Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth

[Wry Catcher]

Y

So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming? Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?

I made no such claim. What I wrote is clear:

"This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation. It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem."

What part of what I wrote do you find offensive? I don't know if the current weather phenomenon is a natural occurrence not caused by man, or if some of it is caused by man or all of it; and, I don't know if man's pollution of the environment is a catalyst creating this phenomenon or its primary cause. Nor do you!

It's better to be safe than sorry and, thus, make the corrections needed to prevent further damage to the environment. As well, it makes a better place to live in...clean air, clean water, etc.

Based on what? And why?

You are just a fucking idiot. Go play out on the freeway.

Based on what? I know, you don't have a clue! oooooooooooo.

Based on what? Why?

LOL, anyone can play your game. It's no wonder she went off on you, you deserve it, jc456

 

[RKMBrown]

That doesn't correct for your lies. Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made. Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made. Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.

I did show you. I quoted them. Are you posting from a mental hospital?

Why do you go out of your way to prove you're an asshole? Everyone who has read your posts knows that to be true, that and the fact you're not very bright (in that assessment I'm being kind to you, Brown).

You're an idiot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That doesn't correct for your lies. Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made. Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made. Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.

I did show you. I quoted them. Are you posting from a mental hospital?

Why do you go out of your way to prove you're an asshole? Everyone who has read your posts knows that to be true, that and the fact you're not very bright (in that assessment I'm being kind to you, Brown).

You're an idiot.

No, I'm not. But thanks so much for sharing. As you can not refute my assessment, we can assume you agree.

 

[Crick]

Here is the post RKMBrown identifies as containing instances in which I and or the experts I use state that AGW is being caused by human respiration

You don't seem to understand yet.

I think I've understood everything you've said so far. If that hasn't been quite what you wanted to say, well...

Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.

Perhaps that explains why I've never said any such thing.

But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.

Hmmm, no. What it points to is that you still don't seem to understand the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or as I always called it, the false dichotomy. You ask me whether I want to suffer hot or suffer cold. I don't want either, The temperature of the world is a continuous spectrum. There are an infinite number of values it could take on. I would be satisfied with whatever the equilibrium temperature for a CO2 level of 280 ppm. I could be satisfied with warming or cooling if only it took place at the pace with which it has warmed or cooled in the Earth's past. The Earth's temperatures and the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have risen and fallen throughout the Earth's history. But on those occasions - even those occasions that led to mass extinction events - the CO2 levels and the temperatures changed at an absolutely glacial pace when compared to the rate of change today. It's not the absolute temperatures that are going to hurt us. It's the rapid pace of change.

Fear is the mind killer.

Fear is A mind killer. So is ignorance. So are the prejudice and bias that ignorance breeds.

You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.

I haven't succumbed to anything. I've been convinced by overwhelming evidence, by the application of logic, by my knowledge of physics and chemistry. I've been swayed by the overwhelming majority of experts: people who know the physics and the chemistry and the logic better than me or anyone else on this board - that anthropogenic global warming is valid and correctly describes the working of the Earth's climate.

In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.

Sorry, no. And if you find it necessary to think of your debating opponents, or simply all those with whom you disagree, to be quivering in rank fear while you stand there brave and tall... well, you must not have much faith in your arguments.

Why don't you come back when you've grown a pair.

Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is it? This another one of your so called false dichotomies?

This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2. Make up your mind.

Good work Mr Brown. You really ferreted that one out.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here is the post RKMBrown identifies as containing instances in which I and or the experts I use state that AGW is being caused by human respiration

You don't seem to understand yet.

I think I've understood everything you've said so far. If that hasn't been quite what you wanted to say, well...

Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.

Perhaps that explains why I've never said any such thing.

But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.

Hmmm, no. What it points to is that you still don't seem to understand the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or as I always called it, the false dichotomy. You ask me whether I want to suffer hot or suffer cold. I don't want either, The temperature of the world is a continuous spectrum. There are an infinite number of values it could take on. I would be satisfied with whatever the equilibrium temperature for a CO2 level of 280 ppm. I could be satisfied with warming or cooling if only it took place at the pace with which it has warmed or cooled in the Earth's past. The Earth's temperatures and the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have risen and fallen throughout the Earth's history. But on those occasions - even those occasions that led to mass extinction events - the CO2 levels and the temperatures changed at an absolutely glacial pace when compared to the rate of change today. It's not the absolute temperatures that are going to hurt us. It's the rapid pace of change.

