Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed

First off, let me clarify my stand: I believe that global warming is a scientifically proven fact. The average world temperature has been rising in the past decades and centuries. Greenhouse gases do cause the Greenhouse effect, keeping the planet warm enough to sustain life.

What I don’t subscribe to is the notion that human activities contribute greatly to this trend (i.e. anthropogenic global warming). Even if they did, it has but a miniscule effect. And if anything is to blame, it shouldn’t be carbon dioxide emissions.

Here I submit 5 simple, straightforward and easily understandable reasons as to why I am not alarmed by the claims of irreparable CO2-caused climate change:


1) Carbon dioxide accounts for just 0.0383% of the atmosphere. Literally a drop in the atmosphere! To me, it’s very difficult to see how such a miniscule amount of CO2 can have any meaningful effect on the world temperature.

Wikipedia on CO2 atmospheric concentration


2) Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen 20.253% since 1960. Wow, so scary huh? But take a closer look at what measurement scale we’re talking about. CO2 levels rose from 316 parts per million to about 380 parts per million. Parts per million! That’s just an increase of 0.000064!

Comparing 1960 and today, for every 15,625 buckets of air you scoop up you’re only going to collect one extra measly bucket of CO2.

See also my post, Carbon Emissions and Percentage of Atmosphere.



3) Water vapour is the main Greenhouse gas, causing from 36-70% of the Greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide only causes 9-26%, methane 4-9% and ozone 3-7%. Should we initiate International Protocols to reduce the evaporation of water worldwide, then?

Wikipedia on Greenhouse gas contributions

Maybe we can’t stop water from being evaporated all across the world’s oceans. And nobody is going to support a reduction of the ozone layer.

But we can do something about methane levels which have risen 150% since 1750. Cow farts, rice paddies, swamps and even termites pump tonnes of methane into the air. So we’d better slaughter those cows, stop planting rice, clear up the mangroves and exterminate all termites in nature then!

Wikipedia on methane producers


4) The temperature of the Earth seems to have been rising steadily. Seems to have been, but has it really been? Maybe the temperature measuring stations have been getting skewed readings because of their close proximity to cities which are full of people, industries, vehicles and glass and concrete buildings?

Satellites measuring the temperature of the lower atmosphere show a warming of only 0.04°C per decade, while grounded stations show an increase of around 0.17°C per decade (plus or mine 0.06°C). It seems to me like better, more accurate and less alarmistly biased research should be conducted before we get all chicken little.

Wikipedia on satellite temperature records (vs ground-based)


5) How much will the average world temperature rise if global warming and Greenhouse gas emission continues at the present rate? Nobody really knows for sure, and nobody agrees on an estimate (the satellite measurements in Point 4 are one example of disagreement).

The average world temperature will perhaps increase by at least 1°C by the year 2100, perhaps as much as 6%, or perhaps it will even drop. But the important dispute is: Do human activities contribute in any significant way at all?


And what is the conclusion? The Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time, resources and media coverage! What will it achieve really, by trying to reduce CO2 emissions when CO2 isn’t doing anything significant? And Kyoto doesn’t apply to China and India mind you, which happen to be the hugest industrializing nations.

Up to recently, I thought that the US was being arrogant, selfish and pig-headed for not signing Kyoto. Now I feel that money and effort spent reducing CO2 emissions would be better used on more important concerns such as saving lives by providing clean water for third world nations. Slightly higher CO2 levels might even increase plant growth and agricultural production.

On a final note, let me say that although I don’t think we should worry about human activity causing global warming with terrible consequences, I strongly support other environmental concerns such as pollution control.

Just walk around for an hour along the streets of KL, breathing the noxious fumes deep into your lungs, and I think you’ll agree that there are far more pressing matters than global warming.

To me, human life is the most important concern overriding all others. And after that, the quality of life. Everything hinges on the value of a human being.

If DDT will destroy wildlife and cause cancer (which it has been proven NOT to do), I’ll still spray it around… Because it will kill malaria-carrying mosquitos and save millions of lives in the meantime.

That’s a whole ‘nother debate and controversy, but bottom line is: Get your facts straight! That’s our real first responsibility to the world, before running off on very damaging wild-goose slaughterchases.

