Climate Change III

In previous posts on this subject, I was rather dismissive of the effects of CO2 on climate change. We have had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, which did result in higher temperatures. It also resulted in more rain, more plant growth, and a globe which eventually stabilized and remained a life friendly ecosystem. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but is also a very important part of the life cycle; plants use it to create oxygen.

Here’s something I ran across recently (2015-12-21):

  • “Again – for the climate alarmists – 400 ppm (0.0004) of the atmosphere is CO2. Of that, 4% (0.04) is manmade (0.00016). Of that, the US accounts for approx 15% (0.15) or 0.000024. Of that, energy generation accounts for approximately 1/3 (0.33) or 0.00000792. That’s 792/100,000,000 or 792 parts per 100 million. Any of you who think that our ecosystem is so fragile that percentages of 792 parts per 100 million can even been measured, much less somehow change our climate, are fools. Forget the completely inaccurate temperature models and fudging of data–the math doesn’t lie. Hell – don’t break out the US or energy generation figures – 16 ppm (16/1,000,000) can’t be measured, either. It’s all based on assumptions, not measurements. But leave it up the alarmists to pull another flim-flam – “Yes, we’ve been wrong – but it’s much worse than we thought!” When will people stop buying the snake oil?”

So is CO2 the problem, or should we be looking at methane, and its release due to geoengineering, as a much larger problem?

Hopefully your opinion on the subject of CO2 has evolved due to further investigation. If that investigation has led you to the subject presented in the video below, great. If not, take the time to watch and find out what you will never hear from the mainstream media concerning a very real threat to climate, and to the very existence of life on Earth. Are you going to remain stuck in the never-ending war on CO2, or do you want a more realistic example of what is really happening around you?

If you have more time and interest, here’s an interview with Dane Wigington on The Hagmann and Hagmann Report, starting at about 66:20.

 

 

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*