Bad tempered, I see no bad temper at all, I see a poignant analogy, maybe you're overly sensitive who typically wants to give it out but can't take it.

We who are speaking of man's impact has a much better understanding of the impact we are having on our little bubble. This is 2020 and we have plenty of data from all forms of life on what consequences have been happening from surmountable waste.

What we want to do is rectify that. Understand, that the only thing we DO have control over is what we do with our waste, in every for. Got it? Who should be absorbing THAT expense are the companies benefiting by their extreme profits. Yes extreme.

Your water pistol analogy is ignorance to the highest degree.

Natural greenhouse gas emissions vs. manmade: what’s the difference?
Before the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the last century, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were rather steady. This was not a snapshot: they were steady for thousands of years.

That’s because natural CO2 is not static, meaning it is not simply in the air, sitting there. Naturally-generated CO2 is a part of a very natural cycle in the atmosphere. That’s why the levels remained stable.

The carbon on land and in the ocean has stayed in balance. By measuring ice cores and using proxies, we have been able to study historic CO2 levels both directly and indirectly. The Earth has been able to generate, absorb, and cycle through carbon dioxide naturally for generations.

Now, consider what happens when manmade carbon dioxide sources begin their ascent. Yes, the natural cycle of carbon in the atmosphere has been handling 750 gigatons of CO2 every year. Our 32 ½ gigatons seem paltry and inconsequential compared to that, right?

Well, not so much. Our world is made to handle the 750 gigatons naturally. Adding more than 30 gigatons is devastating because the land and the ocean do not have the capability to absorb that CO2.

Picture the Earth as a 2-quart bowl. Now imagine it filled with exactly two quarts of water. The bowl can easily handle that 2 quarts. But now, take another cup of water and dump it into the bowl. Immediately, you see the problem: that cup of water is going to overflow the bowl.

There are some who consider naturally-occurring sources of carbon dioxide to be proof that man made CO2 isn’t that big of a deal. But think of that bowl: the problem isn’t that the bowl has two quarts of water in it - the bowl is designed to handle that much water. The problem is the extra cup of water.

The same is true for us: the problem isn’t the 750 gigatons of CO2 that our planet can already handle - it’s the extra CO2 that we’re releasing into the atmosphere that it can’t handle.

The Earth is doing its best: about 40% of the extra CO2 in the air is being absorbed. But what happens to the rest of the CO2? It sits in the atmosphere.

What is the effect?
Because greenhouse gases have increased 31% since the Industrial Revolution, there is an extra buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to increase.

Yes, natural carbon dioxide contributes to this. But human activities are devastating the carbon cycle. The National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts a 90% chance that human activities - like the f****l f**l burning we’ve discussed here - will cause an increase in global temperatures of 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

http://www.arcadia.com/energy-101/environmental-impact/greenhouse-gas-emissions-natural-vs-man-made/

Fortunately, there's a book by Mark Steyn that helps sort out the t***h from the fiction. It's called A Disgrace to the Profession and features short essays and articles by scientists who speak out against the g****l w*****g / c*****e c****e h**x being perpetrated on the world.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz4JLQI0Rxa The '97% consensus' of scientists on c*****e c****e is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

(NaturalNews) The brain-dead l*****t media isn't really in the news business anymore. It's actually in the business of zombie control... with the zombies being, of course, the l*****t libtard obedient propaganda swallowers who are easily fooled by sleight-of-hand trickery being paraded as science. (Then again, there are also CONtards on the right who are easily fooled by fraudulent "GMO science," so the criticism deserves to be equally distributed across the political establishment...)

If you've ever has the misfortune of listening to the libtard l*****t media, you've probably heard the claim -- repeated like a mantra chant to Gaia -- that "97% of scientists believe in man-made c*****e c****e" (or some similar paraphrased version of this fraudulent claim).

Fortunately, there's a book by Mark Steyn that helps sort out the t***h from the fiction. It's called A Disgrace to the Profession and features short essays and articles by scientists who speak out against the g****l w*****g / c*****e c****e h**x being perpetrated on the world.

What follows is the shocking explanation behind the so-called "97% consensus" statistic being spouted everywhere by libtards and libtard scientists (and yes, the term "libtard" is intended to be offensive... especially to libtards...).

You are like a bad tempered child that screams because daddy won't give him a pony. You have no understanding that humanity lives in a thin spherical sheath, only a few miles thick, and covering another thin spherical sheath of rock, which floats on top of an 4000 mile radius ball of molten rock and super compressed material. We are at the mercy of the massive forces governing this globe What you want to do is spend all of our resources buying fans to 'counter' a tornado. Not only impractical and unworkable, but STUPID! Man made 'g****l w*****g' is no more responsible for what is happening to our planet than a water pistol contributes to a rainstorm. If we are serious about adapting to our planet's current warming trend, with a minimum loss of resources and life, then we need to
1. develop alternate energy sources that WORK, such as safe nuclear power. Solar energy is too weak and unconcentrated, and wind energy is an expensive toy that is does not even pay for itself. Both are undependable and have their own severe adverse affects on the environment. 2. Develop practical space craft so that we can industrialize space and use our biosphere for living. And we can then get some of mankind's eggs out of this one, very fragile, basket. 3. STOP wasting time and energy on h**xes that are actually intended only to give to the governments the wealth, power, and control over people thet all bureaucracies crave.