19 Responses to “Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed”

  1. hsudarren Says:

    First of all, let me congratulate you for you have obviously done a lot of readings and research on this topic. And the analogy that you use eg the buckets of co2 is so convincing.

    I am also glad that you agree that global warming is a fact. Only thing no one is sure what really causes it. Is it due to nature, cyclical, or due to human activities? That has been the debate since early last century.
    I am also very glad that you are all for environment protection.

    The only difference, and that I call differing views based on different scientific convictions, is that I subscribe to IPCC’s (Intergovernemntal panel on climate control) views that they are now 90% sure that global warmings is due to human activities. Even these experts are not 100% sure.

    Global warming is probably multifactorial. Greenhouse gases maybe just one of them. But many scientists have done many scientific experiments to show ( I do not say “prove” because nothing is actually certain yet) that of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is the most important due to its effects on infrared radiation. Water vapour though more in volume is not as significant. I would like you to read the following link on the history of various scientists doing experiments and calculation to show CO2’s importance. The link is : .

    As I see it, even though it is a drop in an ocean, it is like a enzyme in human body, you only need a small amount to effect many biological pathways . Or nuclear energy, you only need a small amount of radioactive substances to create so much of energy.

    I also think that deforestation and human clearing of tropical forests are partly to be blamed. Forests absorbed sunlight not as heat but energy to convert it to food through photosynthesis. In the process, co2 is also absorbed and o2 released. Without the trees, sunlight shining on earth will heat up the surface of the earth. SO much of forest has been cleared that in the first world countries, very few areas of forest are left.

    (Our own backyard, Cameron Highlands and Fraser’s Hills are not as cool as before. Today’s Star has many stories telling about this.This is probably due to development and loss of trees.)

    With increasing heat, ice melts and water surfaces, in the forms of more lakes, wider rivers and more extensive oceans tend to absorb more heat because ice actually reflects radiation like mirrors.

    CO2 increase is also a fact. A 20% increase may have a multiplier effects and thus its action may not be just linearly proportional. It may even be exponentially proportional. I do not know.

    Having said all these, you may still be right and I may still be wrong. But since this is the pot that we stay in, we should not take chances and should act to reduce the burning of fossils fuels. Anyway , burning of fossils fuels also produce a lot of other unfriendly substances> INcomplete combustion from car engines may sometimes produce many carcinogens. So it is good, for our health and environment’s sack, to reduce fossils burning, to reduce deforestations, to reduce wastage of energy produced, to reduce slash and burn activities like our neighbour.

    I also totally agree with you that clean water should be make available to poor people staying in third world countries. Bill Gates and Warren Buffets are actually good tto donate part of their wealth to set up funds to help in these aspects.

    I only hope the corrupt politicians all over the world would realise this and stop their corruptions, so that resourcs can be put to better use for poor people and environment preservation.

    Thanks for a very mind provoking article. I really enjoy your blog and your way of writings. Keep it up.

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks for your comments and the link Dr. Hsu. Although I’m still somewhat skeptical of the threat posed by global warming and the role of humans in it, I will change my stance if convincing evidence comes to my attention. (This would be similar to my views on evolution – prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and I’ll accept it)

    At this time, there’s just too much conjecture on the matter. People seem to be blaming ‘global warming’ for just about everything. Do they even know what they mean by the term? Do they know that climate has always been changing? Do they know that despite the recent hurricanes in the US, the average number of hurricanes per decade in the US has NOT increased?

    On Al Gore’s recent Oscar winning documentary about global warming, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT Richard S. Lindzen wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”

    That is my worry – that fearful thoughts are crowding out careful and neutral assessment of the situation. People will watch a film, get worried out of their wits, and rush to support some cause – without checking the facts for themselves or hearing balancing views.

    I personally feel that the WORSE thing to do in any situation is to panic and carry out hasty plans, which could very likely end up making things worse for all.

    I fully support the shift away from fossil fuels to alternative energy (for environmental as well as for political and future economic reasons). No single alternative source may be satisfactory, but a combination should do the trick. Nor does fossil fuel have to be done away with entirely.

