Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[westwall]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

And it's because at 100% CO2, there is zero oxygen. Guess what a human needs to survive? dah, Oxygen?

the computer scientist referred to in the O/P is not a climate scientist... and has already been debunked.

Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

I could care less if he is a climate scientist or not. Climatologists have shown themselves to be exceptionally poor at basic math as every one of their major papers that has been released in the last 5 years has been summarily demolished within days, if not hours by mere statisticians. the whole meme that you can't possibly understand what they are talking about is absurd. A PhD geologist, chemist, physicist, meteorologist can teach ANY climatology class. A PhD climatologist on the other hand could teach up to the third year in most of those sciences (not geology though, a PhD climatologist would be far behind in some of the second year geology classes, and totally lost starting in the third year) so the meme that climatologists are somehow super smart is ridiculous.

 

[paulitician]

Humans are fucking up this planet.

Who am I to force? I'm forcing people? No, I'm not. I'm on here trying to convince people.

But who are you to force your pollution, your increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases on me? You literally are forcing this. I breathe this shit.

You won't go along with it, well, unless of course the govt decides you're wrong. How is it oppression? You're oppressed because there's more renewable energy? Jeez, you sound like one of those guys who lives in the woods with his three wives who are his daughters waiting for the day the govt turns up so he can shoot them all.

CO2 is bad? what the f are you saying? You have no clue to what you write. holy crap. Greater CO2 is great for the world, and there is evidence to that. Pollution is not CO2 so I still have no idea what you think you're discussing, pollution or climate? Can you clarify for all the kids in the class?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

They have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting their claim that higher CO2 levels and warmer climates will spell the end of animal and plant life. The historical climate record actually shows the exact opposite of their claims.

Animal and plant life thrive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So their whole 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer examination.

 

[jillian]

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

And it's because at 100% CO2, there is zero oxygen. Guess what a human needs to survive? dah, Oxygen?

the computer scientist referred to in the O/P is not a climate scientist... and has already been debunked.

Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

what is he? Can you say mathematician? Do you know what they are good at? hmmmmmmmm?

studying math....

 

[jc456]

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

And it's because at 100% CO2, there is zero oxygen. Guess what a human needs to survive? dah, Oxygen?

the computer scientist referred to in the O/P is not a climate scientist... and has already been debunked.

Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

what is he? Can you say mathematician? Do you know what they are good at? hmmmmmmmm?

studying math....

do you know what climate science is based off of? can you say MATH????

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

And it's because at 100% CO2, there is zero oxygen. Guess what a human needs to survive? dah, Oxygen?

the computer scientist referred to in the O/P is not a climate scientist... and has already been debunked.

Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

A left wing moron speaks and show it is totally clueless to what a model is and why Dr Evans is clearly correct.

He builds models and he evaluates them.. Contrary to your belief he has more science knowledge than 99% of your beloved climate scientists that you hold so dear..

 

[frigidweirdo]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

ok going with that, what is too much? Do you have any knowledge on how much is too much? Seems like you're off course captain. You should first learn how much is too much if you wish to make that claim. BTW, CO2 is not a pollutant. We exhale it. comprehende?

Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.

Listen, if you're going to keep going with this silly "we exhale CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant" then we're not going to be able to talk. You have to understand what stuff is to be able to talk about a complex issue, instead of either A) just taking the piss and B) being extremely ignorant.

Some things are fact.

Let's try some basic English

pollution: definition of pollution in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:"

More CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful because it increases the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something basic for you

"Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. It is also a major cause of ocean acidification since it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.[7]"

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[52]"

"As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification. "

"This reduction in pH affects biological systems in the oceans, primarily oceanic calcifying organisms. These effects span thefood chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and mollusks. Under normal conditions, calcium carbonate is stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.[53] Corals,[54][55][56] coccolithophore algae,[57][58][59][60]coralline algae,[61] foraminifera,[62]shellfish[63] and pteropods[64] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2"

So, the biggest impact so far is in the oceans. We're basically polluting so much that the oceans are experiencing ocean acidification, which is destroying ocean eco systems, destroying food chains, and basically having an extremely negative effect on what is there.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. "

"The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[39] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. "

The Earth has become more stable recently. This has allowed the development of human beings. Before the Earth would be trying to regulate itself and would go up and down and cause mass extinctions and temperature fluctuations which would take leading creatures and kill them off to be replaced by other creatures.
Humanity has increased because of this stability. We're changing this stability. We're destroying it. What do you think will happen to the leading creatures?

