Global warming and politics

[kevm14]

Also Al Gore is a giant douchebag. And he really kick-started this current hysteria.

This video talks to the whole "97%" thing. And Al Gore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu-E-sd3H2w

[kevm14]

So this video explained where the 97% thing came from and it is the biggest load of shit ever. My god.

[kevm14]

A US Senate hearing on the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0

This guy's conclusion: our climate is far, far less sensitive to human activity/CO2 than what is currently being sold to us. He also touches on the bogus 97% thing.

[kevm14]

There is more inertia against this religion than I thought. This "warms" my heart. Get it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

The Global Warming Petition project;
Started by Dr Art Robinson in response to the false alarm over CO2;
http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_...
and
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Was signed by 31,487 scientists (in the USA alone); they all say that there is no cause for any alarm over our CO2 emissions.

This is a good one to watch.

[kevm14]

There are a lot of reasonable arguments on this side of the fence.

In 2016 it is again confirmed that the proper, sane definition of AGW is actually, 'Al Gore's Wrong'!!! Yes civilization must be responsible, but CO2 is NOT toxic, is not increasing at harmful levels, is not causing catastrophic climate changes and is in fact a benefit to human progression.

The demonization of a beneficial element to plant growth is simply an anti-human boondoggle and it in fact, is all about UN/IPCC/Obama human taxation, control, equalization and has NOTHING to do with Climate!

Yes renewable energy is not self sustaining nor practical. It is very limited in capability and capacity. In fact can anyone list 10 useful modern day items made of, made by, composed of, powered by, maintained by renewables and does not require ANY fossil fuel involvement? We need ALL forms of energy, optimize each and use the best one to suit the given need. Why are we even discussing this? We need optimization, not elimination!!! Let's get busy!

Perhaps the Governments should simply issue two cards. #1 says 'I support fossil fuels', #2 says 'I do not support fossil fuels'. You can only sign one of them! But in order to use a Highway, or get gas at the pump, or propane for your BBQ, you MUST have a signed #1 card! That will weed out many hypocrites! What card is in our Leader's Wallet? Yes we need MORE safe, new, controlled, maintained, integrity tested, known design-life pipelines, not less! Let's get busy, build them Safe, Strong and Soon!

I am not worried about running out of fossil fuels, we have at least 200yrs supply in North America alone. It must be understood that we will never get to the Jetsons by having us go back to the Flintstones!

[kevm14]

From the last youtube video as well:

There are only 390 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. This is less than miniscule. It is almost non-existent. What’s more 93% of this miniscule greenhouse gas is naturally-released from soil, water, volcanos, etc. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is also miniscule. Atom absorbic spectroscopy shows that CO2 can only absorb infra-red radiation in the 15-micron frequency range, which means it only has the most miniscule of miniscule greenhouse effect. Water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas, absorbing the entire infra-red spectrum and is 30,000 ppm in our atmosphere. In addition, CO2’s greenhouse effect is logarithmic. Higher concentrations have a decreasing greenhouse effect. Once CO2 exceeds 540 ppm, any additional CO2 has almost no effect. Despite the virtually-nil role CO2 plays in climate change, yet alone the paltry 7% of CO2 which is man-made, the small amount of CO2 there is in the atmosphere rises and falls along with temperature not because it is a cause of the temperature, but because of out-gassing. It is an effect of rising and falling temperatures. Out-gassing is a chemical property of gasses whereby more gas is released the warmer it becomes. Accordingly, as temperatures rise, more natural CO2 is released from water and soil.  The nutty hockey stick graph is as much of a fraud as Al Gore is. The graph was fabricated by Penn State scientist Dr. Michael Mann who all but discounted the Medieval Warming Period when temperatures were warmer than today, (according to 1,051 peer-reviewed studies representing 601 research institutes in 44 countries) and the Little Ice Age. If you remove these two huge climatic changes and smooth out the data from 1000 to 1930, it makes the graph look sinister. It’s not. The hockey stick is a bad joke even among AGW proponents. Ice core analysis proves rising and falling CO2 is the result of rising and falling temperatures, not the other way around. They conclusively show that when a new warming period starts, CO2 levels are still falling, and vice-versa. CO2 is not a poisonous gas. It is an essential plant food. It would be better for the earth if CO2 rose substantially from current levels. Higher CO2 creates higher crop yields. It saves millions from starvation. If CO2 falls below 180 ppm all life on earth would cease. CO2 would have to increase to 30,000 ppm (or about 10,000%) to reach dangerous levels. Water vapor, the sun and its solar cycles, galactic cosmic rays, ocean currents, jet streams, el Nino, tectonics, and cloud activity all affect climate. CO2 does not. It does not matter.
 
So why the hoax? Governments want trillions in CO2 taxes. Scientists want millions in AGW research grants, security companies want trillions in carbon trading commissions, and the UN wants trillions for global wealth redistribution. Governments also want to control CO2 emissions to wield power. It just amazes me that intelligent people believe this AGW stuff. It actually defies logic. It’s about money, corruption, and power.

Emphasis mine. I've been saying a lot of this stuff for years.

Why is this still a thing? And for god's sake, why is this scientific discussion so highly politicized??

[kevm14]

For all you GLOW BULL WARMING believers, would you please answer these questions:

1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.

hell...I'd just be happy if they defined what "climate change" means.....as if the climate of the earth hasn't always been in flux. It's a human reality that every generation thinks they're the most important one in the history of the world...each announces impending doom for the planet unless "they" in their immense greatness can stop it from happening. I think the applicable terms used by psychiatrists would be "Messianic Complex" and "Megalomania". ....sorta all balled-up into one big "look at me!" fest.

[kevm14]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw

Not a bad debate really. The last line is great.

[kevm14]

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.
Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

This is good, too.

A commenter's observation:

The old timers have nothing to lose so they can speak their mind. The younger scientists are cowed by the system and have to give fealty to it to survive. One day our decedents will look back and see this as a pretty dark and shameful era.

[kevm14]

Top 5 myths debunked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

So regardless of your stance on the issue, I think the overwhelming point is that any time someone is saying "the debate is closed" you should immediately be skeptical.

EDIT: this is worth watching just for the movie clips alone.

EDIT 2: he brings up a very good point about government budgeting which does hit pretty close to home.