Our Oceans are Under Attack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexs

 

Eat them before they eat you! http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/nature-blows-my-mind-weird-deadly-carnivorous-plants.html

 

CO2 is plant food! Gee! Who knew!
This old world isn't as fragile or helpless as some fear.
Self regulating and compensating in varied ways.
Reclaim deserts for more CO2 sinks and agriculture.so everybody is happy and fed.
USA has enough coal to produce electricity for the next 500 years at current demands.

 

More crap. A dairy cow produces 20 to 30 lt of milk per milking so it consumes 30,000 lt of water twice a day. Even allowing for an irrigated farm it is not possible.

 

National Geographic
A gallon (16 cups) of milk—from a cow—requires 880 gallons of water to produce.
http://environment.nationalgeograph...change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/


It can take up to 2,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk. The cow needs water to perform basic biological functions from day to day, and only a fraction of the water the cow consumes is actually converted into milk. The fact that it takes so much water to produce cow's milk means that anytime you or any consumer chooses to drink milk, the burden you place on the natural environment is a thousand times greater than if you were to consume water itself. Drinking one gallon of milk is like pouring 1,999 gallons of fresh water down the drain.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023341_water_milk_organic.html


This Is How Much Water It Takes To Make Your Favorite Foods
For dairy products, cheese and butter take more than milk at 381 gal./lb. and 665 gal./lb. respectively. Milk by itself uses only 122 gallons of water per pound. [122 * 8 = 976 gal water / gal milk]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprint_n_5952862.html

You should do your homework. Maybe Myark isn't full of malarkey after all.

 

Maybe I owe him an apology . Your post sounds like crap to. I live in one of largest milk producing areas in the world and I think those figures are a bit extreme. Our local milk factory is one of the largest powdered milk manufacturers in Australia. 80 percent of the water is separated from the milk and returned to the river next to it after it is treated. Your figures don't make any mention of that.

 

The problem with holding a faith-based position on a scientific matter is that it can lead you to deny the evidence of reality. I have no problem with you holding a faith-based position on matters where it does not have to conflict with evidence, but evolution is not one of those matters. Neither is climate science. Both have practical ramifications which are important. Simply claiming everyone is as willing to deny evidence as you are does not make it true of them. It's projection.

I asked you to do three things. First, look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Second, look up Tiktaalik. Third, make a genuine effort to understand why these are problematic for your denial of evolution.

It's pretty clear from your response that although you have heard of Tiktaalik, and may even have looked up the nerve in question, you have no interest in making a genuine effort to understand the evolutionary arguments. You don't even have sufficient information to be aware of what you are denying. You simply want to beat your chest and proclaim your own awesomeness. Your position is based on pure ignorance and arrogance, and is therefore utterly worthless.

If you had been willing to do what I suggested, you would have found more than one reason why there are extremely good grounds for thinking Tiktaalik was a transitional form.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but some people really are mentally deficient and/or uneducated and/or willfully ignorant. In those cases, making such accusations is entirely justified. I don't think you are too stupid to understand the arguments. I do think you have demonstrated that you are not prepared to make the effort.

A bloke who boasts about how he studied logic should not be attempting use the well-known logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum" as yet another way to try and boast about the supposed accuracy of his views.

And you would have been in a majority, including all generations, back in the 15th century. Some people have managed to learn a few things since then.

 

It's a fast-moving field of science. You may also be interested in these:

Recent sea level rise 'unusual'

The rest of the article is on the link.


There's also this, from NASA and the NDC, who you seem to think highly of:

NASA: Earth Just Experienced the Warmest Six-Month Stretch Ever Recorded

 

People will forget all about AGCC when Yellowstone Volcano erupts and plunges us into ash cloud winter.

 

Talk about projection! Whooee! Substitute yourself in all the above rant.

But first, check out some bonifide scientist's views. Including some opinions on evolution being a RELIGION!