    I myself would love to drive a hybrid car like a Prius for its fuel savings, $ savings and lower environmental damage. But the initial price is pretty steep. Hopefully by the time I want to purchase one, tariffs on imported cars will have been removed!

  3. hsudarren Says:

    I agree totally that to exploit fear is a very bad thing. But that is what the politicians like to do. Al Gore is a politician.

  4. tkmaia Says:

    “I will change my stance if convincing evidence comes to my attention. (This would be similar to my views on evolution – prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and I’ll accept it)”

    Scientific “truth” is never based on anything 100%. There is always doubt and science is all about estimating this doubt. Read research papers in scientific journals and you will see that scientists will always state their claim with a certain amount of doubt. If these claims are put out in the form of numbers/statistics, you will always see some margin of error associated with the results. Good scientific papers will always state these doubts, if they don’t then they are bad papers and you should not trust them. So you can never state that something is 100% accurate without any doubt. You can only say that your claim is accurate up to a certain margin of error.

    Problem is lay people, even naive scientits, don’t really understand this convention and they become prey to people who like to use this aspect of science to mill out some theory of scientific conspiracy.

    Sure science is a human endeavour and there is some non-neutral aspect in science. But the idea behind the scientific establishment and the sceintific method is accepting that there is some non-neutrality involved in human rationality. This is why it is not enough to have just one “scientific” study saying that global warming is the result of human activity. There must be hundreds of studies with sound empirical evidence behind them to state the same claim. These hundreds of studies, in the form of scientific papers, are not just put up out there for people to read with the claim and the empirical data behind them. Additionally, they must pass through tight scrutiny by scientific peers most expert in the field to finally be published in scientific journals for other scientists to read up on and then reply with their own study of the same claim. This goes on and on until scientific journals are saturated with some overwhelming claim such that it is almost the same as saying the claim is 100% true in laymen’s term.

    I now accept that human activity plays a big part on global warming because a lot of scientists say that it is,not because Al Gore said it is. I do not have any expertise on this matter, I rely solelly on the judgement of scientists most expert in the field. I trust the scientists in the field since, not only am I not an expert in Global warming, I also do not have the time to filter out every claim made by every scientist on the subject, even though I myself am trained to question such scientific work, albeit in another field. I trust the most respected scientific journals on this matter when they say that a majority of scientific studies published in theirs and many other scientific journals show that there is a very high correlation that human activity is causing global warming. If a nonexpert non-science trained individual wants to question and doubt the scientists in the field and wants to put out a claim of their own, I suggest for them to not just read up on what these scientists say about this but to train to become a scientist in the field and do some real scientific study.

    It took some years for IPCC to state this 90% claim of human activity as causing global warming. Over 600 scientists most expert in the field signed the IPCC claim. This from decades of tough scientific scrutiny. This shows that it is not some immature conclusion based on sloppy science. I don’t think now is the time for non experts in the field to stir up some conspiracy idea behind this claim, we should let the scientific establishment figure this out. The time now is to act and support the science behind what we are going to do about this obvious problem. I agree that telling people not to drive their car is the best way to deal with the problem. It is a complicated social and environmental issue that must be addressed seriously and intelligently with good sound science.

  5. Scott Thong Says:

    It is my opinion that global warming as a result of human activity is proven. The highlands of Malaysia are becoming warmer. But that’s because of urbanization, deforestation and so on which cause quick and drastic changes, not due to general global warming which is slow to act.

    I disagree with Kyoto’s focus on carbon dioxide. The benefits from implementing Kyoto seem to be minimal, with high costs.

    A multitude of scientists agreeing on something does not a fact make it. Consensus does not mean correctness. In the past, scientists worldwide agreed on things like spontaneous generation, power lines causing cancer, DDT being higly destructive to higher life forms, global cooling and the Piltdown Man. Today scientists support global warming and evolution. In the past, the scientists may have been overconfident and not-thorough in their investigations, which led them to erronous beliefs. How do we know today’s scientists really are at any advantage? They cannot even agree on a predicted rise in temperature, they use computer SIMULATIONS for that.

    I am scientifically trained as well. Though 600 scientists may be in support of the IPCC reports, there are also many others who dissent.

