Who is living in denial? Those denying the danger of our 20 TRILLION debt? Or climate?
|
1
point
How about JUST ONCE in your life admitting what I am saying is true? Democrats are doing and saying little about this huge debt and the reason being they are corrupt idiots pandering to their votng blocks. You make one little statement saying we need to balance our budget. Every single Democrat alive would make that same useless statement. I have heard it a thousand times from corrupt politicians who will say what you want to hear and then DO NOTHING! WE NEED PEOPLE TO TAKE A STRONG STAND AND SPEAK OUT! Tell these idiots we will not vote for them if they do not tackle that debt in a serious way. Nah, people like you constantly scream about a perceived threat from an increase in green house gasses not yet known if it is man made or naturally occuring. That debt is not perceived and there is no question about it. It is a nightmare waiting to happen. If we were not paying 500 billion a year on interest payments, we might be able to afford addressing the so called climate change, which is impossible if other nations do not also agree. Because yet again you naively paint the Democrats as the root to all evil. Actually Republican Presidents have been just as bad if not worse on debt. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ So when you talk about electing people who just pay lip service to lowering the debt and balancing the budget you're talking about yourself, hypocrite. When looking at the carbon cycle we see a mix of what is called 'fast' and 'slow' carbon. Fast carbon is the plants and oceans exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, it is a balancing act. Fluctuations can be measured where plants die/emit carbon and grow/take in carbon. Slow carbons carbon that is released from deep underground through earthquakes, porous rocks etc. Natural emissions from this carbon source is much smaller than the slow carbon put into the atmosphere from mans use of fossil fuels. Without mans contribution of atmospheric carbon we would currently be at a net loss for carbon in the atmosphere, that is the atmospheric carbon would be decreasing in the atmosphere. An analogy that is sometimes used is a water fountain. The water fountains pool represents the atmospheric carbon, the pouring water being carbon entering the atmosphere(carbon sources) and the pumping water from the pool to the fountian part being the carbon sinks is like the carbon being exchanged by things like the oceans and plants. A little but not much of the water evaporates over time. If man adds more water to the fountain at a faster rate than the evaporation, that is adds carbon to the cycle, the pooling water will rise. About half of the carbon that is emitted from mans contribution stays in the atmosphere. No reasonable person would blame the 'natural' cycles for the water rising. For an empirical approach to this situation we can look at the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere in the past (through ice cores going back near 800k years and tree rings ). C12, c13 and c14 are carbon isotopes with c12 being the most common and c13 being pretty rare but notice C14 is one used for dating younger things, like under 50k years. Fossil fuels do not contain c14 due to their age being greater than the decay rate of the carbon isotope. If the carbon in the atmosphere were from fossil fuels we would be able to measure the difference in the ratio of c12 to c14 and this is exactly what we see. About 150 years ago decrease in the ratio of c12 to c14 can be measured through ice cores and tree rings. 1 2 3 The extra carbon in the atmosphere is from mans contribution. How about JUST ONCE in your life admitting what I am saying is true? He said you were half right, if you want to be all right then I guess you should say completely factual things. I guess this means you are half living in denial. |