 

[frigidweirdo]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

hahahahahaha. give some thought as to what the normal range of CO2 is. for different areas, different seasons, etc. the 120 ppm increase over the last coupla hundred years is nothing. but the plants sure like it.

graduate high school! hahahahahahaha

The plants sure like it. The oceans sure don't.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kills offalgae."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Humans are fucking up this planet.

Who am I to force? I'm forcing people? No, I'm not. I'm on here trying to convince people.

But who are you to force your pollution, your increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases on me? You literally are forcing this. I breathe this shit.

You won't go along with it, well, unless of course the govt decides you're wrong. How is it oppression? You're oppressed because there's more renewable energy? Jeez, you sound like one of those guys who lives in the woods with his three wives who are his daughters waiting for the day the govt turns up so he can shoot them all.

CO2 is bad? what the f are you saying? You have no clue to what you write. holy crap. Greater CO2 is great for the world, and there is evidence to that. Pollution is not CO2 so I still have no idea what you think you're discussing, pollution or climate? Can you clarify for all the kids in the class?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

You start your post with an insult.

You're a staff member too. Why would a staff member start a post with an insult. Is this part of the rules of this board?

Anyway, I'll ignore the rest of your post. It's a waste of time discussing anything with anyone who has the need to start a post with an insult.

 

[1stRambo]

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

CO2 is not causing global warming.



Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

Yo, Congrats Misty, you are one of the few here who do their homework!!!
Now be ready for the deniers in the Socialist Puppet Club! But you did well!

"GTP"
You Can`t Beat Mother Nature!

 

[frigidweirdo]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

How much is to much?

According to this article in the dino era Their was 2 times~5 times more C02 in the atmosphere then today

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

According to our New C02 satellite the hot spots for C02 is in the southern hemisphere


NASA Satellite Sends Back Most Detailed CO2 View Ever : DNews

Yeah, in the dinosaur eras there was a lot more. How many humans were there? Oh, er... none. Why do you think that is? Because they were all eaten by dinosaurs or the conditions for human life weren't right?

The dinosaurs died out, maybe they died out because there was a reduction in CO2.

Anyway, the Earth has regulated itself better now so we had the conditions to survive AND prosper.

We're destroying this stability. Do you think this is a good idea? The oceans will go first. We're killing the whole of the oceans. Fish will be more of a delicacy in the future, sea fish won't exist, river fish will be more expensive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

CO2 is bad? what the f are you saying? You have no clue to what you write. holy crap. Greater CO2 is great for the world, and there is evidence to that. Pollution is not CO2 so I still have no idea what you think you're discussing, pollution or climate? Can you clarify for all the kids in the class?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

They have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting their claim that higher CO2 levels and warmer climates will spell the end of animal and plant life. The historical climate record actually shows the exact opposite of their claims.

Animal and plant life thrive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So their whole 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer examination.

I for one am not suggesting it will be the end to animal and plant life at all. So..... why are you saying that we need to prove something we're not talking about?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

How much is to much?

According to this article in the dino era Their was 2 times~5 times more C02 in the atmosphere then today

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

According to our New C02 satellite the hot spots for C02 is in the southern hemisphere


NASA Satellite Sends Back Most Detailed CO2 View Ever : DNews

Yeah, in the dinosaur eras there was a lot more. How many humans were there? Oh, er... none. Why do you think that is? Because they were all eaten by dinosaurs or the conditions for human life weren't right?

The dinosaurs died out, maybe they died out because there was a reduction in CO2.