I'm posting youtubes, because facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language are important in assessing if a speaker believes his own words.
Lies can be written, and intent or honesty more difficult to ferret out.
Enjoy, and learn a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w Prof Dr. Roger Pielke and Dr. Roy Spencer, senate Climate Change testimony and Q&A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNbnxaJYOU NASA scientists debunk AGW

 

Go ahead and provide them yourself.

Some people lie well, and some people believe untrue things.

Response is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...itique_of_pielke_jr_statements_on_drought.pdf

Excerpt:

Note the bolded part. This is known as "quote mining", and is a dishonest tactic commonly used by deniers of all sorts.

Too long to watch on my connection, and is having problems loading anyway. Get me a link to text about the issue and I'll read it.

Anyway, the US Department of Defence is taking climate change seriously.

Pentagon warns the US military of climate change

 

If you COULD watch the Nasa scientists, you'd hear arguments aplenty, including argument that human caused global warming is merely opinion, not scientific data.
And there are opinions pro and con on the subject among all levels, including some pentagon officials.
Rank doesn't mean those opinions are correct or valid, but DOES mean they are in a position to arbitrarily initiate policy based on their own opinions.
Hence my concerns regarding diminishment of our Constitution's authority, being the REAL INTENT of AGWers.

If you watch the senate youtube, you will see and hear Dr Pielke's own testimony. Not what someone thinks is a hacked transcript by a politician.
Dr Pieke supports AGW. But if he doesn't present only the data AGWers want, they turn and attack him.
I'd be ASHAMED to be associated with such an unprincipled, data inventing, backbiting, dishonest movement as AGW!

I can't watch streaming videos either because of poor internet service.
http://www.clipconverter.cc/
is a free recording and download site for youtubes. Just paste the youtube url into clipconverter and convert.
Sometimes it tries to install an adware infected mediaplayer app.
Close/delete those popup pages.
I also use a download accelerator to paste the clipconverter generated video url in for download.
One more hint. Select the minimum quality rendition as conversion. Downloads much faster and view ability sufficiently HD not to matter in documentaries. Enjoy

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2aJyIFrA

Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun, declared, "Only a general who was a barbarian would send his men to certain death against the concentrated power of my new gun." But send them they did. In World War One, the machine gun often mowed down tens of thousands of men in a single day.

Orville Wright saw a similar vision: "When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought we were introducing into the world an invention that would make further wars practically impossible." Far from ending war, however, the airplane increased the ability to maim and kill. In firebombing raids on London, Hamburg and Tokyo the airplane wrought previously unimaginable levels of destruction. In a single night, March 9, 1945, 25 percent of Tokyo was destroyed, 80,000 people were killed, and over 1 million left homeless.

History shows the folly in hoping that each new, more destructive weapon will not be used. And yet we dare to hope that this time it will be different. We and the Soviets have amassed a combined arsenal of 50,000 nuclear weapons, equivalent in destructive force to some 6,000 World War II’s, capable of reaching their targets in a matter of minutes, and able to destroy every major city in the world. All in the belief that they will never be used.

But unless we make a radical shift in our thinking about war, this time will be no different. On our current path, nuclear war is inevitable.

 

"On our current path, nuclear war is inevitable."
More alarmist crap. But maybe you are hoping it will solve over population for a century or two?
Watch out! The sky is falling! Or is that an early drought breaking rain drop?

The USSR collapsed in 1991. Who are the soviets and the "we" you refer to? CHINA?

 

Mate, you really need to broaden your perspective. The rest of the world has no interest in US domestic matters. The UN, and all its member countries outside the US, doesn't care about your constitution or about undermining it. Every other country has more than enough to worry about without trying to run the US as well, even if for some weird reason they wanted to run the US. Despite this, other countries are taking AGW seriously, and without making any attempt to undermine civil liberties in their own jurisdictions. Why? Because of the evidence.

Well then, you should definitely drop creationism.

Ok, cool. I'll check it out.