CO2 is a very good thing

It would makes weeds and insects grow faster, too. You've got to think about ALL the variables. It seems strange that you'd put it that way, since it's usually the "warmists" that are accused of only looking to one variable.
 
It would makes weeds and insects grow faster, too. You've got to think about ALL the variables. It seems strange that you'd put it that way, since it's usually the "warmists" that are accused of only looking to one variable.

No, I agree. Thats how dinosaurs and animals of that time got so big. the CO2 concentraiton was higher...right? Im not 100% sure on that but i nkow the CO2 levels were much higher 70 million years ago.
 
Look who's talking. You're making the very mistake Frank says AGW believers are making, i.e. isolating things to a single variable. You guys have to get your stories straight. You're stepping on eah other's toes.

Where is thre proof where is the data they are basing their opinion on? OH that write they disgarded iut . So now they must go back and start over I want to see some data dated 2010 that verifies what you say is true.

What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.

Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

The data that supported global warming fiction story. Do you have anything dated 2010 to support your argument?
 
Look who's talking. You're making the very mistake Frank says AGW believers are making, i.e. isolating things to a single variable. You guys have to get your stories straight. You're stepping on eah other's toes.

Where is thre proof where is the data they are basing their opinion on? OH that write they disgarded iut . So now they must go back and start over I want to see some data dated 2010 that verifies what you say is true.

What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.

Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.
 
Hello professor.
HOWEVER. Without glaciers/snow/ice to melt in the spring so the crops can have irrigation. Epic fail.
Go join the police force or something.
All that is required is to be easy to brainwash. Being brainwashed by YouTubers gets you bonus points and higher pay.
If they won't take you Uncle Sam will.

Stop wasting my oxygen
I knew you'd come back for a beating.
Idiot.It's the murkin way.
****Melting glaciers Tibet, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Himalayas, Kilimanjaro, Mt Rainier, Cascades, Alaska, US... Fastest area of glacial retreat******Soot ice melt, glaciers*turn desert******The WE News Archives******




What was that about coming back for a beatin' there Mr. soft core porn purveyor? If you even bother to read the link I've provided you will see that the glaciers have been in retreat (with just a couple of very brief exceptions that lasted under 10 years in both Switzerland and New Zealand) since the end of the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850

But hey who am I to tell you who? You are an expert on soft core so that must make you an expert on everything.:lol::lol::lol:

Glaciers
 
It seems like a lot of concentrated CO2 grew a bigger plant to me.

and bigger plants mean more food for people. Why does the left want people to have less food?

Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.




Geez, can you not ever refrain from using religious terminology? We know you are "believers" (halleluah brother!) but c'mon, you're going a little overboard aren't you?
Especially for someone who claims it's not a religion!:lol::lol:
 
It seems like a lot of concentrated CO2 grew a bigger plant to me.

and bigger plants mean more food for people. Why does the left want people to have less food?

Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.




What a load of complete and utter BS.
 
Warmers are just plain fucking liars, there's no polite way to put it.

I understand they don't ever want to test their theory in a lab (They did already, they know the lab gives them bad news) but now to lie that more CO2 won't mean a greener planet with more produce is just plain fucking stupid.
 
Hello professor.
HOWEVER. Without glaciers/snow/ice to melt in the spring so the crops can have irrigation. Epic fail.
Go join the police force or something.
All that is required is to be easy to brainwash. Being brainwashed by YouTubers gets you bonus points and higher pay.
If they won't take you Uncle Sam will.

Stop wasting my oxygen
I knew you'd come back for a beating.
Idiot.It's the murkin way.
****Melting glaciers Tibet, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Himalayas, Kilimanjaro, Mt Rainier, Cascades, Alaska, US... Fastest area of glacial retreat******Soot ice melt, glaciers*turn desert******The WE News Archives******

And you're a warmer and want to call me an idiot? Anyone who would believe that lie needs to be lead around 24/7 because they would never make by themself they would die.
 
Where is thre proof where is the data they are basing their opinion on? OH that write they disgarded iut . So now they must go back and start over I want to see some data dated 2010 that verifies what you say is true.

What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.

Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. So what if it's only one variable? It's the one we're talking about. You stated that it's not a very large one. In my home stereo a small increase in voltage leads to a large increase in sound. CO2 is an amplifier, increasing temps just enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which we're constantly told is the most potent GHG. As for the other variables, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources. Don't be fooled by the "Climategate" hoaxers. The REAL fraud is their interpretation, not any any willful deception by researchers. Occassional sloppy work or malfunctioning equipment doesn't mean fraud. Suggesting that all the scientists that believe AGW are making things up IS FRAUD. Don't swallow the lies whole. Think for yourself and pick up a text on logic.
 
and bigger plants mean more food for people. Why does the left want people to have less food?

Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.




What a load of complete and utter BS.


I guess that's all you can say when you've been outed as a fraud. The denier arguments just don't make logical sense. It's a lot of double-talk about different variables, EXCEPT when they want us to focus on only one variable. Then it's apparently OK. Have fun while you can. This line of BS isn't going to pass muster for much longer.
 
It would makes weeds and insects grow faster, too. You've got to think about ALL the variables. It seems strange that you'd put it that way, since it's usually the "warmists" that are accused of only looking to one variable.

No, I agree. Thats how dinosaurs and animals of that time got so big. the CO2 concentraiton was higher...right? Im not 100% sure on that but i nkow the CO2 levels were much higher 70 million years ago.

Irrelevant to the modern world. The central US was an inland sea. How's THAT going to help your corn production? Besides isn't CO2 supposed to help PLANTS grow. You can't even seem to keep your BS straight!!!
 
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.

Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. So what if it's only one variable? It's the one we're talking about. You stated that it's not a very large one. In my home stereo a small increase in voltage leads to a large increase in sound. CO2 is an amplifier, increasing temps just enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which we're constantly told is the most potent GHG. As for the other variables, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources. Don't be fooled by the "Climategate" hoaxers. The REAL fraud is their interpretation, not any any willful deception by researchers. Occassional sloppy work or malfunctioning equipment doesn't mean fraud. Suggesting that all the scientists that believe AGW are making things up IS FRAUD. Don't swallow the lies whole. Think for yourself and pick up a text on logic.

So, it's not CO2. Right, we already knew that. Better late than never
 
Poor reading comprehension, Frank? Of course, you're not right. You apparently think accusing me of lying is good cover for your own.
 
You call this science?

The "Warming" is due to teeny-tiny teeny-tiny teeny-tiny increases in CO2 but, oppsies, we can't show you how this happens in a laboratory because there are far too many variables that affect climate and when we added teeny-tiny teeny-tiny teeny-tiny amounts of CO2 in our secret experiments, we did not get the expected results, but our theory is unaffected by test results.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm........ A 40% increase in CO2 is teeny-tiny. A 150% increase in CH4 is even smaller, correct?

Call Dexter, see if his Lab is available and you can use a 200% increase in CO2.

Dexters_Laboratory_deedee_mandark.jpg


"But that's not how it works" excuse countdown in 4...3...2...
 
Who says there'd be more food? You're making the same mistake the deniers claim the believers are making, i.e. reducing everything down to one variable. Of course that's BS from the denier side. All variables ARE considered, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the human contribution. This just shows that the deniers don't really care about the science, logic or truth, since they've pretty much given up and made this a purely political exercise.




What a load of complete and utter BS.


I guess that's all you can say when you've been outed as a fraud. The denier arguments just don't make logical sense. It's a lot of double-talk about different variables, EXCEPT when they want us to focus on only one variable. Then it's apparently OK. Have fun while you can. This line of BS isn't going to pass muster for much longer.




You are correct on that count. Of course it's the opposite of what you think. As is evidenced by the continuing collapse of your religion we are the ones being proven correct...and we never had to rely on "faith", or false data.
 
Last edited:
What data are you talking about? I don't need data to verify what I say, logic suffices.

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well-documented.

Current levels of CO2 have risen 25-30% above historical avearges of the pre-industrial era.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


That's the logic the deniers can't refute, so they have to resort to lies and political arm twisting. Find the flaw. I challenge you.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


Find the flaw? Easy. CO2 is one of the variables in climate and not a particularly large one. Solar output, ocean currents, cloud formations, etc are all much larger effects than CO2 and natural variation dwarfs the impact of mankind.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. So what if it's only one variable? It's the one we're talking about. You stated that it's not a very large one. In my home stereo a small increase in voltage leads to a large increase in sound. CO2 is an amplifier, increasing temps just enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which we're constantly told is the most potent GHG. As for the other variables, that's why "tricks" of the statistical trade are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources. Don't be fooled by the "Climategate" hoaxers. The REAL fraud is their interpretation, not any any willful deception by researchers. Occassional sloppy work or malfunctioning equipment doesn't mean fraud. Suggesting that all the scientists that believe AGW are making things up IS FRAUD. Don't swallow the lies whole. Think for yourself and pick up a text on logic.

konradv, IMHO it is you who has been swallowing the lies whole. So far I am unconvinced by the AGW alarmists BECAUSE THEIR EVIDENCE IS SO WEAK! You seem to think that the climate scientists are an infallible bunch but they are not.

Mann, the author of the Hockey Stick, has had two of his recent publications trashed for stupid errors. One because he read the core results backwards and the other because his temperature grid was twisted. Both of these studies were peer reviewed and passed his statistical 'skill' tests. Other scientists used his results in their own papers. What's even more egregious is that the scientist who collected the core data specifically declared that data as unusable for climate studies because they were contaminated by manmade sediments. Mann still used them. Mistakes happen, but when they keep happening to the same team, in the same direction, when do you start discounting the validity of the work?

The computer climate models are even worse. The models are simplistic and don't predict what is actually happening. The final graph with coarse temperature values may look reasonably close but the actual mechanisms of heat transfers, etc are far off the mark. Science typically advances by investigating discrepancies but climate science seems to have a proclaimed position to which all data and theory must be adjusted to.

jus sayin'
 
Of course CO2 is a very good thing. Plants breath it. Plants are good and key for life on earth.

Warmer weather is generally good too.
 

Forum List

Back
Top