@Neville Telen, I agree with everything in the video. Global Warming is such a fraud and so illogical that I have wondered how it continues to exist. The biggest "greenhouse gas" of all is water vapor. CO2 is down the list a ways, and I know of greenhouse operators who actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth. We have lots of pollutants that we should reduce or eliminate, but CO2 isn't on the list. The entire scenario is a control and profit issue. Al Gore, the great environmentalist, owns the private home which is the biggest energy consumer in Tennessee, and flies to most of his appearances in a private jet, the most inefficient method of transport on the planet. He DID want to sell "Carbon Credits", which would allow him and his cronies to profit big-time from the fraud. He is a master con man, nothing more.
The video you gave said more water is needed to 'green the planet'. Melting the polar ice caps should certainly fix that: The video mentions CO2 as 'the miracle molecule'....here's some additional miracles the video forgot to mention: https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2007/01/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/carbon-dioxide https://www.businessinsider.com/how-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-affects-health-2018-5
Yes, greenhouse operators "actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth". They do not pump CO2 into their homes however, because it does not accelerate human growth, and prolonged exposure has side effects....water vapor has no such ill effects. Whether or not Al Gore is "the great environmentalist", or practices what he preaches is of zero consequence, and merely one of many smoke screens employed by Big Business to 'cloud' the issue. The research is in, the science is in, the effects on the polar ice caps can only be denied by the willfully blind (or by skillful use of Adobe Photoshop). But as I said, the ship has done sailed, so it don't much matter. Irregardless of what the optimists and idealists would have you believe, it's too little and way too late to do anything about it, other than sit back and enjoy the ride. The fat opera gal has done bellowed her swan song, so nothing remains left to do but watch and see which side was right...the libtard scientists or the Big Business cheerleaders.
I don't know the dates on the videos, but the first one comments on the state of things in 2012 and says the model is based on satellite measurements over 35 years--hardly a period of geologic time. The melting seems to have reversed since then based on reports I am getting from the arctic coast. I haven't been up there myself since 1997, but there was plenty of ice at that time. I am hearing reports of sea ice coming onshore this summer (July), something that does not usually happen in the summer and it tends to bring the bears with it...but at least you can see them coming in the summer. The second video has some valid points--dissolved gasses and increased snow. The snow slows freezing but also slows melting from above and itself will eventually become ice. After all, glaciers are formed from snowfall. The polar vortex was moving toward North America, but I don't know where it was last winter. It historically has "dumped" over Asia, causing outbreaks of very cold weather over Siberia. If it has moved to this side of the planet, I don't know what, if anything, that portends. It could result in colder winters and wetter summers, but not necessarily.
If you believe the propaganda, so be it. You can believe whatever you want. Have you been to the arctic? Do you know anyone there?
When people go on with all of the talking points of the man-made global warming agenda, I feel like asking if they believe in the Easter Bunny too. The theory is one giant contradiction built on lies and media hype. The only thing the global warmers having going for them is a media that knows better but doesn't mind lying to people.
Since my previous post I have done further research on the topic, and it no longer appears to be so black 'n' white.....for every reference I find on polar melting, I can find another negating it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...espite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html). However even this article admits "while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting". Sometimes these conflicts are from the same source (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/ vs. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/). Herein lies the problem. Separating the wheat from the chaff, and finding that sweet spot of consensus. Some scientists are obviously libtards that will gladly put their political dogma before their science. Some are obviously 'hired guns' that will 'prove' whatever Big Business wants proven. I think everyone here is old enough to remember the 'proof' that nicotine is not addictive, smoking does not cause cancer, LSD causes "chromosome damage", etc. Another problem comes from Google and other search engines deciding to stop listing the date of articles, search page links, and so on, making it quite difficult to track down relevant (i.e. current) data. There is a National Geographic article titled 'The Big Thaw', which took over 15 minutes to find out it was done many years ago, and even longer to find something current (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/melting-arctic-permafrost-toxic-mercury-environment/). This is a long-winded way of me saying that I may of been wrong, or I may of been right, or I may of been half-right/half-wrong....since there seems to be no 'sweet spot of consensus', it's time to just flip a coin.
An excellent point. CO2 goes in, and the plant converts it into oxygen. CO2 accelerates plant growth. The more CO2, the more plants, the faster they grow, the more they multiply, and the more oxygen is produced. Exactly as said in the 'RE-GREENING the Planet' vid. What the video conveniently neglected to mention is the obvious side effect: http://earthsky.org/earth/why-were-prehistoric-insects-so-huge https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070806112323.htm I ain't no scientist, and cannot say for sure that this will eventually produce arm-long cockroaches or hornets, like millions of years ago, but I can't say it won't either. I can say that if Mother Nature is given an opportunity to do something, she has the tendency to jump on it like a cat on a mouse. On the bright side, it probably won't matter. No one here will have to fight off a swarm of giant skeeters (like in that crappy Hollyweird movie), nor will your children, nor their children live to see it....evolution is a very slow process.
Clearly climate change is occurring, but that's what the climate does, and has done long before mankind interfered.
Yeah, I liked what the Beringia Museum in Whitehouse, Yukon had to say on the matter before Global Warming became a media buzzword: " The earth has been in a constant upward trend in temperature since the glaciers last started receding about 15,000 years ago. While there has been some fluctuation, the general trend has been upward." I don't know if that is still the feeling there, since they rely on government funding, but when I read it to my children, I told them it was probably due to those Neanderthals and their dang SUVs.