    Call me a Michael Crichton zombie-fan, but I was first swayed from automatic IPCC-support by the data and scientific studies he gives quotations on in State of Fear, that do not agree with the majority view of global warming alarmism. Each of his characters’ statements in the novel can be searched and viewed online or in journals… The original data, not an interpretation that may be skewed. My own online research finds enough material not supportive of global warming that I am now skeptical (but still convinceable).

    Perhaps the references show only the global warming non-supporters PoV. But that so much contrary data exists, surely global warming as a preventable threat must be more fully debated, with the facts and data shown clearly along with the interpretations, so that we the public can make our own decision? ALL the facts, for example that satellite readings of the atmospheric temperature show far less change than ground readings which are mainly near hot cities.

    It feels very much like the evolution is proven/unproven debate, actually. Noisy, controversial and with still no firm and clear evidence like the kind that proved Einstein’s concept of gravity superior to Newton’s.

    Agreed on the point of truth never being 100% sure, which is why I stated ‘prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and I’ll accept it’. If I wanted 100% surety, I’d wouldn’t believe or even EAT anything! I’m familiar with the technicalities of language 🙂

  6. Janice Aasen Says:

    Wasn’t it a lot easier to accept The Great Prophet Al Gore before we found out that all of the planets in the solar system seem to be heating up? Or have people so bought into the anthropogenic hypothesis (it isn’t a theory, because it can’t be tested) that facts are simply the enemy of truth . . .

  7. Göran Tullberg Says:

    It is a matter of equality.

    Global warming is not uncomen. There is a global warming now and there has been global warmings several thousands or millions of times before it became a political matter.

    This last global warming is kind of split up in two. There is a scientific global warming and there is a political global warming.

    The scientific one is just as lots of others. It is real, it follows the scientiffic laws and it is possible to make experiments to show how it works. The temperatures now is not remarkeble high. There has been higher ones in historical times – thousand years ago, two thousand fivehundred years ago, three thousand years ago and so on. Even 1940 was warmer – not everyware, but on Greenland, Antarctis and many small wilages in the northern countris. Not in Helsinki, but just outside.

    The political global warming was born on a conferens in Rio among green people. It was not a matter of measuring temperatures, winds and rain. It was a matter of equality. The industrial folks must be hold back and punished becouse they were not equal. They did something to the poor. They emited carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide was poluting, and it produced heating that could damage the world. It produced GLOBAL WARMING.

    That is political GLOBAL WARMING. But 4000 of the top scientists in the branch and 72 nobel prize winners were afraid of this political hijacking of science and wrote:

    “We are however worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideologi which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development,”

    So scienca tries to describe nature and politicans try to make world more even and to get more power for themselves.

    It is a pity that carbon dioxide became a means for equalization. It is the base of life and absolutely nessesary, but now it is said poluting the world and in Norway it is classified as a poisen. It has not poisened me. I am drinking club soda ocasionaly.

    So you who read this remember thera are two different kind of recent global warming. Ordinary global warming and political GLOBAL WARMING. So take stand!

    From my hart Göran Tullberg

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Scientific global warming vs. Political global warming… Now there’s just the convenient label we need to clarify our stand on Al Gore and the IPPC and all those other flower-mongers!

  9. Sarah Says:

    First, you used wikipedia for sources and that is the biggest mistake and controversal aspect of your argument. Why of all sources would you use wikipedia which is changed daily by any person who has access to a computer? That’s beyond me…

    Also, Al Gore is a politician, but has significant sources that back him up. I am not his biggest fan by any means, but his points are true. You probably should be concerned with global warming since it’s surrounding you and everyone else.

    Lastly, your argument doesn’t make sense at all. Try next time to look at scholarly sources that have done actually research in these areas.

  10. Scott Thong Says:

    Sarah Sarah Sarah… You argue like the most typical of global warming believers. Lots of accusations but no information or facts.

    Wikipedia may be subject to change – but the facts on the Wiki article I linked have citations, such as the link which shows plenty of ‘scholarly sources’ to verify the very low percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at

    And btw… Wikipedia is strongly alarmist about global warming. If anything, you should congratulate me for finding a way to refute the hysteria with such sources.