Fear is the mind killer.

Fear is A mind killer. So is ignorance. So are the prejudice and bias that ignorance breeds.

You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.

I haven't succumbed to anything. I've been convinced by overwhelming evidence, by the application of logic, by my knowledge of physics and chemistry. I've been swayed by the overwhelming majority of experts: people who know the physics and the chemistry and the logic better than me or anyone else on this board - that anthropogenic global warming is valid and correctly describes the working of the Earth's climate.

In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.

Sorry, no. And if you find it necessary to think of your debating opponents, or simply all those with whom you disagree, to be quivering in rank fear while you stand there brave and tall... well, you must not have much faith in your arguments.

Why don't you come back when you've grown a pair.

Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is it? This another one of your so called false dichotomies?

This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2. Make up your mind.

Good work Mr Brown. You really ferreted that one out.

You're welcome.

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity. For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing. As another example, cow farts. You denied it once then claim you and you're so called experts are so called believers in global warming being caused by human activity (anthropogenic). How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence? How much should you be forced to pay for each breath taken in vain against the planet? What is your per human budget for CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?

 

[Crick]

I try not to encourage certain activities. Your failure to post reference material for any of your absurd claims is not proof that you lie. But twice now: here and the thread in which you posted six or seven comments critical of the IPCC as the source of your claim that "71% of scientists had withdrawn their names" from the IPCC assessment reports, you have put up or pointed to material that you stated proved one of your points. They don't. They prove you are stupid and stupid enough to lie.

And that pretty much says it all.

 

[RKMBrown]

I try not to encourage certain activities. Your failure to post reference material for any of your absurd claims is not proof that you lie. But twice now: here and the thread in which you posted six or seven comments critical of the IPCC as the source of your claim that "71% of scientists had withdrawn their names" from the IPCC assessment reports, you have put up or pointed to material that you stated proved one of your points. They don't. They prove you are stupid and stupid enough to lie.

And that pretty much says it all.

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question? Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends? Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?

Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity, yes? Or are you and your friends using a different definition?

For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing, is a human activity, correct? Or are you and your friends picking and choosing which types of human activities are sinful with regard to CO2 and which C02 activities will be deemed ok by your so called esteemed colleagues.

As another example, cow farts. How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence?

How much should we be forced to pay for each breath, burp, or cow fart taken in vain against the planet?

What is your per human budget for anthropogenic CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?

What material did I point to that you are saying is stupid? The picture about the respiratory cycle that shows how plants use CO2? You think photosynthesis is stupid? You think I'm lying about photosynthesis? ROFL put down the crack pipe.

 

[mamooth]

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no?

No, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

My footsteps aren't wearing a path to the center of the earth, causing a volcanic catastrophe to engulf the planet. Sure, technically they are, but scale matters, and only a raging dumbass would claim my footsteps are wearing a path to the earth's core, or that my breathing is causing a climate catastrophe. That raging dumbass would be you.

Why can't you answer the question?

Just did. I'll also point out it's a dishonest and stupid question, one that only a cowardly cultist would use to deflect attention from his own abysmal ignorance of the issues. So how about you just stop lying about we supposedly say? That way, at least you'd merely be in the "'effin stupid" category instead of the "dishonest and 'effin stupid" category, which would be a big step up for you.

We do get it, of course. Your cult lies as readily as normal humans breathe, and you yourself would instantly sell out your integrity for a buck. Hence, you assume everyone else is as corrupt and immoral as yourself. Not being capable of ethical behavior yourself, you assume nobody else is capable of it either. Not being like you, I won't say you're getting paid. First, nobody would pay a dumbass like you. Second, my mind doesn't work that way, assuming graft and corruption. Stupidity is much more common than malice, and you're just 'effin dumb.

 

[jc456]

What did I miss? I thought the response was to Jiminey? Why are you crashing?

Holy crap dude, you have issues.

One thing extra, Nice to see you don't believe in AGW! A lot of posts that seem to be misdirected since you all no longer believe that. whew!!!!! But still dude, come down from the edge of the building.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no?

No, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

My footsteps aren't wearing a path to the center of the earth, causing a volcanic catastrophe to engulf the planet. Sure, technically they are, but scale matters, and only a raging dumbass would claim my footsteps are wearing a path to the earth's core, or that my breathing is causing a climate catastrophe. That raging dumbass would be you.

Why can't you answer the question?

Just did. I'll also point out it's a dishonest and stupid question, one that only a cowardly cultist would use to deflect attention from his own abysmal ignorance of the issues. So how about you just stop lying about we supposedly say? That way, at least you'd merely be in the "'effin stupid" category instead of the "dishonest and 'effin stupid" category, which would be a big step up for you.

We do get it, of course. Your cult lies as readily as normal humans breathe, and you yourself would instantly sell out your integrity for a buck. Hence, you assume everyone else is as corrupt and immoral as yourself. Not being capable of ethical behavior yourself, you assume nobody else is capable of it either. Not being like you, I won't say you're getting paid. First, nobody would pay a dumbass like you. Second, my mind doesn't work that way, assuming graft and corruption. Stupidity is much more common than malice, and you're just 'effin dumb.

Uhmmm.... ok. I'm gonna guess sarcasm isn't popular or used very often where you come from. Just because you agree with me, doesn't make me stupid.... Or does it?

 

[jc456]

wish they'd make up their minds on what they believe though. I knew they were confused, but wow, now they changed their entire argument. WoW

 

[RKMBrown]

wish they'd make up their minds on what they believe though. I knew they were confused, but wow, now they changed their entire argument. WoW

I think it's one of those liberal things that you just have to feel to understand the argument. If your mind isn't right the argument falls on it's face. Thus the need for the constant beatings and changes to definitions of terms until your mind is right and you see the truth of their argument.

 

[Crick]

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question? Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends? Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?

I won't be picking either of your choices. Try not to take it personally. It's just a sucky strategy on your part.

CO2 warms the planet. The physics doesn't care where it comes from. Human's, worldwide, exhale just under 3 billion tons of CO2 annually. Fossil fuel combustion produces a little over 35 billion tons annually. Besides the fact that human exhalation represents only ~8.5% of fossil fuel's contribution, the CO2 humans exhale gets almost immediately consumed. Plants worldwide absorb roughly 100 billion tons of CO2 annually. Unfortunately, well more than half that absorbed CO2 gets released when the plant material decomposes. What it boils down to is that within much less than an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 released by human breathing is absorbed by plant respiration. Both processes are continuous so the net effect is very close to nil.

The combustion of fossil fuels, however, have a very different story. Fossil fuels come from plants that died and were buries tens to hundreds of million years ago. Releasing that long-sequestered CO2 has a real impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is by far the largest contributor to the long rising Keeling curve.

So, I hope that's enough quantitative information that you might give some serious thought to dropping your nonsense about human respiration and global warming.

Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity, yes? Or are you and your friends using a different definition?

I'm quite certain that the experts are using the term correctly. I am growing less certain that you are doing so, but we shall see.

For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing, is a human activity, correct?

Yes, human breathing is a human activity. (shakes head sadly)

Or are you and your friends picking and choosing which types of human activities are sinful with regard to CO2 and which C02 activities will be deemed ok by your so called esteemed colleagues.

I am not a scientist. I am a systems engineer at an R&D facility operated for the US Navy. I have working relationships with a number of scientists, but the topics concern sensor and weapon systems. Since neither I nor any of the scientists with whom I work, do climate research, I have no collegial relationships with climate scientists, esteemed or not. In general, I accept the views of mainstream science on all science topics; they are my views because I adopt them

As another example, cow farts. How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence?

How much should we be forced to pay for each breath, burp, or cow fart taken in vain against the planet?

Nothing.

What is your per human budget for anthropogenic CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?

Go here and read. The topic is orders of magnitude more complicated than this puerile question indicates you believe. IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

What material did I point to that you are saying is stupid? The picture about the respiratory cycle that shows how plants use CO2? You think photosynthesis is stupid? You think I'm lying about photosynthesis? ROFL put down the crack pipe.

I don't have a crack pipe to put down. What would really help, though, would be if you had a basic science textbook to pick up.

 

[elektra]

CO2, has zero effect on the earth's weather.

Not one scientist states otherwise.

