Our Oceans are Under Attack

Buddhism is one of the better religions such as Shaolin Kung Fu where they practice what the preach as in vegetarian values and none materialism while living in harmony with mother nature, but will defend them self's as a last resort.
The other month I had a meeting with a high ranked Buddhist monk and asked him questions why Thailand monks still eat offerings of meat, his answers are self justified and wrong, I never debated with him about the true meaning of love as in his mind at least he was trying.

The only way humans can be saved from global warming is pure love, but this simplest one word meaning in life for some reason is frowned upon if mentioned.

 

Climate Change’s ‘Waking Giant’ to Set off Rash of Volcanic Eruptions, Tsunamis, Earthquakes?

 

All may or not be valid hypothesis, but have NOTHING to do with man generated co2.
Neither does Milankovitch cycles.

If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, the baffle them with your BS. Ya'll keep trying, but we are on to your shell game.

I'll give a good example.

Positive feedback loops.
For years, doomsters have preached a tiny bit of co2 caused warming that caused a great amount of water vapor that increased the warming.
And apparently they think that's rational!
Both water vapor AND co2 are increased by warming.
Natural cycle warming would produce more water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, and additional warming would result, and all this warming cause more co2 outgassing from the oceans.
A positive feedback based on water vapor being the dominant greenhouse gas, which it is. Far more rational hypothesis than a teeny, teeny bit of man made co2 tipping the scales.
But you can't take over the world with that scenario, so it has to be anthropogenic co2 or nothing.
You get nothing.

 

The Greeks had 6 different words for love.
Which do you refer to as "pure love"?
Assuredly not "eros"?
Platonic?
Agape?
Philia?
Storge?
Ego?

 

We could add patriotic love to those above.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Some climate change denial groups allege that CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, and has little effect on the climate.
The scientific consensus, as summarized by the IPCC's fourth assessment report, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other reports, is that human activity is the leading cause of climate change.
The burning of fossil fuels accounts for around 30 billion tons of CO2 each year, which is 130 times the amount produced by volcanoes.
Some groups allege that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas, and is left out of many climate models.
However, water vapor has been incorporated into these models since the inception of climatology in the 1800s, and while it is also a greenhouse gas, CO2 remains the primary driver of increasing temperatures.
Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming stopped recently, and global temperatures are actually decreasing, leading to "global cooling

 

Germany's Incredible Green Movement

http://www.utne.com/community/germanys-incredible-green-movement.aspx

While the United States’ congressional machinery was busy shoveling sugar into its own gas tank last month, politicians in Germany pressed forward on their ambitious drive for sustainability. Boosted by a fresh mandate in the September elections, German leaders pressed on with their country’s “Energy Transformation,” a campaign designed to ignite a renewables revolution and slash greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050. As Germany begins powering down its coal plants and nuclear reactors one by one, solar stations and windmills are appearing around the country by the tens of thousands.

U.S. climate activists have been quick to valorize Germany’s recent restructuring. Bill McKibben of 350.org has called Germany the greenest industrial nation on earth. “Munich is north of Montreal!” he likes to point out, emphasizing that the cold and cloudy capital of kraut is already capable of generating half of its electricity from solar power — and that the rest of the world’s sunnier, windier and more seismically active countries no longer have an excuse not to follow suit.

There is good reason for painting Germany as the poster child of the possible. As McKibben has noted, a north European ski paradise isn’t the likeliest of places to be spearheading a global energy revolution.
The message for the United States couldn’t be clearer. Sustained popular support for environmental legislation can wield dramatic political power — and major change is sure to follow. As Germany has demonstrated, even the most modern of nations can adopt the kind of sweeping, no-holds-barred legislation our world needs if we are to escape climate calamity. Germany may not have all the answers, but as it blazes a path away from fossil fuels and nuclear power, there will certainly be much for the United States to listen to.

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


"When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."

insignificant
roughly 1/400th of warming is mans fault. A quarter of one percent.

co2 is an insignificant trace gas. 400 parts per million of atmosphere.

"Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases"

 


/Opinion2 FREE Issues of Forbes
Mar 31, 2014 @ 2:06 PM 176,284 views


The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

 

Who are the climate change deniers?

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/

Why is that? 97% of climate scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. The news was abuzz about climate change and global warming earlier this year. Even President Obama made an official statement on the topic in June.

So why do these Americans refuse to budge on the issue? In a provocative article earlier this year, Chris Mooney suggested a simple answer: “Conservatives don’t deny climate science because they’re ignorant. They deny it because of who they are.”

Could this be true? Do climate change deniers know all there is to know about climate change and global warming, but they still refuse to accept it because of their beliefs?

Surprisingly, income and educational attainment have no effect whatsoever on whether someone accepts that climate change is occurring or not: The “Yes” answers float around 70% regardless of whether the poll respondent brings in $20,000 or $200,000 a year. This finding seems to hint that knowledge has very little to do with whether someone accepts climate change nowadays.

If knowledge has little to do with climate change acceptance, what does? American conservatives are well-known to be climate change deniers, so what do the poll results look like when we break the answers down by political affiliation?
That’s not an error with my plotting software. 86% of Democrats accept climate change, whereas half of all Republicans are still in denial on the issue. While there are still some Democrats in denial about climate change, it’s fair to say that the majority of climate change deniers today are Republican.

Oddly enough, climate change has also become a religious issue in the past decade. Could a person’s religiosity affect whether they accept that global climate change is occurring?
Sure enough, we see the same trend as with political affiliation: The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to deny climate change. Whereas 80% of atheists accept climate change, only 56% of all very religious Americans agree.

It’s fairly clear from these graphs that religious, Republican American conservatives are the majority of climate change deniers today. If income, education, and knowledge has little to do with climate change acceptance, then could it be that climate change acceptance has become a cultural rather than factual issue in America? Do conservative Americans deny climate change simply because it conflicts with their identity as a conservative?

If that’s the case, then throwing facts at climate change deniers isn’t going to make them budge on the issue.

 

that 97% of scientists crap has been soundly refuted so many times, and just a few pages back.
Why do you insist on reposting lies that were shown to be lies very recently?
Cook (who invented the 97%) is an embarrassment to agwers

 

here it is again

 

Here it is again

 

The Widening World of Hand-Picked Truths | New York Times

 

The UN demands it be given dominion over carbon and the power to tax carbon in every country in the world. The UN is the most corrupt body on the planet, and socialists the loudest voices.

Not going to happen.

Conservatives know big government is remote, insensitive, and tyrannical. Don't want it.
I'm neither republican or democrat. Both are wings of the big government, big spenders party.

Socialists, since the fall of the USSR have tried to use the green movement to take over the USA and the world.

Not going to happen in the USA.

The doomsters arguments are NOT scientifically based, but a fabrication of lies, double talk, and presumptions. They resist any ideas beyond their doctrine. "The debate is over!" and "The science is settled!" is their song and dance and obvious to everyone, including doomsters, a bullying tactic (silence any opposition) and proves their closed minds.

The 97% consensus they insist on claiming was from a discredited report by Cook claiming 97% of peer reviewed 12,000 papers were in the doomsters camp.
In truth, only 65 of those 12k papers strongly endorsed the doomsters message.
But they persist in quoting 97%.
Closed minds? World dominion agenda? Fudged numbers, faked data, politician edited "science" (pseudo) IPCC reports, repeat lies often enough some will believe them?
These are NOT nice folks. They're enemy!

Article 5 convention coming for the American people, through their state legislatures, to stop the tyrannical abuses of the big federal government, and impose stringent restraints so never again can it run rabid.
The states created the federal government and can also change, abolish, or diminish the federal government, or preferably, repair, restrain, and force obedience upon the feds, to serve the will of the people as the constitution intends.
or, should that not be successful
The tree of liberty will once again need watering with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

You are not stealing THIS country! NO!