    Did you even bother clicking on any of the links before you started your self-righteous rant against my ‘nonsense arguments’? Can you PLEASE be a little less lazy than the typical global warming sheep who recycles An Inconvenient Truth.

    Which by the way is debunked 35 times at – and with citations and links at the bottom of the original SPPI article to verify it too. So much for Al Gore’s points being true).

    I read and check and read. That is why I find global warming to nowhere near be the doomsday threat Al Gore and his cronies claim it is.

    How about you? You maybe read one newspaper article and became convinced that the world is melting? Try next time to look at scholarly sources that have done actually research in these areas.

    You come here ranting about my poor sources (when in truth I give plenty of sources that can be checked), yet you neglect to provide even one to prove my arguments false.

    Hysterical global warmists like you watch one debunked movie, and any of them who has access to a computer run around the net regurgitating non-facts that they do not even STOP to BOTHER to TRY to understand.

    Quite frankly, your attitude disgusts me. Come back when you have an even half baked, one quarter thought-out argument.

    Arguments, with evidence and photos and citations, like these:

    (But of course, since you’ve long ago already made up your mind that global warming is proven real fact truth, all my facts and citations and links to scholarly articles must be fake, so you won’t even bother even browsing through them or checking the links to more info. Disgusting.)

  11. james Says:

    Everything u put here makes sense..and they are well
    prepared and well thought out, backed by facts and
    But my question is, why are these people doing these?
    Why are they so vehemently championing their cause
    even without concrete proof?
    Who are the people that started all these?
    What benefits do they stand to gain by them?

  12. wits0 Says:

    It’s a fad, James, and it’s the blindingly insidious politics of dissent against the existing order mixed with dark foreboding sense of self-guilt.

    Doomsday tales attracts many in each epoch of human history. That masked expression springing from a secret inner belief than human beings are inherently evil.

  13. Mike Says:

    Humm, I like the blog but you can also have a chance to monetize it and get some wordpress blog automatic content that will earn you some extra bucks a month while you sleep. Just A Tip ! I currently earn about $1,200- $2,000 a month using auto blog income content.

    I found you on Google and I Just stop it also to tell you Happy Christmas to you

    and all your subscribers !

  14. Wilson Says:

    ALSO, Mar’s polar ice caps has been shrinking for 3 summers in a row.

    There arent any SUV’s on mars now, are there?

    “Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

    Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

    “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said. ”

  15. ashok Says:

    Scott your arguments make complete sense to me. It does seem that carbon dioxide is unnecessarily being blamed for global warming. Infact its actual content in the atmosphere is so low that it is suffocating for plants that require it for photosynthesis. Greenhouse owners have to add it artificially in green houses to raise the concentration about three times (to approximately 1000 ppm). A little more in the atmosphere would be helpful for plants that are a source of food for humans and animals.

    On the other hand it does semm that human activity is contributing to global warming. The likely culprit is deforestation.

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    I support a lot of sensible environmental issues, such as stopping rampant deforestation, water preservation and new energy sources. But the idiocy that is Al Gore-type global warming hysteria is distracting from those issues.

    An example: To reduce the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuels, they want to grow biofuels. To grow biofuels, they cut down huge swaths of rainforest. WTF????!!!

  17. Mike Says:

    Green house gases (GHGs) and water vapour as a role. An oldie but a goodie! First a few misunderstandings. watervapour varies hugely in our atmosphere (naturally). Cold air holds very little vapour- warm air hold much more. Arid areas don’t have loads of water vapour above them. The ITCZ makes belts of arid areas that span the globe. This is natural. The green house effect is natural on our earth (and was MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger in early times when there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than now… but then that is not the world that we’ve evolved to suit… or the oceanic boundaries that we’ve enhabited with permanent structures… or did it necessarily have belts of crop producing farmland that we require to subsist). As of now without any greenhouse gases our earth would be something like 34 degrees C colder… we would all die. Green house effect is real (I’m glad that you admit it) and gases of all sorts play a role (I’m also glad that you are in agreement!)