Just post one technical paper, all are qualified with statements such as, "maybe".

No scientists states co2 warms the planet, they say maybe in every paper.

Post a paper, not a press release or a partial abstract. Go ahead, publish the truth, not the rumor.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question? Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends? Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?

I won't be picking either of your choices. Try not to take it personally. It's just a sucky strategy on your part.

CO2 warms the planet. The physics doesn't care where it comes from. Human's, worldwide, exhale just under 3 billion tons of CO2 annually. Fossil fuel combustion produces a little over 35 billion tons annually. Besides the fact that human exhalation represents only ~8.5% of fossil fuel's contribution, the CO2 humans exhale gets almost immediately consumed. Plants worldwide absorb roughly 100 billion tons of CO2 annually. Unfortunately, well more than half that absorbed CO2 gets released when the plant material decomposes. What it boils down to is that within much less than an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 released by human breathing is absorbed by plant respiration. Both processes are continuous so the net effect is very close to nil.

The combustion of fossil fuels, however, have a very different story. Fossil fuels come from plants that died and were buries tens to hundreds of million years ago. Releasing that long-sequestered CO2 has a real impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is by far the largest contributor to the long rising Keeling curve.

So, I hope that's enough quantitative information that you might give some serious thought to dropping your nonsense about human respiration and global warming.

Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity, yes? Or are you and your friends using a different definition?

I'm quite certain that the experts are using the term correctly. I am growing less certain that you are doing so, but we shall see.

For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing, is a human activity, correct?

Yes, human breathing is a human activity. (shakes head sadly)

Or are you and your friends picking and choosing which types of human activities are sinful with regard to CO2 and which C02 activities will be deemed ok by your so called esteemed colleagues.

I am not a scientist. I am a systems engineer at an R&D facility operated for the US Navy. I have working relationships with a number of scientists, but the topics concern sensor and weapon systems. Since neither I nor any of the scientists with whom I work, do climate research, I have no collegial relationships with climate scientists, esteemed or not. In general, I accept the views of mainstream science on all science topics; they are my views because I adopt them

As another example, cow farts. How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence?

How much should we be forced to pay for each breath, burp, or cow fart taken in vain against the planet?

Nothing.

What is your per human budget for anthropogenic CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?

Go here and read. The topic is orders of magnitude more complicated than this puerile question indicates you believe. IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

What material did I point to that you are saying is stupid? The picture about the respiratory cycle that shows how plants use CO2? You think photosynthesis is stupid? You think I'm lying about photosynthesis? ROFL put down the crack pipe.

I don't have a crack pipe to put down. What would really help, though, would be if you had a basic science textbook to pick up.

ROFL I see so CO2 exhaled by humans is clean CO2, cause well because you say it is.

Can you explain why ALL OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS have been proven wrong?

 

[Crick]

I was puzzled why model runs executed in 2012 would be zeroed at 1979. Having seen such DATA MANIPULATION performed by Spencer and Christy in the recent past, I opted to try to find out why it was done in this instance.

I downloaded The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for August, 2013 to which is attached the BAMS online journal "The State of the Climate 2012". The latter is a very impressive compilation document, filled with data graphics and a great deal of information. I saw a significant number of items that I will be pulling out for future discussion. What I did not find were any of the data noted in the graphic you supplied.

Despite the footnote's implications, your graphic did not come from the August BAMS issue nor from their report on the "State of the Climate in 2012". And, given the thorough treatment BAMS exercised in their compilation, the footnote on your graph saying "Various, as described in the "State of the Climate in 2012" is essentially synonymous with stating "published at some point in a technical journal on the planet Earth". The list of References for the 2012 climate report runs 25 and a half pages of double column entries - roughly 25 per page, none of them hyperlinked. Additionally I found that not a single graphic anywhere in the report showed future data. There were NO predictions or projections from model data anywhere in the report.

Given all that, would very much like to know where that graphic actually DID come from. Fortunately, Google allows one to search for the source of an image. I found that this one had been used by dozens of denier blogs without accreditation. Finally, however, Anthony Watts had the good graces to identify John Christy, University of Alabama climatologist as the author of the graphic. It was included in a rebuttal to the 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA) assembled by "14 meteorology and climatology experts". The accompanying text reads:
NCA CLAIM #3: Third LoE – “The Climate Models”
The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. (NCA, Page 24)

RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.

