global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Superfreak
Once again the poor little leg humper attempts to attack the source without even reading it....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

That is the link to the BBC's interview with Jones you fucking moron.

Now gumby... do enlighten us... tell us how the BBC is a right wing blog or some such nonsense. Or perhaps you will demonstrate that these are not Jone's answers?

The respected and non-partisan factcheck.org debunks your climate gate nonsense.

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/


the fact that you have no legitimate scientific organizations that agree with you, and the fact that your whole premise relies on a global conspiracy theory, which somehow you have figured out, but the US National Academy of Sciences has been fooled by, puts you in a league with 9/11 truthers and birthers. Crazy shit man. The fact that US freedom, Bravo, Meme, and Dixie are on your side should give you pause.

Carry on

All you've done is just provide more FACTS that either the deniers won't read, or will substitute their supposition and conjecture for. Annie, Freedumb, Bravo, Meme, Dixie, Superfreak...classic examples of willfully ignorant neocons.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1. You responded to Cypress and that is what I called you on. Next time if you just want to cluck in unison with Freedumb, then respond to his post. Bottom line: you were responding to Cypress' immediate point, and in doing so you tried to discredit him WITHOUT dealing with what was stated in that particular post. Now you're too much of a coward to concede that small point. Babble on.

2. Stop lying...the posts show that I stated no such thing that you accuse me of. I'm very specific in what I'm responding to and stating/asserting. "All others" DO NOT rely on the research of this one group that's under controversial scrutiny....that is a LIE that you and other neocon deniers just love to repeat ad nauseum in various ways, but are unable to factually prove beyond vague generalizations, suppositions and conjecture. Case in point, the information provided by PBS is NOT based on what you state, nor is the NASA information. Seems your blowing a lot of smoke, as usual.

Side note.....I notice you once again DON'T acknowledge or address the information presented, but dodge with a generalized question. Typical neocon denier bluff. Next, you'll just pile on the false accusations, state that your questions supersede all, throw in more links, etc. etc. Unless you can do better, there's no point in my further responses.

1) Once again you lie... my post was a response to a post by USFREE... not Cypress... see post 29

2) again, you lie.... in your post (#47) you stated...

Once again, the one case you keep referring to has YET to be officially ruled as you say...and it's ONLY ONE GROUP involved in decades of research by scientist all over the world.

I then corrected your above quote in post 55... stating that the CRU was one of THREE data centers for the fear mongers.

You then responded in post 63 with more of your stupidity....

There are more than just 3 main sources regarding the global warming premise. National and international, individual and groups are involved.

Now you create yet another strawman with your recent post. I never stated that everyone relies on just this ONE source. I stated quite clearly that they rely on ONE of THREE.... the CRU, NASA (Goddard) and the NOAA.

So do... please continue your lies... they are quite telling as to your complete lack of character.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Seems every blessed time someone deconstructs the various premises of global warming deniers using common knowledge and readily verified facts, the deniers cry "strawman". It's often a false and incorrect charge, all the more made absurd by the deniers then diverting and/or distorting the original point of contention of the discussion.

Right off the bat, 3D AVOIDS the points I made, and instead creates NEW AVENUES of discussion, in an attempt to validate his original assertions via association. Case in point:

First off moron, those were my points, not threedees... do try to keep up...

1. His first "question" is an attempt to justify keeping the status quo in energy source operations. By comparing US to foreign oil drilling, the conversation becomes "we're better than them, and we can't control them". This is misdirection on 3D's part, because he's avoiding the FACT that the question of importance is to change how US does it's business.....as with coordination with other nations. Bottom line: if you and your international partners/counterparts and subsidiaries are operating in a fashion that is detrimental to the environment, then that has to be changed. As I pointed out earlier, the Exxon/Valdez incident could have been avoided IF EXXON HAD FULLY LIVED UP TO SAFETY REGS, INSTEAD OF CUTTING CORNERS.

