| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Rep. John Shimkus at the hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Category:News & Politics, Religious
Tags:global warming, plants, carbon, John Shimkus, the earth will not be destroyed by a flood
Submitted:kamlem
Date:03/31/09
Views:1273
Rating:
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video
Favorited 1 Time

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
bird
Stephen Fry lays down some facts on the American prison system
David Mitchell - The Little Bell
Kraftwerk used at Kids' dance recital
Goat Sniper
There is a fish in that aquarium.
J.W.O.W. - Bunny
UFO Guy
Fledgling blue tits learning to fly and getting fed
Ben Bernanke to Ron Paul: Gold Is Not Money
Comment count is 15
Tuan Jim
Jesus Christ, who is this British douche?

"The earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
GAH!
kelpfoot
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer in the House of Lords. "Hereditary peer" is British slang for a raving idiot from a rich family.

SteamPoweredKleenex
You could have just said "inbred nobility" and saved a lot of typing. :)

Charles
The guy who said that was from Illinois... it said...

Dicknuts
Wait, why do these people even get to say anything. They're not scientists.
takewithfood
If possible, extra stars for smirky girl. I want to know her story.
KnowFuture
WAAAY too much bait.


All Cena_Troll needs to know is this guy represents environmentalists and that somehow makes him a socialist and therefore, evil.

KnowFuture
Oops, this was meant for the other guy down on the list.

Now, off to find that smirky girl you speak of...

Charles
smirky girl is my hero

HarrietTubmanPI
Five stars for the inevitable Cena showing up and telling us that Niel Boortz knows more on the subject then the consensus of Climatologists.

What the video is referring to is that yes PPMs of CO2 were around 3.5-7000 during the Cambrian. However there was also an explosion of flora at that time (perhaps due to the increase in CO2) and since there could have been ample negative feedback or because the world was mostly oceanic back then that it could have stabilized temperatures.

Additionally, there is quite a bit we do not know about the Cambrian era/flora/fauna and so we cannot say why CO2 levels spiked, nor why they didn't subsequently raise temperatures, nor why temperatures didn't spike.

It is also equally plausible that there was a spike in CO2 through tectonic activity thus causing an explosion in flora (and subsequently fauna) which caused a large amount of CO2 to only remain in the atmosphere shortly instead of lingering around long enough to cause problems.

What we do know is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this can be shown without a doubt in our very own solar system.

Which planet is hotter? Mercury or Venus? If you answered Mercury, you would be wrong. Venus has a surface temperature somewhat higher than Mercury but is further away from the sun.

Why is this?

Consider the following. Mercury has no atmosphere. All heat radiated from the sun and reaching Mercury is subsequently radiated out in space on the other side. Therefore we can conclude that if Venus had no atmosphere then its surface temperatures would be slightly cooler.

Yet, Venus consists of 97% CO2 in its atmosphere. That is enough to cause surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. There is no other cause for Venus to be this hot. It's not tectonically active enough so that it is actually exothermic. However, heat is being trapped by the thick atmosphere and isn't allowed to radiate back into space.

We can also see the same effect on earth through Water Vapor (which is also a greenhouse gas). When clouds block the sun during the day it doesn't allow heat to pass through as much as it would a clear day. The clouds are absorbing that energy and the heat is dispersed throughout the atmosphere instead of hitting the ground.

The same thing happens on a cloudy night. The heat is not allowed to radiate back into space and so the clouds keep the temperatures up.

The thing is though we normally don't change how much water vapor we spew out into the atmosphere and that isn't under human control.

However we can control how much CO2 we emit and so therefore it stands to reason that we might better watch what we do because there is no such thing as consequence free activity.

It is funny to me though that the people like Boortz argue that GW sentiments are out to destroy an economy. This is certainly not true. They simply wish for businesses and businesses to become more responsible for the environment.

What's more important, saving a few million dollars or making sure that the few hundred million people living below 20 feet above sea level around the world will still have a home in 100 years?
kelpfoot
> The thing is though we normally don't change how
> much water vapor we spew out into the atmosphere
> and that isn't under human control.

More importantly, the atmosphere is already pretty much saturated with water. Add more water vapor to the atmosphere and most of it will rain back out before it has a chance to cause much warming.

SolRo
Could have saved a lot of typing by just saying the guy is utterly full of shit and is calling CO2 "plant food" so it's easy for idiots to latch on to.


Rudy
Yes, but will the earth be destroyed by a flood?

rev.dinosaur
They must be doing this to preempt the inevitable Onion videos on the subject.
Dan Druff
So, he's speaking FONDLY of a period in earth's history where the most complex organism on the planet was a trilobite, and some theories suggest ended when climate change wiped out the majority of life on earth?

I suppose he DOES offer a cunning rebuttal anyways. PLANT FOOD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian-Ordovician_extinction_ev ents
Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement