Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.Excellent point. We would gain more land than we lose. Places that a currently uninhabitable now for a large populace, would be available.And when it melts, you'll have that much new land!One ice cap is on land.I think Florida will be safe. Just because the polar ice caps melt, doesnt mean its going to raise the ocean levels that much, if at all.
Here is a fun science experiment. Get a glass, put some ice in it, then fill water to the very top of the glass. Youll notice that the ice is actually sticking up above the water line. When that ice melts, do you think the cup will overflow and spill water down the side? The answer is NO because, 90% of ice is below the water line, leaving 10% above. Why is that? Because there is oxygen trapped in the ice, which increases its mass. When the ice melts, the excess oxygen trapped in the ice no longer takes up space and it condenses down to pure water, which levels out exactly to the waterline.
Yes but the new land isn't in places desirable for people, largely tundra and mountain, far removed from civilization needing developed, meantime, major cities would be under water. Much of the existing used and desired land might become uninhabitable or undesirable. You don't just pick up millions of people, cities, ports, highways, etc., and move them.
The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.
We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.
So....we give up being a super power...okay got it, anything else?Excuse me but our military alone is the single biggest polluter on Earth by far.It's my understanding that the US has reduced greenhouse gasses considerably over the last 20 years.
Instead of talking the talk, the US has walked the walk. Other countries are giving nothing but lip
service in their noble cause. And the "greenies" in this country lap up the lip service.
Just how far do the "greenies" want to go? Destroy our economy? I hear about how evil America
is regarding ecology, but, I never hear just how much they want reduced. I do hear that we need
to start spreading the wealth to countries that are led by dictators, and I think taking that into
consideration, it's more about bringing down the last super power and having the US get line for
globalization. So all you "greenies".....go fuck yourselves
Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.Excellent point. We would gain more land than we lose. Places that a currently uninhabitable now for a large populace, would be available.And when it melts, you'll have that much new land!One ice cap is on land.
Yes but the new land isn't in places desirable for people, largely tundra and mountain, far removed from civilization needing developed, meantime, major cities would be under water. Much of the existing used and desired land might become uninhabitable or undesirable. You don't just pick up millions of people, cities, ports, highways, etc., and move them.
The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.
We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.
Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.
Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.Excellent point. We would gain more land than we lose. Places that a currently uninhabitable now for a large populace, would be available.And when it melts, you'll have that much new land!
Yes but the new land isn't in places desirable for people, largely tundra and mountain, far removed from civilization needing developed, meantime, major cities would be under water. Much of the existing used and desired land might become uninhabitable or undesirable. You don't just pick up millions of people, cities, ports, highways, etc., and move them.
The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.
We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.
Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.
ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change
It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.Excellent point. We would gain more land than we lose. Places that a currently uninhabitable now for a large populace, would be available.
Yes but the new land isn't in places desirable for people, largely tundra and mountain, far removed from civilization needing developed, meantime, major cities would be under water. Much of the existing used and desired land might become uninhabitable or undesirable. You don't just pick up millions of people, cities, ports, highways, etc., and move them.
The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.
We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.
Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.
ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change
You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.
Nonsense. CO2 is insignificant when compared to WATER VAPOR. Do you seriously believe carbon dioxide (plant oxygen) is a THREAT to the planet?Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change
.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
Hothouse gases, primarily CO2 and methane, are widely accepted as being at least a large part of global warming. Now you are telling my warm mist humidifier is the cause.Nonsense. CO2 is insignificant when compared to WATER VAPOR. Do you seriously believe carbon dioxide (plant oxygen) is a THREAT to the planet?Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change
It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.Yes but the new land isn't in places desirable for people, largely tundra and mountain, far removed from civilization needing developed, meantime, major cities would be under water. Much of the existing used and desired land might become uninhabitable or undesirable. You don't just pick up millions of people, cities, ports, highways, etc., and move them.
The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.
We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.
Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.
ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change
You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.
Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
CO2 emissions by country | Statista
We can do this all day.
Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.
You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.
The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.
We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.
Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.
ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change
You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.
Well, you obviously don't understand how big the world really is (compared to us), or that there are MANY factors affecting climate beyond mere CO2. Build all the CO2 machines you want. Put one on every city block. After you figure out who is going to pay for all that, at most all you'll do is perhaps sway the climate trend slightly one way or the other ---- ---- until the Earth really decides to go the way it wants.
Well, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
CO2 emissions by country | Statista
We can do this all day.
Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.
And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.
On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.
Really ? Who was it that provided the links you asked for ?Well, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
CO2 emissions by country | Statista
We can do this all day.
Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.
And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.
On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.
They've done practically nothing towards cleaning up the air, and we have made some major advances over the last 20 years.
And, you call that nothing? Really?
Yet....we are the bad guys.
How much of our economy are you willing to let go of?
Just a side note, you aren't answering the questions that I've asked. Don't worry...I'm used to
the "greenies" not answering.
Well, Angelo, your funny emoji says it all about you. typicalWell, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
CO2 emissions by country | Statista
We can do this all day.
Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.
And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.
On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.
They've done practically nothing towards cleaning up the air, and we have made some major advances over the last 20 years.
And, you call that nothing? Really?
Yet....we are the bad guys.
How much of our economy are you willing to let go of?
Just a side note, you aren't answering the questions that I've asked. Don't worry...I'm used to
the "greenies" not answering.
You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.
ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change
You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.
Well, you obviously don't understand how big the world really is (compared to us), or that there are MANY factors affecting climate beyond mere CO2. Build all the CO2 machines you want. Put one on every city block. After you figure out who is going to pay for all that, at most all you'll do is perhaps sway the climate trend slightly one way or the other ---- ---- until the Earth really decides to go the way it wants.
columbia university artificial trees - Google Search
I asked several questions, you took the low hanging fruit and not theReally ? Who was it that provided the links you asked for ?Well, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
CO2 emissions by country | Statista
We can do this all day.
Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.
And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.
On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.
They've done practically nothing towards cleaning up the air, and we have made some major advances over the last 20 years.
And, you call that nothing? Really?
Yet....we are the bad guys.
How much of our economy are you willing to let go of?
Just a side note, you aren't answering the questions that I've asked. Don't worry...I'm used to
the "greenies" not answering.
Looks to me like you're the one midirecting the facts here.
Well, Angelo, your funny emoji says it all about you. typicalWell, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.Top 5 most polluting countries.....
By the way....do you have a link to your accusation? I heard that China was the biggest polluter.
The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries
U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter
CO2 emissions by country | Statista
We can do this all day.
Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.
And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.
On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.
They've done practically nothing towards cleaning up the air, and we have made some major advances over the last 20 years.
And, you call that nothing? Really?
Yet....we are the bad guys.
How much of our economy are you willing to let go of?
Just a side note, you aren't answering the questions that I've asked. Don't worry...I'm used to
the "greenies" not answering.
lol The technology is already here. These machines, which are fairly small can each collect as much CO2 as 1,000 trees; each one would be as effective as a whole forest of natural trees.You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?
ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change
You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.
Well, you obviously don't understand how big the world really is (compared to us), or that there are MANY factors affecting climate beyond mere CO2. Build all the CO2 machines you want. Put one on every city block. After you figure out who is going to pay for all that, at most all you'll do is perhaps sway the climate trend slightly one way or the other ---- ---- until the Earth really decides to go the way it wants.
columbia university artificial trees - Google Search
Right. I know people doing research in universities. They research this stuff because that is how they get their funding and justify it. And their tuitions. Who knows, someday they may have some limited success. The physics remain the same. Good luck building whole cities full of CO2 sucking boxes and entire forests of fake trees. You'll believe anything you read so long as it fits your agenda.
