Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[PoliticalChic]

Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?

PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society

Oops...did I upset you, Rocks?

So sorry, now you go right back and lie down beside the fire, and nap, with visions of AlGore dancing in your head....

(Shhhhh! Nobody tell Rocks that the best days of his silly obsession are behind him.)

The telltale sign of a brainwashed DittoTard!!!
Pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard tells his DittoTards to spell Gore's name as one word, and the week-minded fools are powerless to do otherwise!

Hey, CrackedEggsInTheAttic!

Good to see you again...I should have expected you today, as Rush is off, and you have the time to play!

But can't you be more circumspect???

See, the huge font woke Rocks up!

Bad boy!

 

[edthecynic]

Oops...did I upset you, Rocks?

So sorry, now you go right back and lie down beside the fire, and nap, with visions of AlGore dancing in your head....

(Shhhhh! Nobody tell Rocks that the best days of his silly obsession are behind him.)

The telltale sign of a brainwashed DittoTard!!!
Pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard tells his DittoTards to spell Gore's name as one word, and the week-minded fools are powerless to do otherwise!

Hey, CrackedEggsInTheAttic!

Good to see you again...I should have expected you today, as Rush is off, and you have the time to play!

But can't you be more circumspect???

See, the huge font woke Rocks up!

Bad boy!

I'm curious what you think of this little bit of BRILLIANCE from your MessiahRushie?

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

The IPCC prefers 'evidence' from students and activists, so why should it matter?

 

[konradv]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

You see, you and Rocks are looking in the wrong direction...the Global Warming Scam has nothing to do with science....

it is politics.

A pure and simple global power grab.

It's the deniers that have made it a political issue. A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure. THAT'S LOGIC. The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?

PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

OK. So you are totally scientifically ignorant. Expected, I guess. You interpret everything through political glasses. Real dumb.

As the effects of the ongoing climatic change resulting from the forcings from the AGW affect the agriculture of the world, people will come to realize that people like you have totally misled them. There was a time when conservatives were more scientifically based than liberals. Today's Conservatives are in complete denial of science. Science of any kind.

 

[rightwinger]

Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax

It is brought to you by the same idiot liberal scientists who claim

- Cigarettes cause cancer
- Man evolved from apes
- The earth is not flat

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax

It is brought to you by the same idiot liberal scientists who claim

- Cigarettes cause cancer
- Man evolved from apes
- The earth is not flat

Now, see, wingy,...you've detracted from what you intended as an intelligent
and/or sarcastic comment by including the erroneous "Man evolved from apes."

Unless you'd like to support that statement...???

I believe that you'll find that many scientists hypothesize that man and apes had
a common ancestor, not that one 'evolved' from another....
but, in your case,....you may have something there...hmmmmm.

Bulletin: rdean just classified you as a Republican!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?

PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

OK. So you are totally scientifically ignorant. Expected, I guess. You interpret everything through political glasses. Real dumb.

As the effects of the ongoing climatic change resulting from the forcings from the AGW affect the agriculture of the world, people will come to realize that people like you have totally misled them. There was a time when conservatives were more scientifically based than liberals. Today's Conservatives are in complete denial of science. Science of any kind.

"You interpret everything through political glasses. "

Oh, yeah...well you interpret everything through your obsession!

Let me explain it to you is the simplest possible illustration:



The political explanaion is the man behind the curtain.

Get it?


It has nothing to do with science...it's manipulation of the less than perceptive,...

oops....did I hurt your feelings?

 

[rightwinger]

Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax

It is brought to you by the same idiot liberal scientists who claim

- Cigarettes cause cancer
- Man evolved from apes
- The earth is not flat

Now, see, wingy,...you've detracted from what you intended as an intelligent
and/or sarcastic comment by including the erroneous "Man evolved from apes."

Unless you'd like to support that statement...???

I believe that you'll find that many scientists hypothesize that man and apes had
a common ancestor, not that one 'evolved' from another....
but, in your case,....you may have something there...hmmmmm.

Bulletin: rdean just classified you as a Republican!

How astute PC..

Of course real scientist claim man evolved from a common ancestor. It was fundamentalist conservatives who twisted this to a "man evolved from apes" argument.

Just like they claimed......"We need more study to see if cigarettes really cause cancer"

 

[konradv]

the climate is changing, so what? Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything. The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich. We need jobs not talk. The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike. By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.

You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it. People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category. CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming? Don't tell me about variations in the past. Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

 

[westwall]

You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it. People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category. CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming? Don't tell me about variations in the past. Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago. We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible. Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there. But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax

It is brought to you by the same idiot liberal scientists who claim

- Cigarettes cause cancer
- Man evolved from apes
- The earth is not flat

Now, see, wingy,...you've detracted from what you intended as an intelligent
and/or sarcastic comment by including the erroneous "Man evolved from apes."

Unless you'd like to support that statement...???

I believe that you'll find that many scientists hypothesize that man and apes had
a common ancestor, not that one 'evolved' from another....
but, in your case,....you may have something there...hmmmmm.

Bulletin: rdean just classified you as a Republican!

How astute PC..

Of course real scientist claim man evolved from a common ancestor. It was fundamentalist conservatives who twisted this to a "man evolved from apes" argument.

Just like they claimed......"We need more study to see if cigarettes really cause cancer"

You virtual chameleon!

Now you claim to be a 'fundementalist conservative...'

"...fundamentalist conservatives who twisted this to a "man evolved from apes""

Rightwinger, the leftwinger.....this is so...what? Schizophrenic?

 

[Big Fitz]

the climate is changing, so what? Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything. The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich. We need jobs not talk. The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike. By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.

You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it. People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category. CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming? Don't tell me about variations in the past. Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but... these are settled measurements from long since. You can find the data in any public school science text, this was just easiest to llink.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)

Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Now, since CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor and there is more water vapor by a factor of 100 what exactly do you think is going to happen with the increase in CO2?

Greenhouses artificially pump up their CO2 contents to over 1400ppm, almost 4 times that of normal atmospheric content, and the plants thrive with no ill effects to anyone working in it constantly. Therefore, your worry about an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is unfounded. Oooh shocker!

Secondly, CO2 equals a paltry 0.039% of atmospheric volume, which is approximately 300 trillion tons globally. Mankind has produced less than 20 trillion tons over its history. THIS is NOT a threat. That means by atmospheric composition mankind, has produced less than 0.0006% of all CO2 in the atmosphere and does not include what has become sequestered by nature itself.

Water vapor which IS a greenhouse gas both warms and cools. Not only that, they hydrological cycle prevents accurate measurements by man or nature. So a variance of 4% of atmospheric volume is commonly considered standard.

You are trying to create absolutes and blame off of an absolutely unpredictable system in the long run. You are predicting an entire movie off of one frame, near the end of the film with no context. You are placing blame on a species that cannot harm the weather, based on biased and silly theories created by nihilistic anti-human earth worshipers.

And you fail again. It's pretty damn sad when just a basic knowledge of atmospheric composition and the weight of air debunks the entirety of the chicken little's argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it. People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category. CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming? Don't tell me about variations in the past. Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

No, Konny...it's to put the silliness just where it belongs...in your bailiwick.

This nonsense has been revealed to be exactly what those of us who 'denied' same have always said it was: a political scam designed by the left to accrue power and do just what progressives always do:
demand everyone march to their directions.

It's not science at all, it's an attempted global power grab.

Only the Hiroo Onoda Brigade is still at it.

 

[boedicca]

The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.

Yesterday, Mr. Boe and I drove out to the Central Valley for a family birthday party.

As we traveled through the Altamont Pass, we did not see one windmill actually turning. They were all stock still. I've seen them like this before.

I'd really hate to get my 'lectricity from a huge installation of windmills that don't work on a windy afternoon.

Just sayin'.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

You see, you and Rocks are looking in the wrong direction...the Global Warming Scam has nothing to do with science....

it is politics.

A pure and simple global power grab.

It's the deniers that have made it a political issue. A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure. THAT'S LOGIC. The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Opponents made this political? Really? Provide one solution... ONE that does not involve government control.

That means, no laws passed, no government agency, no treaties, no accords. I want a PRIVATE INDUSTRY or FREE MARKET solution able to be adopted freely by those who desire to.

You do that, and I will be stunned.

 

[edthecynic]

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago. We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible. Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there. But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.

When deniers lie like that they prove that they KNOW there is global warming.
Thank you.

 

[konradv]

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago. We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible. Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there. But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.

Since when is the ability of CO2 to trap energy a theory? That's proven scientific FACT. You say the temps haven't gone up, but on the other hand claim there are other factors. Those factors go up and down, but CO2 is constantly going up. When they reverse themselves the contribution of CO2 will become evident to everyone. In the meantime, that's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. Hope it's not too late, when y'all finally see the light.

 

[konradv]

the climate is changing, so what? Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything. The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich. We need jobs not talk. The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike. By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.

You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it. People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category. CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming? Don't tell me about variations in the past. Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but... these are settled measurements from long since. You can find the data in any public school science text, this was just easiest to llink.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)

Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Now, since CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor and there is more water vapor by a factor of 100 what exactly do you think is going to happen with the increase in CO2?

Greenhouses artificially pump up their CO2 contents to over 1400ppm, almost 4 times that of normal atmospheric content, and the plants thrive with no ill effects to anyone working in it constantly. Therefore, your worry about an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is unfounded. Oooh shocker!

Secondly, CO2 equals a paltry 0.039% of atmospheric volume, which is approximately 300 trillion tons globally. Mankind has produced less than 20 trillion tons over its history. THIS is NOT a threat. That means by atmospheric composition mankind, has produced less than 0.0006% of all CO2 in the atmosphere and does not include what has become sequestered by nature itself.

Water vapor which IS a greenhouse gas both warms and cools. Not only that, they hydrological cycle prevents accurate measurements by man or nature. So a variance of 4% of atmospheric volume is commonly considered standard.

You are trying to create absolutes and blame off of an absolutely unpredictable system in the long run. You are predicting an entire movie off of one frame, near the end of the film with no context. You are placing blame on a species that cannot harm the weather, based on biased and silly theories created by nihilistic anti-human earth worshipers.

And you fail again. It's pretty damn sad when just a basic knowledge of atmospheric composition and the weight of air debunks the entirety of the chicken little's argument.

I never said there'd be ill effects on people, just the climate, so your greenhouse analogy fails.

As for the concentration of CO2, what's important is the % increase, NOT the absolute amount. Saying that it's not a threat is just bluster without backup. If the carbon is being sequestered, why is its concentration in the atmosphere going up?

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, but that's not relevant to the discussion. What IS relevant is that any rise in temp due to CO2 would introduce more vapor into the atmosphere, thereby amplifying its effect.

The last part of your analysis, proves my point that the deniers' positon is purely political, since I as I have shown the science is either above your head or being purposely twisted to fit your bias.