and none of the fear porn computer models and predictions came to pass in an attempt to "panic pass" carbon credit legislation.

Now, I and many others are all for "common sense" solutions but a "Get Rich Scheme" for the elite is not a solution and we will fight it tooth and nail.

[TheNewYorker]

Sure. CO2 is still partially breathable and is able to be scrubbed and reused within airtight spaces, while CO will make you euphoric until you pass-out and die within confined spaces.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas#Carbon_monoxide_.28CO.29

Animal emission of CO2 matters only to the degree that the carbon in question came from fossilized sources, not biological sources.

If it was biological, i.e. food, which surely most of it is, then the growing of that food brought CO2 in from the atmosphere. It's a net neutral situation---just as it was for thousands of years of human agriculture until the industrial revolution permitted mining and burning of fossil carbon.

Plants grow---animals eat them---animals fart and poop and get eaten. Animal poop makes plants grow. The ecological carbon cycle.

[P3ter_Griffin]

There is a global warming issue. And man does contribute to it.

The primary problem with getting anyone to really care is because nothing reasonable will be done about it.

Solutions for carbon sequester have been provided by many brilliant people but nothing will be done except the implementation of a "Carbon Credit Scam".

This "carbon trading", which is nothing more than a wall street trading scam, will enrich the "right" people at the cost of the citizens paying more for energy for no damned reason other than a transferring of any remainder of wealth from the common people to the "Establishment".


Alarmist have also falsified data and none of the fear porn computer models and predictions came to pass in an attempt to "panic pass" carbon credit legislation.

Now, I and many others are all for "common sense" solutions but a "Get Rich Scheme" for the elite is not a solution and we will fight it tooth and nail.

I honestly think this is a problem caused by government. If the people who cared about this issue spent a little less time voting and a little more time planting trees, where would we be?


My hypothesis is that the warming/storm trends/ excess energy in the atmosphere is impacted more by the fact that plants have been uprooted and replaced with housing structures with asphalt roofs, shopping malls with concrete jungles, and so forth. The plants that used to reside there would have absorbed the suns energy and used it to produce sugars, instead the suns rays and energy is reflected, or at best absorbed to be later released as the temperature cools.

[timosman]

Here is a graph of three data sources; marine samples of 14C from the Canary Islands, atmospheric samples of 14C from Heidelberg, and CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels in Heidelberg. I have added a line which represents the natural decay rate of 14C. In the twenty years shown in the graph, that decay rate would result in a decrease of 14C of about 0.2% (from 340 to 339.5). There are several things of note which can be seen with a comparison of these data.
http://s1.postimg.org/76mujuinv/sw553dbfc0.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/76mujuinv/)

1) In 1978 there were still relatively high levels of 14C in the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1960s.

2) A long term decline in atmospheric CO2 in Heidelberg corresponds with a long term decline found in marine samples.

3) The long term decline in both atmospheric and marine 14C far exceeds that of the decay rate.

4) Seasonal spikes in CO2 production correspond with seasonal declines in 14C.

5) While there is little long term trend in the production of CO2 in Heidelberg, the long term declining trend in 14C is readily apparent.


What does this comparison say?
From #2 we can see that the amount of 14C in the atmosphere and in the ocean has been declining since the peak in the 1960s.

From #3 we can see that the reduction of 14C has nothing to do with the natural decay rate of 14C.

From #4 we can see that at a localized level there a clear relationship between 14C levels and the combustion of fossil fuels.

From #5 we can see that, apart from localized effects, there has been a long term decrease in both atmospheric and marine 14C levels.

What overall point do these observations make? We know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising. This data demonstrates that because fossil fuels contain virtually no 14C (due to millions of years of radioactive decay), the combustion of those fuels leads to a dilution of the 14C/12C ratio found in the atmosphere. It's like putting water in whiskey. Put water (containing no whiskey) in a glass of whiskey and the ratio of whiskey to water goes down.

What does this tell us (besides putting water in whiskey is bad)? It tells us that the primary cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. Pretty simple, actually.


http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6862/1/LevinRAD2000.pdf


This post and the linked paper do not contain any mention of temperature. All this shows is a way of tracking the carbon cycle via the 14C levels. Not sure what the point of all of this is.

[timosman]

And these genius scientists cannot even use the correct symbol, it is not CO2 that is expelled from coal and so-called "fossil" fuels, but CO. ...We are suppose to take these idiots seriously?

Let's not make idiots out of ourselves by talking nonsense. :eek:
Your later post with wikipedia links contradicts what you've just said.

[CPUd]

This thread should be merged with:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485048-Radical-new-documentary-claims-Copernicus-and-four-centuries-of-science-is-wrong