TheseClimate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.
*******************************************************************************************
The use of the manufactured term "GHG Hot Spot Theory" is disingenuous bullshit, but hardly a surprise from sources such as these.

The NCA graphic is in a protected PDF. The 2014 NCA may be found at file:///C:/Users/Abraham/Downloads/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_United%20States_LowRes.pdf The referenced graphic actually appears on page 23 vice 24. There is no deviation from observations. There is a distinct break between model behavior after 1950 using natural (solar and volcanic) and that using anthropogenic forcing. The model data in the NCA graphic is actually from
Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

• Markus Huber
• & Reto Knutti

Published in Nature Geoscience at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html. Being "Nature", the article is behind an expensive paywall. The abstract, however, reads as follows:

The Earth’s energy balance is key to understanding climate and climate variations that are caused by natural and anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric composition. Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades1, 2, 3, the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin4, 5, 6. Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85°C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1°C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56°C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming.

 

[jc456]

CO2 warms the planet. The physics doesn't care where it comes from. Human's, worldwide, exhale just under 3 billion tons of CO2 annually. Fossil fuel combustion produces a little over 35 billion tons annually. Besides the fact that human exhalation represents only ~8.5% of fossil fuel's contribution, the CO2 humans exhale gets almost immediately consumed. Plants worldwide absorb roughly 100 billion tons of CO2 annually. Unfortunately, well more than half that absorbed CO2 gets released when the plant material decomposes. What it boils down to is that within much less than an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 released by human breathing is absorbed by plant respiration. Both processes are continuous so the net effect is very close to nil.

So you're saying that CO2 emits heat? Can you prove that?

 

[Crick]

All matter both absorbs and emits heat. That is a very fundamental piece of physics. Perhaps you've noted some of the discussion with SSDD about black body radiation?

What I was saying in the text you quoted - and perhaps not in the best possible manner - was that plant and animal respiration form the core of the original carbon cycle. We take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Life on this planet is not a significant source of increased CO2 emissions. The combustion of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 that had been long sequestered in coal and oil deposits, is the most significant source of increasing CO2 emissions.

 

[jc456]

All matter both absorbs and emits heat. That is a very fundamental piece of physics. Perhaps you've noted some of the discussion with SSDD about black body radiation?

What I was saying in the text you quoted - and perhaps not in the best possible manner - was that plant and animal respiration form the core of the original carbon cycle. We take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Life on this planet is not a significant source of increased CO2 emissions. The combustion of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 that had been long sequestered in coal and oil deposits, is the most significant source of increasing CO2 emissions.

But the issue at hand isn't so much the increase in the CO2, it is the claim of increased heat as the CO2 increases, and there is no data that supports that. If 120 PPM was added as reported, how warm is 120PPM? Are you going to say you have data on that?

 

[flacaltenn]

I try not to encourage certain activities. Your failure to post reference material for any of your absurd claims is not proof that you lie. But twice now: here and the thread in which you posted six or seven comments critical of the IPCC as the source of your claim that "71% of scientists had withdrawn their names" from the IPCC assessment reports, you have put up or pointed to material that you stated proved one of your points. They don't. They prove you are stupid and stupid enough to lie.

And that pretty much says it all.

Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question? Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends? Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?

Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity, yes? Or are you and your friends using a different definition?

For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing, is a human activity, correct? Or are you and your friends picking and choosing which types of human activities are sinful with regard to CO2 and which C02 activities will be deemed ok by your so called esteemed colleagues.

As another example, cow farts. How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence?

How much should we be forced to pay for each breath, burp, or cow fart taken in vain against the planet?

What is your per human budget for anthropogenic CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?

What material did I point to that you are saying is stupid? The picture about the respiratory cycle that shows how plants use CO2? You think photosynthesis is stupid? You think I'm lying about photosynthesis? ROFL put down the crack pipe.

Crick is the one in denial... A full 1/3 of the CO2 charged to mankind comes from farming and domestic animals. LITERALLY breathing and farting. THAT's what "YOUR" experts say.. And that's why there is an engaged propaganda campaign to reduce meat consumption in order to "reduce Carbon emissions". I ASSUME human breathing, farting and soda can popping all adds up --- don't it?