Anyway, the Earth has regulated itself better now so we had the conditions to survive AND prosper.

We're destroying this stability. Do you think this is a good idea? The oceans will go first. We're killing the whole of the oceans. Fish will be more of a delicacy in the future, sea fish won't exist, river fish will be more expensive.

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

 

[westwall]

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

hahahahahaha. give some thought as to what the normal range of CO2 is. for different areas, different seasons, etc. the 120 ppm increase over the last coupla hundred years is nothing. but the plants sure like it.

graduate high school! hahahahahahaha

The plants sure like it. The oceans sure don't.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kills offalgae."

Bullshit. Here is a far more balanced look at the so called ocean acidification "problem". The reality is we as a species could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the result would be to drop the oceans pH from an average of 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline. Every bit of empirical research has shown that corals and other hard shelled critters grow THICKER shells in the presence of even ridiculously high levels of acidic water. In one experiment they had acid levels many times what would EVER be experienced in the real world. Guess what...the shells grew thicker.

Anytime someone is trying to scare the crap out of you so that you will give up your freedoms and your hard earned cahs you should ask yourself who gets the money. Overwhelmingly it is ultra rich bankers andultra rich politicians who stand to reap the biggest reward. Furthermore a thinking person would wonder why it is OK to pollute if the situation was so dire the world would be MANDATING a cut in pollution, but no.... there is no mandate to cut. There is merely a fee attached. You can still pollute, you just have to pay a fee to some ultra rich dude.

And you brainless twits can never seem to figure that out.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf


In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production

 

[westwall]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

A "stable Earth"? Are you stoned? There is no such thing. The Earth is acting like the Earth always does. It just operates on a time scale so vast that a puny mind like yours can't grasp it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

hahahahahaha. give some thought as to what the normal range of CO2 is. for different areas, different seasons, etc. the 120 ppm increase over the last coupla hundred years is nothing. but the plants sure like it.

graduate high school! hahahahahahaha

The plants sure like it. The oceans sure don't.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kills offalgae."

Bullshit. Here is a far more balanced look at the so called ocean acidification "problem". The reality is we as a species could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the result would be to drop the oceans pH from an average of 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline. Every bit of empirical research has shown that corals and other hard shelled critters grow THICKER shells in the presence of even ridiculously high levels of acidic water. In one experiment they had acid levels many times what would EVER be experienced in the real world. Guess what...the shells grew thicker.

Anytime someone is trying to scare the crap out of you so that you will give up your freedoms and your hard earned cahs you should ask yourself who gets the money. Overwhelmingly it is ultra rich bankers andultra rich politicians who stand to reap the biggest reward. Furthermore a thinking person would wonder why it is OK to pollute if the situation was so dire the world would be MANDATING a cut in pollution, but no.... there is no mandate to cut. There is merely a fee attached. You can still pollute, you just have to pay a fee to some ultra rich dude.

And you brainless twits can never seem to figure that out.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf


In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production

Insulting again huh? Maybe try another approach because you're going on ignore.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

 

[paulitician]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

They have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting their claim that higher CO2 levels and warmer climates will spell the end of animal and plant life. The historical climate record actually shows the exact opposite of their claims.

Animal and plant life thrive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So their whole 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer examination.

I for one am not suggesting it will be the end to animal and plant life at all. So..... why are you saying that we need to prove something we're not talking about?

You're pushing a 'Global Warming Apocalypse.' And i'm calling Bullshite on it. Simple as that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

They have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting their claim that higher CO2 levels and warmer climates will spell the end of animal and plant life. The historical climate record actually shows the exact opposite of their claims.

Animal and plant life thrive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So their whole 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer examination.

I for one am not suggesting it will be the end to animal and plant life at all. So..... why are you saying that we need to prove something we're not talking about?

You're pushing a 'Global Warming Apocalypse.' And i'm calling Bullshite on it. Simple as that.

You're making stuff up, claiming people are saying something they're no.

So you're calling bullshite by fighting a ghost. Well done.