The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure, if you take 390 as an acceptable current number, 100 would be just over 25% or about 11% extra "carbon forcing" over current levels. What's your point? Heat would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere and, therefore, more snow, when it meets a cold air mass. Longer, warmer summers would lead to fatter animals of all sorts. Sure sounds like possible consequences of AGW.

Sounds like you're making it all up.

So if a .01% change in the total atmospheric content has such a profound effect, why is it impossible for you to show us one repeatable experiment that gives ANY much less ALL of the results you allege?

0.01%! Try 30-40%. That's the % increase over historical averages and the REAL number that should be considered. If the low number really proved anything, why is the earth many degrees warmer than if that 0.01% wasn't there at all?

Are you fucking retarded? A 100ppm change is a .01% change in total atmospheric content

 

[konradv]

Sounds like you're making it all up.

So if a .01% change in the total atmospheric content has such a profound effect, why is it impossible for you to show us one repeatable experiment that gives ANY much less ALL of the results you allege?

0.01%! Try 30-40%. That's the % increase over historical averages and the REAL number that should be considered. If the low number really proved anything, why is the earth many degrees warmer than if that 0.01% wasn't there at all?

Are you fucking retarded? A 100ppm change is a .01% change in total atmospheric content

A 100 ppm change would be a 25% increase over current levels. THAT'S the important number, NOT 0.01%. Absolute numbers in this case are just used to confuse the issue. If that small number was really significant, then CO2 would have very little effect at all, a situation known to be FALSE!!!

 

[westwall]

0.01%! Try 30-40%. That's the % increase over historical averages and the REAL number that should be considered. If the low number really proved anything, why is the earth many degrees warmer than if that 0.01% wasn't there at all?

Are you fucking retarded? A 100ppm change is a .01% change in total atmospheric content

A 100 ppm change would be a 25% increase over current levels. THAT'S the important number, NOT 0.01%. Absolute numbers in this case are just used to confuse the issue. If that small number was really significant, then CO2 would have very little effect at all, a situation known to be FALSE!!!

Yes, you are certainly confused. A 25% increase over present levels is a cute number but in the long run it is completely meaningless. The overall atmospheric content is the only numbers that truly matter and a 1% overall increase in a trace gas that is ESSENTIAL to life on this planet is a concern in only the most uneducated of the public.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

0.01%! Try 30-40%. That's the % increase over historical averages and the REAL number that should be considered. If the low number really proved anything, why is the earth many degrees warmer than if that 0.01% wasn't there at all?

Are you fucking retarded? A 100ppm change is a .01% change in total atmospheric content

A 100 ppm change would be a 25% increase over current levels. THAT'S the important number, NOT 0.01%. Absolute numbers in this case are just used to confuse the issue. If that small number was really significant, then CO2 would have very little effect at all, a situation known to be FALSE!!!

My God! You really are a fucking retard! It's CO2, it's exhaust from breathing and not some exotic alkaloid poison. We're talking about amounts that aren't even considered rounding errors.

AND IF ITS THAT POWERFUL HOW COME YOU HAVE ZERO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE SAME?

 

[westwall]

What he /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ said!

 

[skookerasbil]