Let us know when you're ready to respond to my post. :up:
Pope on Climate Change
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
Let us know when you're ready to respond to my post. :up:
Alate_One
Well-known member
I guess you meant the only on topic statement you made?
Broeker Prediction in 1975 vs. observations.
As far as adverse effects, perhaps you have missed the extreme numbers of typhoons and extreme drought in California which is adversely affecting Sequoia trees for the first time ever in recorded history?
Broeker Prediction in 1975 vs. observations.
As far as adverse effects, perhaps you have missed the extreme numbers of typhoons and extreme drought in California which is adversely affecting Sequoia trees for the first time ever in recorded history?
You are right. Europe and China are way ahead of us when it comes to developing sensible habits and technology.
Have you seen any pictures of Beijing lately? Have seen the reports that significant amount of pollution in San Francisco is blowing in from China?
San Francisco is already polluted from within...anything from China is probably freshening up the joint.
genuineoriginal
New member
The United States has been investigating the ability to use weather as a weapon of warfare since 1967 and their efforts may have been changing the climate, if reports can be believed. See: Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare
What is not causing the climate change is CO2 emissions, and none of the climate change policies regarding CO2 will prevent "global warming" or have much of an impact at all except to transfer more wealth to the super-rich.
republicanchick
New member
I've listened to the pope's talk @ Congress and the Churches, and while i wouldn't have even MENTIONED "climate change" the science of which is highly in dispute.. I didn't hear ONE thing that says he cares more about that than he does about life, which he said should be protected through all stages of development
but of course, we know the liberals & the anticatholics are never going to hear THAT kind of thing...
There is no so blind as he who plugs his ears so he can only hear what he wants to hear and disregard the rest
____
but of course, we know the liberals & the anticatholics are never going to hear THAT kind of thing...
There is no so blind as he who plugs his ears so he can only hear what he wants to hear and disregard the rest
____
genuineoriginal
New member
Not at all.
It is just a way for the super-rich to transfer more wealth to themselves.
Since the super-rich set government policy in various world governments, it is no wonder that those various world governments would go along with them.
There is only a single source for the data, and there is proof that the data was cooked by that single source.
You have heard of climate-gate, right?
No, the fact that he is a Pope shows that he is easily fooled by the opinions of others, since being a Pope is against the teachings of scripture.
genuineoriginal
New member
Electricity is a very inefficient way to heat a home.
A much more efficient way to heat a home is to use heating oil, but climate changers are trying to prevent people from using it, so people will freeze to death because they can't get heating oil to heat their homes and electric heat is too expensive.
genuineoriginal
New member
CO2 is wonderful in a greenhouse. It helps promote plant growth and is often depleted by plant consumption. That is why professionals often add additional CO2 to the air in their greenhouses.
What CO2 does not do is hold heat in the greenhouse, that is done by the greenhouse itself, not the air inside it. When professionals want to hold heat in their greenhouses, they will add barrels of water, since water holds heat much better than air does.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Not remotely "highly in dispute".
genuineoriginal
New member
Not remotely "highly in dispute".
I am surprised that so many got past the peer-review bias.
Didn't the peers that reviewed the papers against CO2 climate change have government grant money at stake like the rest of them did? Didn't they have any desire to protect the cash cow of false information about climate change?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Indeed. But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
I'm sorry but you have a physics fail here. CO2 doesn't "hold" heat. It captures heat in the form of infrared radiation that leaves earth and then re-radiates it so that it can be absorbed by the earth's surface and oceans. That's good in small quantities. Without it earth would be a frozen wasteland. But we are pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere so fast that it's changing the dynamic.
A small increase on a planet wide scale increases global temperature by only a small amount, but every few degrees is a massive increase in earth's energy budget.
| CO2 is a greenhouse gas | |
The CO2 isn't analogous to the water mass in the greenhouse. It's analogous to the glass/plastic of the greenhouse structure. Sunlight passes through the glass, heating the air inside the greenhouse, but the heat can't escape because it is trapped by the glass. CO2 does the same thing in the earth's atmosphere, it keeps heat from escaping, but it doesn't store the heat - earth's mass does that.
The water mass in your example is analogous to earth's oceans. They are able to absorb and hold heat much more effectively than the atmosphere. And the oceans are heating as well as the air.
Uh, no, it is not. Other than by right wing politicians in the US who are more concerned about keeping next quarter's profits up than they are about either the natural world or anyone who might be a "loser" per The Donald.
Those rotten scientists and all the $ they make.
Serious and thoughtful citizens need to evaluate "studies" like these more closely. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that climate is affected by human actions.
Alate_One
Well-known member
:rotfl: How does your sort not see the massive cash flow on the side of fossil fuel production? The comparison is just ludicrous.
Researchers could (and the handful of "skeptics" do) get mountains of money from fossil fuel companies. There's no monetary benefit to scientists to support climate change. There's a big money incentive to pretend climate change doesn't exist.
I'm not saying the world is not in a dangerous era today. What I am saying is that countries like China and Germany are way, way ahead of us with the technologies that are more clean and efficient.
If you ever get a chance to take a train through Germany, just look out the window: no slums, no trash, no broken-down cars or piles of tires. Clean skies and beautiful green grass and trees. And lots of solar panels and windmills along the way.
Some countries know what they are doing and don't have an anti-science strain in their populations. They have generally better schools and have lots of money to be used for problem-solving and care of their population.
And the streets in the cities are awesomely clean!
genuineoriginal
New member
It is good to see that you can't tell the difference between a gas and glass.
genuineoriginal
New member
It is the super-rich that are making the most money off of the climate change hoax.
But, the scientists do like to protect the funding that pays the mortgage on their middle-class houses, since they don't want to end up on the streets like the suckers that are put out of jobs by government climate change policies.