Bad tempered, I see no bad temper at all, I see a poignant analogy, maybe you're overly sensitive who typically wants to give it out but can't take it.

We who are speaking of man's impact has a much better understanding of the impact we are having on our little bubble. This is 2020 and we have plenty of data from all forms of life on what consequences have been happening from surmountable waste.

What we want to do is rectify that. Understand, that the only thing we DO have control over is what we do with our waste, in every for. Got it? Who should be absorbing THAT expense are the companies benefiting by their extreme profits. Yes extreme.

Your water pistol analogy is ignorance to the highest degree.

Natural greenhouse gas emissions vs. manmade: what’s the difference?
Before the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the last century, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were rather steady. This was not a snapshot: they were steady for thousands of years.

That’s because natural CO2 is not static, meaning it is not simply in the air, sitting there. Naturally-generated CO2 is a part of a very natural cycle in the atmosphere. That’s why the levels remained stable.

The carbon on land and in the ocean has stayed in balance. By measuring ice cores and using proxies, we have been able to study historic CO2 levels both directly and indirectly. The Earth has been able to generate, absorb, and cycle through carbon dioxide naturally for generations.

Now, consider what happens when manmade carbon dioxide sources begin their ascent. Yes, the natural cycle of carbon in the atmosphere has been handling 750 gigatons of CO2 every year. Our 32 ½ gigatons seem paltry and inconsequential compared to that, right?

Well, not so much. Our world is made to handle the 750 gigatons naturally. Adding more than 30 gigatons is devastating because the land and the ocean do not have the capability to absorb that CO2.

Picture the Earth as a 2-quart bowl. Now imagine it filled with exactly two quarts of water. The bowl can easily handle that 2 quarts. But now, take another cup of water and dump it into the bowl. Immediately, you see the problem: that cup of water is going to overflow the bowl.

There are some who consider naturally-occurring sources of carbon dioxide to be proof that man made CO2 isn’t that big of a deal. But think of that bowl: the problem isn’t that the bowl has two quarts of water in it - the bowl is designed to handle that much water. The problem is the extra cup of water.

The same is true for us: the problem isn’t the 750 gigatons of CO2 that our planet can already handle - it’s the extra CO2 that we’re releasing into the atmosphere that it can’t handle.

The Earth is doing its best: about 40% of the extra CO2 in the air is being absorbed. But what happens to the rest of the CO2? It sits in the atmosphere.

What is the effect?
Because greenhouse gases have increased 31% since the Industrial Revolution, there is an extra buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to increase.

Yes, natural carbon dioxide contributes to this. But human activities are devastating the carbon cycle. The National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts a 90% chance that human activities - like the f****l f**l burning we’ve discussed here - will cause an increase in global temperatures of 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

http://www.arcadia.com/energy-101/environmental-impact/greenhouse-gas-emissions-natural-vs-man-made/


Another age-old climatic skeptic myth, is that the CO2 is coming from volcanoes – first time I had to rebut this was as a young postdoc in the 1990s. The total volcanic emissions are between 0.04 and 0.07 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, compared to the anthropogenic emissions of 12 gigatons in 2016. Anthropogenic emissions are now well over a hundred times greater than volcanic ones. The volcanic emissions are important for the long-term CO2 changes over millions of years, but not over a few centuries.

Of course there are many causes that spark the fires raging across the western states and we really can't track them down to one cause. But there's more to starting a fire than a spark. You need three things... heat (such as a spark) oxygen and fuel.

It's the fuel that makes these fires so much worse now than they used to be. There's more of it. Why? because of increased drought conditions... the lack of rain k**ls the vegetation and dries the biomass into fuel for fire. Of course droughts have always been a problem in the western states and so have fires, but for some reason the current drought which started in 2012, has been more severe and prolonged than any previous drought on record and with it comes a series of record-breaking fires with every year getting worse.

Scientists at NOAA are saying this drought would have been bad anyway but not nearly as bad as it is due to... yup, I'm going to say it... G****l W*****g.

I can remember reading the studies as far back as 1978 that predicted these conditions... if we don't curb our emissions, because of the greenhouse effect. Then I watched that concern turn into a political battle with Democrats asking for the concern to be addressed and Republicans downplaying the studies and denying the science upon which they were based. Obviously, the Republicans were protecting the oil business which didn't want to sacrifice any part of their profit for a cleaner environment.

The Republican people v**ed big oil tycoons to the White House and sent their loved ones to fight wars to advance oil profits. Republicans have always been on the side of burning f****l f**ls without any concern for the consequences.

42 years after I first read about g****l w*****g and it's potential outcomes, I am witnessing exactly what they predicted. We did NOT curb our emissions. The Republicans got in the way. Everytime we tried, the Republicans would reverse our efforts. I watched it happen... for 40 years!

So when I see those fires raging, blotting out the sky, destroying forests and structures, k*****g people and animals alike, I blame the Republicans. I don't accept ignorance on this one. There is no lack of information on this. After 40 years, if people STILL don't get it, it's because they choose not to. Therefore the lives lost in the fires was by choice. The choice made by Republicans... e******n after e******n.

And that goes for ALL people who have v**ed Republican over the last 40 years. Even those of you reading this. Yes, I am telling these Republicans with the utmost clarity... YOU are to blame for the fires and all the lives these fires will claim. 100%!