Tucker: Trump gets US out of bad deal and left melts down

[ProVobis]

Don’t you know how very rare government fraud is?

Yeah, who needs Trump University and his other failures?

 

[philipl]

Tucker interviews the Mayor of Miami.

Asks WHY America paying out monies will help global warming?

video.foxnews.com/v/5456841272001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

**The European commission and Netherlands environmental assessment agency **released their 2015 showing percentages by country of CO2 emitters.

China being in the number one spot at 29.5%, the United States the second spot at 14.3, the European Union is third at 9.6, follows India at 6.8, Russia at 4.8, Japan at 3.4, in Germany at 2.16 for a total of 70 to 71%. Meaning the rest of these countries produce a total of 30% of all CO2 emissions combine.

So the fact that I00 hundred and 87 countries have signed the Paris Accord when the truth is we only need China, the United States, the European Union, India, and Russia.

The argument the undeveloped countries need to be paid huge sums of money to lowering their CO2 emissions is a false argument. Many of these countries produce less than half a ton of c02. By the way, the list on Wikipedia only shows the top 40 countries out of those 187

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure I can accept this. I know since I was a kid, some 40yrs ago, better methods of pollution control have been put into place and better technology is making pollution control better and better. Are you saying these efforts have failed? I live in an area literally surrounded by refineries and I notice the better air quality

I think you’ve just demonstrated his point. It’s a local issue but winds spread you know.

 

[Michael68]

I think you’ve just demonstrated his point. It’s a local issue but winds spread you know.

That’s my point! Those winds are much cleaner now. Btw, you and your 5,000sqft yard are working as nature intended.

 

[St_Pancake]

But I have a well-maintained 5000 sq ft lawn to take it in.

I’ve heard that an hour mowing can equal a 100 mile car trip.

 

[Ridgerunner]

However, all the CO2 that I am breathing out I acquired from plants or animals that ate plants that captured CO2 from the atmosphere. So I am not adding to the carbon cycle even a tiny amount.

That is true. About a third of the CO2 that I exhale came from one of these super long term cycles, as you say. But my existing and breathing did not release it. It was already released into the atmosphere. The only way my breathing could add to the short-term carbon cycle would be if I could somehow digest coal in my stomach. I don’t think I want to try.

The “low CO2” during the Little Ice Age was not substantially lower than the ages that preceded it. For the past 800,000 years at least, CO2 concentration has fluctuated between 170 and 290. You can’t lay all that on the Little Ice Age. There is absolutely no doubt, even among global warming skeptics, that the current high level of CO2 is due primarily to man’s burning of fossil fuels. The only room for debate is whether this high level of CO2 is causing global warming.

But you are the one who released the carbon from plant or animal sequestration into the atmosphere. The cycle from air to plant to animal to breath is very short.

The effect of CO2 on temperature is not certain. IPCC itself estimated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a rise in worldwide temps of 1.5 to 4 degrees centigrade. Now, the difference between those is pretty large and it’s probably pessimistic even at the low end, given that the usually asserted difference from the early 1800s to now is about one degree after what we’re told is a bit more than a doubling during that period.

170 ppm, according to some, is very near the “death level” for most plants. Not a level to be desired.

And there are those who do claim that various things from deforestation in the Amazon to peat fires in Indonesia cause a significant amount (13-40% according to who’s saying it) of the overall CO2 additions to the atmosphere. Some say warming causes it. Some say desertification does. On and on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

to lowering their CO2 emissions is a false argument. Many of these countries produce less than half a ton of c02. By the way, the list on Wikipedia only shows the top 40 countries out of those 187

Their production is not the objective. What the third worlders want is to chase farmers off the land so capitalists (foreign and domestic) can plant trees and sell “carbon credits” to countries like those in the EU, the US, or China, which will continue to burn whatever fossil fuels they need to burn.

 

[philipl]

**The European commission and Netherlands environmental assessment agency **released their 2015 showing percentages by country of CO2 emitters.

China being in the number one spot at 29.5%, the United States the second spot at 14.3, the European Union is third at 9.6, follows India at 6.8, Russia at 4.8, Japan at 3.4, in Germany at 2.16 for a total of 70 to 71%. Meaning the rest of these countries produce a total of 30% of all CO2 emissions combine.

So the fact that I00 hundred and 87 countries have signed the Paris Accord when the truth is we only need China, the United States, the European Union, India, and Russia.