Again you create the strawman.... I never stated we should keep the status quo you dolt. I stated that as long as we are using oil, it makes sense to use our own. Because in doing so, WE control the environmental regulations with regards to the oils production. At the same time, the jobs and the money stay HERE, rather than go overseas.

2. See number #3. Why can't those potential jobs be put to construction and restructuring/maintaining of our infrastructure towards more green techonology? To advocate more oil drilling is not good for the environment of our dwindling forest areas. Why not ramp up the exisiting/closed refineries instead of depending upon foreign refineries.

Do try to keep up cupcake.... there is no 'either/or' here. In keeping the oil production HERE along with the jobs and money, that provides us with more opportunity to expand other avenues. The money raised by taxing the domestic production of oil can be used to offset costs in infrastructure buildout and new alt/clean energy technologies.

3. Again, a question that AVOIDS recent historical FACTS. Case in point, the ANWAR controversy....were it was pointed out that AT OUR CURRENT RATE OF CONSUMPTION, the amount of oil that is estimated to be extracted out of ANWAR would last less than a decade, and would NOT equal the cost of constrution to extract the amount, not to mention the damage to the local environment, which would be permanent....unless of course several years down the line the oil company would cover the cost of dismantling all the equipment and restoring the area to it's original condition (without federal subsidy, mind you).

DO provide all the data that supports the above. Show us where the costs of construction are greater than the amount of revenue produced. Because NO oil company would WANT to drill a site that is in that situation.

Also... show us your data on there only being ten years worth of oil.

4. Advocating the same rhetoric that has been heard for the last 30 some odd years from the oil companies and their supporters is "staying the course".

whic again is an outright lie on your part. Not once did I state that I felt we should 'stay the course'.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!

"find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry" ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I did Annie....doesn't change what I stated above, nor the information in my link (Did YOU read it?)...unless you can produce a quote that does. In the meantime, check this out:

The point is...we've had a mid-evil warming period even without the co2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry....thats the point...a pronounced warming period without man's input....



So you post a link that claims A and Annie posts a link that claims B...so what? Whats the point? The one with the most links claims victory?
What Bullshit....

THINK, YOU BUFFOON, THINK! A natural process no longer is natural if you INTRODUCE ARTIFICIAL ACCELERANTS OR DILUTION to it. Hell, they taught that one in freshman chemistry class!

Let me dumb it down for you AGAIN. You have a pond....it has a food chain. Every so many years, it dries up...various animals either die out or leave. Plants die out. Then the rain water rehydrates the pond, the plants come back the animals come back.

Now, throw in a factory a mile away that spews various toxins into the atmosphere, that mixes with the clouds and produces acid rain...killing the various microbiology thats vital to the food chain. Or throw in some real estate company that decides half the pond has to be damned up/paved over for better property value....removing HALF the life cycle/eco-system. Or have same realtor raze a significant part of the surrounding land for housing development.....removing the habitat of the animals and insects that frequented the pond.

The end results....what happened once every so many years, now is artifically accelerated to happen with more frequency and enhanced negative results that lean towards becoming permanent.

Got it now, einstein? That's why rambling on about what happened a thousand years ago as if everything is the same today is ludicrous. Ask an adult to explain to you when the Industrial revolution came into play. Carry on.

As for Annie's lame excuses and dodges....Bottom line: She wants me to only read and discuss what SHE posts and refers to/links, while she REFUSES to grant the same courtesy. That is a double standard, and ONLY a fool argues with a person proud of such willful ignorance as Annie demonstrates...only an imbecile condones such an attitude, such as you have.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Seems every blessed time someone deconstructs the various premises of global warming deniers using common knowledge and readily verified facts, the deniers cry "strawman". It's often a false and incorrect charge, all the more made absurd by the deniers then diverting and/or distorting the original point of contention of the discussion.

Right off the bat, 3D AVOIDS the points I made, and instead creates NEW AVENUES of discussion, in an attempt to validate his original assertions via association. Case in point

:

First off moron, those were my points, not threedees... do try to keep up...