    CO2 is well mixed in our atmosphere and is therefore easy to measure/estimate globally. water vapour is not. Your CO2 data is slightly misleading- show the entire Keeling Curve or even a reconstruction from an ice core- in the last 1000+ years CO2 levels have varied between about 280 and 385ppm. That said I agree we would also be worried if the concentrations of water vapour increased systematically over time and we knew we were the cause. This is not the case (actually it is in a very small part because as we warm the world the atmosphere warms and can carry more water vapour… but that is an effect rather than a cause- a good reason to be warned of possitive feedbacks though). CO2 can not be said the same for. If water vapour in the atmosphere almost doubled in the last 150 years you are right we wouldn’t be worried about it… we would be dead- I agree.

    Is one bucket in very many important? Are you kidding? Just because you can not conceptualize how it would make a difference does not mean it won’t. Try drinking a thimble of murcury with a bucket of water- or with a few buckets over a number of days. Or take 1 ng per kg that you weigh of racin… it will be less than half a drop and you can eat it over days… it’s soo tiny… but yes the racin will still kill you (and the mercury will make you feel pretty bad before they pump your stomach). Just because you can’t visialize how small something is doesn’t make it less important.

    The difference between variability and change. In short (leaving you to do most of the homework) think of water vapour largely as background. It does play a huge effect… but we need it and we’re used to it. The effect is 30+ degrees C… we would die without it. That said look at where the boundaries of the oceans go if our average climatic temperature increases only 2 degrees (google it) C. I wouldn’t want to be one of the billion people living in bangladesh… or live in florida or manhattan or venice for that matter! And it’s a change of only 2 degrees. I’m talking in celcius also- if we were scientists we’de be talking in Kelvin. So the 2 degrees is a very small percentage of the 350 degrees kelvin that is the average global temperature- we live in a very narrow window of happy life. The easiest way to cool down the earth would be to block out the sun… but it’s still a rediculous idea- as is trying to remove water vapour or stop farming (they are not the cause of the climate change we are seeing and they would both kill us all). So yes, there are many things we don’t discuss and many things that cause the earth to be hot (and have a larger effect) other than CO2, methane and other anthroprogenically produced gases… but that doesn’t change the fact that it is those gases that are changing the climate. The logical mistake in that argument is because something else has a larger effect on temperature it makes everything else unimportant. This isn’t true in any aspect of our lives. My engine is important but my car still doesn’t drive if someone steals my tires.

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    Is one bucket in very many important? Are you kidding? Just because you can not conceptualize how it would make a difference does not mean it won’t. Try drinking a thimble of murcury with a bucket of water- or with a few buckets over a number of days.

    Yes, but we have to first agree on the analogy. I would use Vitamin C – the body can only absorb a certain amount of it, any extra past that limit has no effect. Similarly, once all the narrow band of IR radiation is absorbed, extra CO2 does not have anything to absorb (law of diminishing returns taken to the end point). And a little bit of Vitamin C is good for us, just as CO2 is good for temperature and plants.

    (Funnily enough, I use the small-amount-but-poisonous argument for a theological issue.)

    The logical mistake in that argument is because something else has a larger effect on temperature it makes everything else unimportant. This isn’t true in any aspect of our lives. My engine is important but my car still doesn’t drive if someone steals my tires.

    Again, I would rather compare CO2 to the engine muffler – somewhat important but not the most crucial part of the car by far.

    The % contribution of CO2 on temperatures aside, I still do not believe that the facts currently show that the planet is warming by a statistically significant amount. See the first few paragraphs and the Worldwide Weather section of my own compilation,


    – Temperatures have dropped 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit (0.41 degrees Celcius) since Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth
    – The oceans have been cooling since 2003. (Source: NASA)
    – Sea ice is growing at the fastest rate ever recorded. (Source: Arctic Research Center)
    – Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels, meaning no net melting has occurred in 30 years. (Source: Daily Tech)
    – Antarctic ice is at highest levels ever recorded and still expanding. (Source: The Australian, Heartland Institute)

    I personally believe that a shift away from fossil fuels is an important step for various reasons (global temperature not being one of them), but one that must be carried out carefully and progressively (not in the political sense of the word). e.g. Money into better energy technology instead of penalties to enrich the government.

  19. Abbey Brincat Says:

    my father have lots and lots of collectible coins that are very precious and rare*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: