- May 20, 2009
- 145,723
- 68,575
- 2,330
It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.
35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?
Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.
CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".
Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.
If it does ANY much less ALL what you claim it does why don't you have even one single repeatable lab experiment on point?