1. His first "question" is an attempt to justify keeping the status quo in energy source operations(yeah stupid, you "stay the course" if you don't change how you approach a problem). By comparing US to foreign oil drilling, the conversation becomes "we're better than them, and we can't control them". This is misdirection on 3D's part, because he's avoiding the FACT that the question of importance is to change how US does it's business.....as with coordination with other nations. Bottom line: if you and your international partners/counterparts and subsidiaries are operating in a fashion that is detrimental to the environment, then that has to be changed. As I pointed out earlier, the Exxon/Valdez incident could have been avoided IF EXXON HAD FULLY LIVED UP TO SAFETY REGS, INSTEAD OF CUTTING CORNERS.

Again you create the strawman.... I never stated we should keep the status quo you dolt. I stated that as long as we are using oil, it makes sense to use our own. Because in doing so, WE control the environmental regulations with regards to the oils production. At the same time, the jobs and the money stay HERE, rather than go overseas.

2. See number #3. Why can't those potential jobs be put to construction and restructuring/maintaining of our infrastructure towards more green techonology? To advocate more oil drilling is not good for the environment of our dwindling forest areas. Why not ramp up the exisiting/closed refineries instead of depending upon foreign refineries.

Do try to keep up cupcake.... there is no 'either/or' here. In keeping the oil production HERE along with the jobs and money, that provides us with more opportunity to expand other avenues. The money raised by taxing the domestic production of oil can be used to offset costs in infrastructure buildout and new alt/clean energy technologies.

3. Again, a question that AVOIDS recent historical FACTS. Case in point, the ANWAR controversy....were it was pointed out that AT OUR CURRENT RATE OF CONSUMPTION, the amount of oil that is estimated to be extracted out of ANWAR would last less than a decade, and would NOT equal the cost of constrution to extract the amount, not to mention the damage to the local environment, which would be permanent....unless of course several years down the line the oil company would cover the cost of dismantling all the equipment and restoring the area to it's original condition (without federal subsidy, mind you).

DO provide all the data that supports the above. Show us where the costs of construction are greater than the amount of revenue produced. Because NO oil company would WANT to drill a site that is in that situation.

Also... show us your data on there only being ten years worth of oil.




whic again is an outright lie on your part. Not once did I state that I felt we should 'stay the course'.

First off I erroneously referred to you as 3D at one point. My apologies for that.

Secondly, For the record, in post #55 you make a general reference that really doesn't negate my assertion, and only NOW you make 3 concrete referrals. I provided information from PBS that does NOT fit your scenario that the 3 agencies you name provide information for ALL other global warming researchers. Your bogus "strawman" claim is getting old.

Third, I provided information from NASA that contradicts your global warming denier beliefs. Deal with it.

Fourth, the ANWR situation was put to bed LONG ago. It's not practical on any level other than just putting some short term bucks into the oil companies pockets....which is why the "drill baby drill" mantra you parrot so condescendingly is as empty as the calories of the confection you refer to as an attempted insult.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html




Again, the posts show that you have no real argument other than denial and repeating yourself, coupled with false accusations that the posts do not support. Cypress's latest referral to Factcheck.org puts the kibosh on another angle of your argument...unless of course you consider factcheck as part of the liberal conspiracy as well. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You truly have your head buried up the asses of your fear mongering champions of global warming/climate change.

READ HANSENS QUOTES YOU FUCKING MORON.

As for 'factcheck.org'... they are not scientists... they simply pulled quotes from JOURNALISTS and so called 'scientists' who are trying to protect their precious money flow.

Again....

FACT...

1) The IPCC published completely bogus material in their report despite proclaiming that everything is scrutinized.

2) The CRU destroyed raw data

3) Your factcheck article states that the information was 'hacked and stolen' which now appears to be false in and of itself.

4) Your factcheck site makes the proclamation that the IPCC report is not tarnished by this because they use information from many sources. (which is essentially the same bullshit excuse Tachi is spewing) The FACT is there are THREE main sources for the collection of the Raw data. Two of which are tainted (at best). Those three are what those 'hundreds of other sources' rely upon for their 'research'.

But please, go back to burying your head in the sand.... keep shouting that the earth is flat gumby... I am sure Saint Al will console you when this all comes apart even further.

The Factcheck article contains links to scientific organizations, review boards, and scientists. So obviously, you didn't read carefully, or you don't want to know.

 

[Taichiliberal]

artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants

Get educated! Carbon dioxide is nether artificial OR a pollutant!

Learn to read beyond grade school level..... ARTIFICIAL AMOUNTS OF CO2.....that means what's NOT natural to what's produced by the flora and fauna, by the animals and people.

 

[Topspin]

Nice Dixie racist moron burn!!!

 

[NOVA]

Learn to read beyond grade school level..... ARTIFICIAL AMOUNTS OF CO2.....that means what's NOT natural to what's produced by the flora and fauna, by the animals and people.

How about volcanoes and forest fires, clarabell ?

Is that co2 artificial or real......>:lol:

 

[Taichiliberal]

How about volcanoes and forest fires, clarabell ?

Is that co2 artificial or real......>:lol:

Do volcanoes CONSISTENTLY erupt and spew into the atmosphere?
Nope.
And how many times do naturally occuring forest fires happen around the world as opposed to human caused one?

Understand now, you chuckling chowderhead? A volcanoe is natural, but it's NOT the same as the exponential increase in auto and jet emissions, razing of rain forest via controlled burns and lumber companies, urban sprawl, etc. over the last century. CAR and PLANE are virtually 24/7 worldwide, chuckles. If just 1/4 of the Earth's volcanoes put out low emissions on the same level, we'd all be dead, or those who were left would not be a happy lot.

Got that chuckles? That's the difference between an artificial level and a natural one. Maybe if you got your head out of Clarabell's ass, you'd be able to comprehend this.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Do volcanoes CONSISTENTLY erupt and spew into the atmosphere?
Nope.
And how many times do naturally occuring forest fires happen around the world as opposed to human caused one?

Understand now, you chuckling chowderhead? A volcanoe is natural, but it's NOT the same as the exponential increase in auto and jet emissions, razing of rain forest via controlled burns and lumber companies, urban sprawl, etc. over the last century. CAR and PLANE are virtually 24/7 worldwide, chuckles. If just 1/4 of the Earth's volcanoes put out low emissions on the same level, we'd all be dead, or those who were left would not be a happy lot.

Got that chuckles? That's the difference between an artificial level and a natural one. Maybe if you got your head out of Clarabell's ass, you'd be able to comprehend this.

"If just 1/4 of the Earth's volcanoes put out low emissions on the same level, we'd all be dead, or those who were left would not be a happy lot."

Liar

 

[Cypress]

Take away lessons from thread:


1) NeoCons and Teabaggers keep braying like donkeys about something they read on some rightwing blogs, but are unable to substantiate with findings from any legitimate science organizations, or actually back anything up with anything other than conjecture (is it any wonder these flat-earth idiots were easily duped into supporting Bush’s Iraq War?)

2) The universally respected and non-partisan FactCheck.org did a thorough analysis of “Climategate” and debunked it.

3) Every. Single. Reputable. Scientific. Organization. On. The. Planet., who has expertise in climate science, disagrees with the teabaggers, and concurs that there is a high probability than humans are significantly affecting the climate.

4) Teabaggers are unable to produce anything other than rightwing blogs (i.e., PajamasMedia.com/blog), speculation, and debunked conjecture.... Whereas, in contrast, scientifically literate people provide links to sources with unimpeachable science qualifications, or to respected non-partisan sources: aka, FactCheck, NASA, the US National Academy of Sciences, NOAA.


5) Based on the cracker-jack reporting of “pajamasmedia/com/blog”. Flat earthers brayed like Donkeys for months about Dr. Michael Mann “manipulating data”….Michael Mann was cleared by an Academic Review Board on February 4th of Every. Single. Charge. that flat earthers and PajamasMedia.com clucked about.

6) Game over. Every legitimate and reputable science organization on the planet disagrees with the teabaggers, and the most respected factchecking organization has debunked their climate gate nonsense. Teabaggers are left expecting us to believe that they (mostly college dropouts) and their rightwing blogs have uncovered a global conspiracy, that somehow was able to fool the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and dozens of other reputable scientific organization ………as such, “Climate Gate” and it’s teabagging adherents are now officially relegated to the JPP.com “Conspiracy Theory” section, where they belong with the 9/11 truthers, the Birthers, and the Obama is a Secret Muslim cabal.



Regression Correlation Between Idiots Who Were Easily Fooled into Supporting the Iraq War – and Flat Earth Climate Change Denialists (also known as college drop outs)....R-squared = 0.9

 

[Topspin]

Is teabagger now synonomis with rightwing dumbass?

 

[Taichiliberal]

"If just 1/4 of the Earth's volcanoes put out low emissions on the same level, we'd all be dead, or those who were left would not be a happy lot."

Liar

Remember when Mt. Saint Helen in Washington went off? Within 48 hours of that eruption, small dark granuals (black ash, I believe it's called) from that volcanoe werefalling on Long Island, New York (where I live)....it did that for about 1 day.

Now, theorize what if that eruption was continuous at various intensities 24/7for one week. Two weeks That's just ONE volcanoe. ....how about more than two like eruptions? Three...more?

Instead of this, we have MILLIONS of cars and thousands of industrial smokestacks in all the major industrial countries globally pumping out just exhausts 24/7 for DECADES. An artificial level of pollution that is much lower on the impact scale than a major volcanic eruption, but the cumulative effect can and does have an effect.

This is why Bravo's comparison is just utter nonsense. Now I know you're just posting to be an irritant, but I'm sincerely using your childish grudge to make a valid point, and demonstrate the sheer absurdity of Bravo's assertions and the stubborness of the global warming deniers on various levels. Carry on.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Remember when Mt. Saint Helen in Washington went off? Within 48 hours of that eruption, small dark granuals (black ash, I believe it's called) from that volcanoe werefalling on Long Island, New York (where I live)....it did that for about 1 day.

Now, theorize what if that eruption was continuous at various intensities 24/7for one week. Two weeks That's just ONE volcanoe. ....how about more than two like eruptions? Three...more?

Instead of this, we have MILLIONS of cars and thousands of industrial smokestacks in all the major industrial countries globally pumping out just exhausts 24/7 for DECADES. An artificial level of pollution that is much lower on the impact scale than a major volcanic eruption, but the cumulative effect can and does have an effect.

This is why Bravo's comparison is just utter nonsense. Now I know you're just posting to be an irritant, but I'm sincerely using your childish grudge to make a valid point, and demonstrate the sheer absurdity of Bravo's assertions and the stubborness of the global warming deniers on various levels. Carry on.

It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about and are just posting for the attention; but you seem to forget that those "smokestacks" aren't having a major eruption and spewing tons upon tons of that material all at once.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Remember when Mt. Saint Helen in Washington went off? Within 48 hours of that eruption, small dark granuals (black ash, I believe it's called) from that volcanoe werefalling on Long Island, New York (where I live)....it did that for about 1 day.

Now, theorize what if that eruption was continuous at various intensities 24/7for one week. Two weeks That's just ONE volcanoe. ....how about more than two like eruptions? Three...more?

Instead of this, we have MILLIONS of cars and thousands of industrial smokestacks in all the major industrial countries globally pumping out just exhausts 24/7 for DECADES. An artificial level of pollution that is much lower on the impact scale than a major volcanic eruption, but the cumulative effect can and does have an effect.

This is why Bravo's comparison is just utter nonsense. Now I know you're just posting to be an irritant, but I'm sincerely using your childish grudge to make a valid point, and demonstrate the sheer absurdity of Bravo's assertions and the stubborness of the global warming deniers on various levels. Carry on.