The argument the undeveloped countries need to be paid huge sums of money to lowering their CO2 emissions is a false argument. Many of these countries produce less than half a ton of c02. By the way, the list on Wikipedia only shows the top 40 countries out of those 187

The carbon credit scam. Another way for leftist to become wealthy (Al Gore and his kind)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But you are the one who released the carbon from plant or animal sequestration into the atmosphere. The cycle from air to plant to animal to breath is very short.

That carbon was going to be released to the atmosphere anyway. It was not really “sequestered” in any real way. Either some other animal would have eaten it, or it would have died and decayed and bacteria would have done the job in a few years. Unless that animal or plant was destined to fall into a bog and be truly sequestered for eons, like the fossil fuels were. The breathing of all people on earth together adds nothing to the carbon cycle.

The effect of CO2 on temperature is not certain.

Not 100% certain, but there is strong evidence for a range of effects.

IPCC itself estimated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a rise in worldwide temps of 1.5 to 4 degrees centigrade. Now, the difference between those is pretty large and it’s probably pessimistic even at the low end, given that the usually asserted difference from the early 1800s to now is about one degree after what we’re told is a bit more than a doubling during that period.

Yes, but we are adding carbon to the atmosphere faster now than we were in the early stages of the industrial revolution. It is reasonable to expect the rate to increase.

170 ppm, according to some, is very near the “death level” for most plants. Not a level to be desired.

Irrelevant, since there is almost no chance we will be facing that before the second coming.

And there are those who do claim that various things from deforestation in the Amazon to peat fires in Indonesia cause a significant amount (13-40% according to who’s saying it) of the overall CO2 additions to the atmosphere.

I can certainly believe that.

 

[Michael68]

Al Gore said he has seen fish swimming in the streets of Miami!
Why do ppl listen to this fool?

 

[ProVobis]

Al Gore said he has seen fish swimming in the streets of Miami!
Why do ppl listen to this fool?

Because he has lots of money?

 

[Ridgerunner]

That carbon was going to be released to the atmosphere anyway. It was not really “sequestered” in any real way. Either some other animal would have eaten it, or it would have died and decayed and bacteria would have done the job in a few years. Unless that animal or plant was destined to fall into a bog and be truly sequestered for eons, like the fossil fuels were. The breathing of all people on earth together adds nothing to the carbon cycle.

.

Kind of a fun exchange, though not a whole lot more. The plant you ate was mostly carbon. Of that carbon, some went to build your body, in which event that part was sequestered either temporarily until your various parts needed a “rebuild” or you died and were sequestered more or less forever in the ground. The rest, you expelled in some manner, including by breathing.

Now, as to meat one eats, it’s the same as with the plants.

But let’s say the food you eat is produced on ground that, due to the nature of its management, is a net expeller of CO2, including the food you eat an expel in the various ways. And let’s say the land in question was once a net sequesterer, but isn’t any more because you and others are demanding more food and more quickly and to be consumed by greater numbers than previously. Then, though it’s not direct, your breathing really is a net contributer to atmospheric CO2, both because you’re an additional “breather” and because of what it took to keep you sustained as one.

I’m not advocating population control or banning of crop farming. But what I am saying is that when it comes to grasslands and all they produce, that production can either be a net sequestering event or a net releasing event, depending on management. And as a person consuming meat, you are indirectly participating in whichever one it is.

Now, it’s perfectly possible for the very same ground to be either one. Vegetation does not necessarily convert to atmospheric CO2, even if nothing eats it. With proper management, the carbon actually is sequestered; made part of the soil. In addition, the grasses extract CO2 from the air and bury it deep in the ground in the form of root systems. If properly managed, the root systems are many times the bulk of the above-ground part of the plant. If poorly managed, they aren’t and the carbon that was laid down in the soil 1,000 years ago might be released into the atmosphere tomorrow. Good soil is nothing but a very little bit of rock dust combined with an overwhelmingly greater bulk of organic material. If that organic material is allowed or encouraged to leach into the atmosphere, it will do so. On the other hand, if additions to the organic material are encouraged sufficiently, it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and buries it. The organic part is bound to the inorganic part largely by microorgaisms, so it stays buried unless it is encouraged to oxidize by exposure or water deficit that destroys the microorganisms.

Oh well, enough of that.