CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) -- On a day when the temperature didn't reach double digits, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback called for reductions in greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Speaking with reporters Tuesday, the Republican presidential candidate said most scientists agree that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused a rise in global temperatures. Brownback said levels of carbon dioxide, or Co2, have increased since the industrial revolution but have risen more quickly in recent decades.
(no no no no wrong wrong wrong!!!)
"It seems to me just prudent that we recognize we have climate increase and temperature change," he said. "We have CO2 loading and we need to reduce the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere."
Brownback was in Iowa for the first time since officially launching his candidacy Jan. 20. He spent most of Tuesday in Cedar Rapids, where he met with conservative activists and took questions from reporters on a variety of topics.
Although Brownback said global temperatures had risen and climate change needed to be addressed, he declined to use the term "global warming."
"The temperature has risen," Brownback said.
Although early polls indicate Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are favorite in Iowa's precinct caucuses, which launch the presidential nominating process, Brownback said he wasn't concerned. Brownback said time and more visits across the state would enable him to solidify his standing as a true conservative contender.
"It's a pro-life party. I'm for cutting taxes. This is an economically conservative party. Those are my positions," he said. "So I think when a proper voter contact is made, when it's not just on name ID, but where you stand on the issues, I'm going to do very well."
Okay, just because he's a 'publican doesn't mean he's not a dumbass.
This is taken from the "Real Incovienent Truth"
Basically it is a rebuttal to Al Gores lies and untruths movie, "The Inconvienent Truth."
The notion that our atmosphere acts like a greenhouse – that is, so-called atmospheric “greenhouse gases,” like water vapor and CO2, “trap” incoming solar radiation to warm the atmosphere – is wrong. Not only doesn’t the atmosphere work that way, greenhouses don’t either.
Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside – the same effect that heats the inside of your car when it’s parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate.But neither the atmosphere nor “greenhouse gases” block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric “greenhouse effect.”
AsCO2 increases in the atmosphere, it absorbs less and less additional energy to produce correspondingly less and less additional warming. At some point, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t significantly change atmospheric temperature.
To analogize, consider a window with many shades, each blocking half the incoming light. As successive shades are pulled, the transmitted light is halved and the effect of each shade is diminished. Eventually, there’s no additional effect because previous shades have already absorbed the light to all but a vanishing degree. As more shades won’t block more light, more CO2 won’t cause significantly more warming.
In fact, there’s been more than enough greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to cause much greater warming than actually occurs since long before humans discovered fire.
To analogize, consider a window with many shades, each blocking half the incoming light. As successive shades are pulled, the transmitted light is halved and the effect of each shade is diminished. Eventually, there’s no additional effect because previous shades have already absorbed the light to all but a vanishing degree. As more shades won’t block more light, more CO2 won’t cause significantly more warming.
In fact, there’s been more than enough greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to cause much greater warming than actually occurs since long before humans discovered fire.
So what's the point at which more CO2 doesn’t cause more warming? Are we near it? The commonly-used range of estimates of CO2’s impact on global temperature should help put any worry into perspective.
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days (280 parts per million to 560 ppm), MIGHT increase
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days (280 parts per million to 560 ppm), MIGHT increase
globalemperature from between 0.5 degrees Centigrade to 1.5 degrees Centigrade – that is, not much.
The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.
Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.
The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.
Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.
********************
So there you have it folks.
***********************
Support our troops!
************
D C
*************