It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about and are just posting for the attention; but you seem to forget that those "smokestacks" aren't having a major eruption and spewing tons upon tons of that material all at once.

You're making my point......Bravo's statement comparing volcanoes to man-made pollution with regards to CO2 levels is absurd...because if a volcanoe was producing on the same level as our cars and smokestacks, we'd all be dead.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

But while the vast majority of volcanoes around the world are either dormant or not erupting at any viable level or when they do it's decades in between eruptions....you have had cars and smokestacks polluting 24/7 for Decades at increasing level. The pollution they put out is measurable and has an effect on the environment. That is undeniable (to the rational, anyway).

You originally jumped on here and called me a "liar", but you have yet to prove what I lied about. I gave an example via personal experience that can be easily checked. Did you bother, or are you just doing an automatic gain saying of anything I state?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You're making my point......Bravo's statement comparing volcanoes to man-made pollution with regards to CO2 levels is absurd...because if a volcanoe was producing on the same level as our cars and smokestacks, we'd all be dead.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

But while the vast majority of volcanoes around the world are either dormant or not erupting at any viable level or when they do it's decades in between eruptions....you have had cars and smokestacks polluting 24/7 for Decades at increasing level. The pollution they put out is measurable and has an effect on the environment. That is undeniable (to the rational, anyway).

Obviously you're not ratinoal and no, we would not be all dead.

Since your offering this as your "proof", why don't you show comparisons between what an eruption expels and how it relates to what man is doing??

But then, doing so would just show that you are being willfully ignorant and purposefully obtuse.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Obviously you're not ratinoal and no, we would not be all dead.

Since your offering this as your "proof", why don't you show comparisons between what an eruption expels and how it relates to what man is doing??

But then, doing so would just show that you are being willfully ignorant and purposefully obtuse.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.



So if you want to dispute the US Geological Survey, by all means contact them and do so.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

:
Secondly, For the record, in post #55 you make a general reference that really doesn't negate my assertion, and only NOW you make 3 concrete referrals. I provided information from PBS that does NOT fit your scenario that the 3 agencies you name provide information for ALL other global warming researchers. Your bogus "strawman" claim is getting old.

Again... IF you think there are other agencies that have collected the raw data, PLEASE PROVIDE THEM.

Third, I provided information from NASA that contradicts your global warming denier beliefs. Deal with it.

No, you did not. You have not refuted a single point I made.

Fourth, the ANWR situation was put to bed LONG ago. It's not practical on any level other than just putting some short term bucks into the oil companies pockets....which is why the "drill baby drill" mantra you parrot so condescendingly is as empty as the calories of the confection you refer to as an attempted insult.

LMAO... so essentially you just refuted your previous bullshit. If a find is not expected to produce enough oil to cover the costs of production... NO oil company would drill it. NONE. Again you try to create the strawman that I somehow just want to drill for the sake of drilling. All the while you continue to cower and refuse to address the ENVIRONMENTAL point I made. You also try to make this solely about ANWR... when that is only a part of my point.

Again.... IF we are going to use oil... which is better....

Oil produced with OUR environmental standards or oil produced with the standards of another country????

Also... thanks for the link... as this study shows, ANWR would likely produce enough oil to help in a small way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Just as off shore drilling and other sites would.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

Again, the posts show that you have no real argument other than denial and repeating yourself, coupled with false accusations that the posts do not support. Cypress's latest referral to Factcheck.org puts the kibosh on another angle of your argument...unless of course you consider factcheck as part of the liberal conspiracy as well. Carry on.

and again.. you fail to realize I already addressed the attempt at using Factcheck by Cypress. Factcheck simply quotes from people and organizations that are dependent on the continuation of funding going to the fear mongering.

I know you flat earthers are scared now that so much has blown up in your face and your champions like Al Gore are hiding trying to figure out how to spin this. Until that time you morons continue with your 'the earth is flat' chant.... I am sure that will work.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.



So if you want to dispute the US Geological Survey, by all means contact them and do so.

But they don't just emit CO2, now do they?? !!