TexasCHLforum.com

jason812 wrote:Warmer climate = more grass = more cows = more hamburgers, and I like a tasty burger. So let's make more CO2

I dont know about you guys but it is raining dead polar bears over here in Sugarland!

Syntyr wrote:I dont know about you guys but it is raining dead polar bears over here in Sugarland!

Good! The last time it rained live polar bears things got really nasty.

jason812 wrote:Warmer climate = more grass = more cows = more hamburgers, and I like a tasty burger. So let's make more CO2

Moar CO2 makes grass and trees grow faster.

Pariah3j wrote:The other point that led me to believe it's complete bull, is the whole 'climate deniers' label they love to use if you question their science or methodology... No one is claiming that the Climate is not or does not change. We only are debating on the rate it's changing and how much if any impact humans may or may not have...

This is where I stand too. Good science depends on questioning and testing. Name-calling is political, and I see no reason to expend resources wallowing around in it.

Enjoy!
Jeff

A good way to put CO2 in perspective with a climate-hater hater is to point out there is more argon in the atmosphere than CO2. Every time someone breaks a light bulb or a fluorescent light it releases more, but, as great a threat as argon poses, LED lighting is worse.

LEDs are semiconductors and phosgene is used in semiconductor manufacture. IT'S A NAZI PLOT TO TURN DAYCARES INTO WW1 GAS ATTACKS!

Which only sounds ridiculous until one considers the alimentary gas policies employed by the average pre-schooler for both metabolistic and comedic purpose.

Which, of course, is not so different from Al Gore's philosophical emissions.

As they ask in Paris, qui couper le fromage?

Climate change loons are the useful idiots of those with an entirely different agenda...

In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. there's no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus.

Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
by Michael Crichton

I've long thought that CO2 as a greenhouse gas would have limited, if any, effect on the surface temperature. I believe water vapor is a much larger "greenhouse gas" than CO2. I wonder if the physical models back up the effect of CO2 measured in hundreds of PPM....

apvonkanel wrote: While these are accurate statements, there are countless chemicals that are safe at minute levels in the human body yet even at sub-percent increases become fatal. We're looking at trace chemical that has increased by more than 1/3 of it's original recorded level. For comparison's sake, we're looking roughly at the equivalent of an ounce of a substance in a 150 lb body.

I believe the ice core samples and other methods have shown that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than current levels with no ill effects. There is a point where it is bad, but that point is a lot higher than we are sitting now or are likely be.

bblhd672 wrote:Obviously a ban on dihydrogen oxide is needed.

Has anyone talked about binary oxygen or just dioxide?

I'm a scientist. I in no way deny science, but I know the difference between good science and bad science. I haven't seen any good science in support of man-caused climate change. I also haven't seen any good science that can categorically refute its existence. The point here is that regardless of whether man-caused climate change exists and is a problem or not, the Paris climate accord was a bad deal. It would pour tons of money out of our country with no assurance of it actually making a difference. Look, I like clean air as much as the next guy. I think we should be trying to move toward cleaner forms of energy and reduce pollution, regardless of whether or not it's affecting the global climate. However, the Paris accord is not the way to do that. It's globalist garbage, and President Trump was wise to make the brave decision to keep us out of it.

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion, based on my understanding of the issue. I am sometimes wrong about a variety of things.

MechAg94 wrote:

apvonkanel wrote: While these are accurate statements, there are countless chemicals that are safe at minute levels in the human body yet even at sub-percent increases become fatal. We're looking at trace chemical that has increased by more than 1/3 of it's original recorded level. For comparison's sake, we're looking roughly at the equivalent of an ounce of a substance in a 150 lb body.

I believe the ice core samples and other methods have shown that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than current levels with no ill effects. There is a point where it is bad, but that point is a lot higher than we are sitting now or are likely be.

Drilled ice samples have shown that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but those levels predate humanity.

The biggest issue isn't the current levels, however, it's the constant increase. CO2 in the atmosphere can be looked at similar to lead in the human body with one major exception (more on that in a second). The current levels are not immediately problematic (although many climate scientists disagree), but the rate of increase will bring them to a problematic level. The cumulative effect can EVENTUALLY lead to all the catastrophic issues predicted, but those events are still a long way off. It's reaching the threshold itself that is more immanent, not the effects of reaching that threshold.
The big difference is the fact that we have plant life. Our bodies aren't equipped with "lead scrubbers", but the planet is equipped with CO2 scrubbers. In my belief, it's part of the beauty of God's creation.

I also think the thought process leading to a "climate change hoax" mentality to be shortsighted and dangerously foolish. My grandparents knew their heavy smoking habit and diet was unhealthy. Medical science had not yet progressed to the point that it could nail down the effects of their smoking and eating, and that became a point of contention between the two of them. As a result, my granddad continued a tobacco and eating habits pretty much his whole life, and my grandma stopped decades ago. He died nearly thirty years ago from cardio-pulmonary issues and she's still alive. Now we know exactly what lead to Paw-paw's multiple heart attacks and other issues, but it's too late to do any good. He's passed the point to where he can be convinced. Mimi has continued to make adjustments while still enjoying her bacon, eggs, fried chicken, and ice cream. She just enjoys them in moderation. This example seems to be a very fitting analogy to climate issues. There's obviously change. There are a lot of correlating factors, and some of them the direct cause has been seen. Some of it hasn't. Ignoring it is just plain silly. Then again, ignorance that refuses to change ceases to be only ignorance. At that point it becomes a different problem entirely.

So we better do something quick 'cause we don't know what elevated CO2 could possibly do in the far future to the temperature. And that quick thing must be to stop using the most easily available energy source that has lifted billions out of poverty and deprivation. Because if we don't it might raise CO2, which might raise the surface temperature of the earth above what it is today, which might be bad (or good) for human and plant life. And all this must be accomplished by an unaccountable centralized bureaucracy that is composed of people who hate the US. And we must raise taxes massively at the federal level to accomplish this thing that we don't know is going to help. But what if AGW caused by CO2 is the only thing staving off the coming ice age that we were told about 40 years ago?

I vote for "don't do squat".

Once I noticed the sea level was indeed rising, then, I put the drain plug in my boat

Houston had a problem with Subsidence, so they used Lake Houston and surface water instead of Water wells like Bellaire used.

If you stand on the sinking land and notice water level is at a higher mark on the land, as in a sinking boat, it might mean the land is subsiding/sinking rather than the sea rising #Realtivity
Water wells, Oil Wells ... Natural Gas etc etc all released from underground ...

Solid Rock I stand... All other ground is sinking sand ...