Shared publicly  - 
Ralph Gauthier's profile photoEmilyanne Atkinson's profile photojørgen egon jensen's profile photomoham noori's profile photo
Except wind turbines are pretty useless and it's not worth the blight
+Jordan William Johnson CO2 levels at at their highest in over 400,000 years. Also, for the last 400,000 years CO2 level are closely correlated with high temperatures. We also know that the reason CO2 levels are so high is because of humanity's obsession with burning fossil fuels. has some nice charts outlying this. I believe there are other charts out there that go back for millions of year with the same conclusion. Man-made global warming is not a scam, it is an fact.
+Fred Horein I got your back on this one but prepare for the onslaught of the ignorant hoards. :) LOL
Regarding the claim that wind turbines are useless, the state of Iowa generates 20% of it's electrical power from these useless devices and as a result has some of the lowest rates in the nation for electricity.
There are vertical-axis wind turbines that require much less space and are small enough to be used for residential and individual commercial applications. I have seen some on eBay for as little as $200.

These aren't the ones I say on eBay but I like them.
+Fred Horein I'm surprised no one has jumped on your 400,000 year claim yet with the standard, "we've only been keeping record for 100 years" argument yet. I was ready to respond that there is a ton more data that goes into the historical study of climate than just temperature records. Scientist analyze fossils of vegetation, ice core samples, etc ...
Regarding CO2 in the atmosphere, scientist can determine what percentage comes from the burning of fossil fuels and what percentage comes from other sources because of the fact that CO2 from different sources contains different carbon isotopes. Because of that scientists can prove the the bulk of the CO2 going into the atmosphere in modern times is coming from human activities.
I think every thing we can do, no matter how small individually, will together make a huge impact. If every roof-top dedicated 25% of its surface area to solar cells, and solar water heaters, imagine the impact this could have in our need for new sources of energy.

Nuclear power is idiotic on it's face. Not only is it incredibly dangerous, it is also THE MOST EXPENSIVE WAY MAN HAS EVER DEVISED TO BOIL WATER and the Market has decided that it can not even support this industry without governmental intervention in the form of insurance for their operation.
+John Larson Saying that carbon dating technology is flawed because people who believe in the Christian God think that they can reconstruct a 6000-year timeline from the Bible is like believing that you can defy the laws of gravity because Superman flies in comic books.
..and then satan thought to beguile superman with Lois Lane to distract him and tempt him with earthly delights..where he could fight against the evil doctrines another day.
+Patrick Piklapp You really should read more.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms."

"CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

This one is quite a lengthy read and I doubt few readers will stick with it long enough to get to this:

"Another marker of biological activity was the rare isotope carbon-13. Plants take less of it from the atmosphere than the lighter isotope carbon-12, so the latter is over-represented in coal and oil. The fraction of the lighter isotope in the air was increasing, proving (to a lingering band of skeptics) that the rise in CO2 came from humanity's use of fossil fuel, not from a mineral source such as volcanoes."

Here's a challenge for you +Patrick Piklapp. Rather than just tell us what you believe, find a well written article on the internet that supports your claim that the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from animal life (including people). Hopefully the article will describe the scientific method or principle used to arrive at that conclusion rather than just present unsubstantiated claims.
Using anything but science to challenge the results of scientific studies, the conclusions of which were arrived at using well established scientific methods, is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
+Patrick Piklapp I guess so, but they seem to be concerned that if the trend continues it will effect crops that are the state's second most important form of income.

+Ralph Gauthier , one of the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definitions of climate is "the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation." The study was done over a period of eight years. So I thought it was good enough to call it "climate". But I didn't know that NASA defined it as a 30 year span. Thanks for the info.
Add a comment...