Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/20/2011 12:07:58 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
But the Testimony is exceedingly important.
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup
Posted on February 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Manmade CO2 is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of greenhouse gases. Does EPA intend to try and regulate water vapor? That accounts for 99% of greenhouse gases.
In this context, “hypothesis” is spelt C-R-O-C-K.
Banning or over-regulating any of these things is a ploy to control the American people and confiscate their wealth.
Yeah, that’s next, and it’s gonna cost us.
Who needs facts when we have feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings?
I can say with absolute certainty that in normal, breathing atmosphere the level of measurable CO2 is a fraction of a percent. Usually less than .1%.
O2 ranges between 20 and 21%. The other minor gases are also fractions of a percent. The rest of what you breathe is nitrogen.
So, we are in reality, predominately, nitrogen breathers.
That’s good...I depend on Apples...usually Fuji...
I’ve never understood why carbon dioxide is considered such a problem. Or, rather, I know that the idea is the greenhouse effect, but I’ve never understood why that is believed to necessarily eventuate. I thought metabolic reactions were sped up when there was a greater amount of the reactants available, such as carbon dioxide, and I thought plants’ photosynthesis wouldn’t be an exception to this - shouldn’t it be metabolically easier for plants to photosynthesize and thus to produce more oxygen while fixing more carbon when there were more carbon dioxide available? If anyone here knows the answer, I’d appreciate knowing it too. I haven’t been able to find it in my non-technical reading.
Seems to me Ernest that the Supreme’s should have thrown the whole thing out of court, not accepted it, whatever than to have proceeded to basically state that science is the study of______, and therefore allow Jackson to create a rule either way. They simply confirmed what science is, but in so doing allowed Jackson’s ruling that CO2 is a pollutant the illusion of SCOTUS support.
Because the SCOTUS made a ruling as they did, we have additional problem to overcome.
This earth's climate has gone from one extreme to the other countless times over countless hundreds of millions of years. We have a recorded snapshot of climate and atmospheric conditions that covers the equivalent of a nanosecond in ten centuries.
Scientists can have zero idea what would lead up to a global climate shift such as to put sea levels in Florida 350 feet lower than we see them now (that was 20,000 years ago), or 25 feet higher than we see them now (that was 125,000 years ago).
Thinking that "scientists" could identify even the symptoms, let alone the rapidity and man-directed "correction" of global climate shifts, would be a great joke if it didn't threaten to make us extinct by the folks who didn't get the joke.
It's arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Yes and no. Solar will improve, but only to the limits of convertible energy which is limited in winter and cloudy days. Wind is about as good as it's going to get. Where they are used (e.g. wind in Texas) it is hard to argue that they aren't ready. But they will never provide more than a minority of power due to intermittency. So in that sense they will never be ready for prime time.
The little packing house I work for will be packing some shortly. If interested, go to——www.applesonline.com
Which makes it the most perfect conduit for wealth transfer that humankind has ever known.
On a true energy transport basis, it’s more like 10,000,000 %
http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2010/03/simple-chemistry-and-real-greenhouse.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.