The parts in red are made up numbers:
In 1800, man polluted the air with 100 pounds of emissions, mostly from fires.
In 1850, man polluted the air with 100% more than he did fifty years before.
In 1880, man polluted the air 70% more than he did in 1850.
In 1910, man polluted the air 800% more than thirty years prior.
None of that means anything.
You need perspective.
James Lovelock, one of the pioneers of the global warming movement tells us the pieces we are missing in the story.
Like HOW MUCH MANKIND PRODUCES
30 gigatonnes - TODAY.
So using my made up numbers, you can then see how much we produced at that time.
Very scary when you think about 30 gigatonnes. Until I tell you that the total amount sent into the atmosphere is 550 gigatonnes each year, and what we create of that amount is less than 8%.
If every car, SUV, plane, train, truck, home, building, cow, pigs, and horse, along with every human being on earth - all vanished tomorrow - EARTH would emit 520 gigatonnes.
There is, according to Lovelock, absolutely NOTHING mankind can do to change what will happen.
The answer is NOT to drive faster, pollute more, rather act prudently - cut back not because it will change anything BUT rather because it will make the time you have better. That and the more important point - instead of wasting the $7 trillion on useless tripe, use it to help the millions who will lose their property, farms, homes, to the rising water. This idea rather than throwing $7 trillion at a problem you cannot in any way change and then when it happens anyway, coming back and demanding we now spend another $7 trillion to help the people - that is theft, that is dishonesty, that is fraud, that is illegal and immoral.
The other issue is sustainability and no, they are not the same, and no real scientist would suggest they are. They are separate issues entirely - different species if you will.
That we are using too many resources and nothing will remain.
Much of that is a lie. The rest, fear, prompted by people who profit off the fear and make a great deal of money (Al Gore establishing a company to buy and sell carbon credits).
In any way, shape, form - have I suggested there is no global warming. Nope. I have said it wouldn't make any difference what you do, it will happen anyway, and your role in the grand scheme is so infinitesimally insignificant as to border on invisible. I understand people want to believe they make a difference. It simply isn't true.
One example - the Mediterranean in the late 1960s and early 1970s versus 1982. Over the course of 10-12 years something happened.
The way this works is - I don't need to prove everything you believe is wrong, just enough to warrant reconsideration of unscientific fear mongering. On the other hand, you have to prove beyond a doubt that your theory IS more than a theory and is accurate and real, backed by more than 100 years of data. The issue - you can't. You have to prove why stealing $7 trillion is worth it, and not with mumble jumble about resources.
More geologists believe (than those who don't) that there are upwards of 100,000,000,000 barrels of oil in the Rocky mountains. Some geologists have suggested there are more than 4 trillion barrels of oil. More oil in the Rocky mountains than man has pumped and used in the entire history of oil. We cannot ever run out of oil. Some Russian scientists believe, wrongly I believe, that resources can never run out - they are constantly replenished. Whether the fact - there are more barrels of oil in the Rocky mountains than in all of the Middle East or the Russians - we are not in danger of running out of that resource. (The estimates range from 100 billion to over 3 trillion barrels)
Water - the answer is more complicated than we might first believe. We could construct huge pipelines to Northern Canada and no, we would not need to worry about water for 300-400 years. There is absolutely no shortage of rain or water north of Edmonton Alberta. None. Enough for as many people as need water. The issue will be getting to it.
The other part of the issue is - more people = more water use. Immigration will have to be reviewed.
What other resource?
In 1800, man polluted the air with 100 pounds of emissions, mostly from fires.
In 1850, man polluted the air with 100% more than he did fifty years before.
In 1880, man polluted the air 70% more than he did in 1850.
In 1910, man polluted the air 800% more than thirty years prior.
None of that means anything.
You need perspective.
James Lovelock, one of the pioneers of the global warming movement tells us the pieces we are missing in the story.
Like HOW MUCH MANKIND PRODUCES
30 gigatonnes - TODAY.
So using my made up numbers, you can then see how much we produced at that time.
Very scary when you think about 30 gigatonnes. Until I tell you that the total amount sent into the atmosphere is 550 gigatonnes each year, and what we create of that amount is less than 8%.
If every car, SUV, plane, train, truck, home, building, cow, pigs, and horse, along with every human being on earth - all vanished tomorrow - EARTH would emit 520 gigatonnes.
There is, according to Lovelock, absolutely NOTHING mankind can do to change what will happen.
The answer is NOT to drive faster, pollute more, rather act prudently - cut back not because it will change anything BUT rather because it will make the time you have better. That and the more important point - instead of wasting the $7 trillion on useless tripe, use it to help the millions who will lose their property, farms, homes, to the rising water. This idea rather than throwing $7 trillion at a problem you cannot in any way change and then when it happens anyway, coming back and demanding we now spend another $7 trillion to help the people - that is theft, that is dishonesty, that is fraud, that is illegal and immoral.
The other issue is sustainability and no, they are not the same, and no real scientist would suggest they are. They are separate issues entirely - different species if you will.
That we are using too many resources and nothing will remain.
Much of that is a lie. The rest, fear, prompted by people who profit off the fear and make a great deal of money (Al Gore establishing a company to buy and sell carbon credits).
In any way, shape, form - have I suggested there is no global warming. Nope. I have said it wouldn't make any difference what you do, it will happen anyway, and your role in the grand scheme is so infinitesimally insignificant as to border on invisible. I understand people want to believe they make a difference. It simply isn't true.
One example - the Mediterranean in the late 1960s and early 1970s versus 1982. Over the course of 10-12 years something happened.
The way this works is - I don't need to prove everything you believe is wrong, just enough to warrant reconsideration of unscientific fear mongering. On the other hand, you have to prove beyond a doubt that your theory IS more than a theory and is accurate and real, backed by more than 100 years of data. The issue - you can't. You have to prove why stealing $7 trillion is worth it, and not with mumble jumble about resources.
More geologists believe (than those who don't) that there are upwards of 100,000,000,000 barrels of oil in the Rocky mountains. Some geologists have suggested there are more than 4 trillion barrels of oil. More oil in the Rocky mountains than man has pumped and used in the entire history of oil. We cannot ever run out of oil. Some Russian scientists believe, wrongly I believe, that resources can never run out - they are constantly replenished. Whether the fact - there are more barrels of oil in the Rocky mountains than in all of the Middle East or the Russians - we are not in danger of running out of that resource. (The estimates range from 100 billion to over 3 trillion barrels)
Water - the answer is more complicated than we might first believe. We could construct huge pipelines to Northern Canada and no, we would not need to worry about water for 300-400 years. There is absolutely no shortage of rain or water north of Edmonton Alberta. None. Enough for as many people as need water. The issue will be getting to it.
The other part of the issue is - more people = more water use. Immigration will have to be reviewed.
What other resource?
Food? Busy thinkin' of food.
There are many issues with many resources, and like many resources we lacked in the past, technology will provide an answer. It is not a matter of saying - let's waste millions of gallons because we can get it from somewhere else. That is infantile thinking and shows a child's response to disagreement.
There is another issue - it may not be global warming, but rather a global ice age that is approaching. That will somewhat negate many claims today - and Gore will have his award taken back.
The issue is more complex than Gore's brain can possibly comprehend, and no one posting or article will address the issues - nor is there an intention to.
We are not on the verge of extinction, although there are times I wish some people were removed from the gene pool. Sadly, they will persist awhile longer.
science
Posts
