$45 TRILLION dollars to combat "Human Caused" global warming.... Here we go

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Cazzo, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Further "human caused" global warming Hype to screw over humanity. $45,000,000,000,000 to help stop global warming please :

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkS9vagI6QfzOI7UJ3G5YXAzGxiQD914HLSG0


    Let's see, 1 to 5 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "human made", and only 0.0383% of the atmosphere is CO2. And that's going to destroy the planet ?....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    We saw this coming, and worse, now the UN and other global warming disciples are going to use this as an excuse to tax the shit out of industries and everyone. No wonder socialists and leftists are so fond of the "human caused" global warming "science".

    Who knows, maybe next they'll use "human caused" global warming "science" as an excuse to make a 1 world Socialist-Communist nation, apply martial law to humanity, execute "greedy" "right-wing" capitalist company members. Maybe even round up a few billion people and starve/work them to death like the Communists did in the 20th century ! That should take care of the "human CO2 problem". :jason:
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Yes, Ive been repeating these stats for years now...as well as the fact of CO2 being a mild player, compared to water vapour and methane.

    Dont worry...when people start paying $200/barrel they will forget all about global warming.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Vitamin C is a tiny percentage of your blood, but without it you would die. I would explain the CO2 thing to you Cazzo, but you're a scientific retard.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Regardless of whether anthropogenic global warming is a real threat, I doubt it would be worth $45 trillion dollars to combat it. If oceans rise, build some dams. No big deal.

    That's always been my point regarding global warming. I don't care if it's real or not, we can't afford to do anything about it, so we'd best just adapt to any changes in average temperature we do see.

    Meanwhile, half measures like "cap and trade" serve simply to impoverish us and decrease our ability to adapt to a changing planet.
     
  8. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Resorting to personal insults already, that was quick.
    By the same token, I can add a few drops of water to my soda and it won't make a difference to the taste or how it's digested.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Just out of curiosity, please provide us with a scientific proof that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to alter it by a small fraction of a percent will destroy society. Entertain my scientifically "retarded" mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Why is it that the self-described "realistic", "conservative", fact based, money talking, you-can't-fool-me guys have so little attachment to physical reality ?

    How hard is it to check a number ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    It's getting so that simply agreeing with the arguments from evidence of the ordinary consensus of ordinary reputable investigators in even ordinary, well-investigated matters, puts one at odds with the majority of "conservative" people in the US.

    CO2 drives water vapor - without CO2, there would be much less water vapor in the air. Methane is not persistent - does not accumulate.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008
  10. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Ice Aura, you pulled that one directly out of your ass.
     
  11. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    I wouldn't worry about it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    And you aren't going to waste one moment of your precious "thinking" time on actually checking out whatever it was, are you.
     
  13. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Only assuming CO2 drives temperature...circular argument.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
     
  15. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    LOL, the main page to wikipedia.

    Once again, please provide us with a scientific proof that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to alter it by a small fraction of a percent will destroy society. Entertain my scientifically "retarded" mind
     
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    You didn't give a source.
     
  17. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello all

    Three words. Atmosheric continuum absorption . Or if you prefer from here.

    Unknown processes that affect the heat gain of the atmosphere have yet to be understood. I guess there is no money or political power to be gained.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    You do the math.
     
  19. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
  20. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Who would have thought that the sun could cause global warming?
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
  22. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Andre's really fond of this graph, for some reason.

    The upper black line is from one model in 1988. The models did not even include clouds, jet contrails, the Ninas, etc.

    The other lines show a generally and rapidly increasing global temperature, even including times of significant La Nina years. But never mind.

    The pattern does not match any driving force so far proposed except greenhouse gases.
    It's not circular, it's cause and effect.

    Water vapor does not maintain itself in the air at current temp regimes - it precipitates out, etc.
     

Share This Page