400 ppm CO2

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is anyone going to suggest that there is not a link between poor literacy and climate denial?

Five posters in a row who completely fail to address the topic - and not one of whom can manage a proper sentence.

I read the Climategate emails. I guess I'm a literate AGW denier.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Westwall -

It's a shame no literate Deniers grace this board.

Shame on you. . . .

OK. Show yourself to be scientificly literate and supply us with some articles from peer reviewed journals that show global warming to be a hoax.

Hide the decline

We redistribute wealth through climate policy

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[midcan5]

It amazes how little press this information gets in so called MSM. Those who think media is liberal or green or whatever label they demonize, should think twice; media is corporate owned and operated.

'Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 parts per million - Threatens Climate Catastrophe'

"The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached the milestone of 400 parts per million, something not seen on earth for 2 or 3 million years. This time, it is driven by human emissions from burning coal, natural gas and petroleum.

Climate change at this pace threatens 50,000 plant and animal species over the next 80 years, and it isn’t entirely clear if the human species can survive in the new, unstable climate conditions we are creating."

Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 parts per million, Threatens Climate Catastrophe | Informed Comment

 

[skookerasbil]

It amazes how little press this information gets in so called MSM. Those who think media is liberal or green or whatever label they demonize, should think twice; media is corporate owned and operated.

'Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 parts per million - Threatens Climate Catastrophe'

"The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached the milestone of 400 parts per million, something not seen on earth for 2 or 3 million years. This time, it is driven by human emissions from burning coal, natural gas and petroleum.

Climate change at this pace threatens 50,000 plant and animal species over the next 80 years, and it isn’t entirely clear if the human species can survive in the new, unstable climate conditions we are creating."

Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 parts per million, Threatens Climate Catastrophe | Informed Comment

s0n.....you are up there with Chris and Truth as the most naive mofu's on the board!!!

 

[gslack]

Is anyone going to suggest that there is not a link between poor literacy and climate denial?

Five posters in a row who completely fail to address the topic - and not one of whom can manage a proper sentence.

Not according to a study done by one of the warmist groups. Much to their chagrin it turns out that sceptics are BETTER EDUCATED AND HAVE A HIGHER UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC MATTERS THAN GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS.


Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.

Dan Kahan, Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School said, 'Political controversy over climate change cannot be attributed to the public's limited ability to comprehend science.' he said.

Researchers measured ‘science literacy’ with test items developed by the National Science Foundation.

The questions were simple questions such as 'Electrons are smaller than atoms, true or false?'


They also measured their subjects' ‘numeracy’—that is, their ability to understand quantitative information.

The controversy comes down, in effect, to a conflict over values - and informed individuals are better at fitting the scientific facts, and gaps in our knowledge, to whatever they happen to believe in.

‘In effect,’ Kahan said, ‘ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values.


'At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.’


‘More information can help solve the climate change conflict,’ Kahan said, ‘but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.’


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


First, no direct referance to the supposed article. Second, quotes from a supposed psychologist, again, no direct referance to the context in which the statements were made.

Were I to hand such a writeup into one of my professors claiming it to be proof of anything, he would hang my ass out to dry. If you supposedly quote from an article or study, you state who the authors were, where it was published, and when it was published. This is an excellent example of yellow journalism.

And it's no better or worse than most of the crap you or trolling blunder post here.. Thank you for confirming that....

 

[gslack]

It amazes how little press this information gets in so called MSM. Those who think media is liberal or green or whatever label they demonize, should think twice; media is corporate owned and operated.

'Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 parts per million - Threatens Climate Catastrophe'

"The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached the milestone of 400 parts per million, something not seen on earth for 2 or 3 million years. This time, it is driven by human emissions from burning coal, natural gas and petroleum.

Climate change at this pace threatens 50,000 plant and animal species over the next 80 years, and it isn’t entirely clear if the human species can survive in the new, unstable climate conditions we are creating."

Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 parts per million, Threatens Climate Catastrophe | Informed Comment

The truth is globally it's actually at 395 ppm, the 400 ppm is at the facility at mauna loa volcano. They show this on the link...They post the bigger number for effect, and give the impression its global. Hence why media has declined to jump on the scare wagon again so quickly. Even they have limits on how much BS they will throw at a time..

 

[PredFan]

0.0004%

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

 

[ScienceRocks]

Not according to a study done by one of the warmist groups. Much to their chagrin it turns out that sceptics are BETTER EDUCATED AND HAVE A HIGHER UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC MATTERS THAN GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS.


Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.

Dan Kahan, Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School said, 'Political controversy over climate change cannot be attributed to the public's limited ability to comprehend science.' he said.

Researchers measured ‘science literacy’ with test items developed by the National Science Foundation.

The questions were simple questions such as 'Electrons are smaller than atoms, true or false?'


They also measured their subjects' ‘numeracy’—that is, their ability to understand quantitative information.

The controversy comes down, in effect, to a conflict over values - and informed individuals are better at fitting the scientific facts, and gaps in our knowledge, to whatever they happen to believe in.

‘In effect,’ Kahan said, ‘ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values.


'At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.’


‘More information can help solve the climate change conflict,’ Kahan said, ‘but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.’


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


First, no direct referance to the supposed article. Second, quotes from a supposed psychologist, again, no direct referance to the context in which the statements were made.

Were I to hand such a writeup into one of my professors claiming it to be proof of anything, he would hang my ass out to dry. If you supposedly quote from an article or study, you state who the authors were, where it was published, and when it was published. This is an excellent example of yellow journalism.

And it's no better or worse than most of the crap you or trolling blunder post here.. Thank you for confirming that....

At least rollingthunder post links from Noaa, Nasa, etc. You post things from watts up with that, lol!!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

0.0004%

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

1. Can .0004% of poison harm you?
2. Water vapor stays within the atmosphere for a very short time.
3. Co2 stays within the climate system for a very long time.

Think about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

0.0004%

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

1. Can .0004% of poison harm you?
2. Water vapor stays within the atmosphere for a very short time.
3. Co2 stays within the climate system for a very long time.

Think about it.

Is CO2 poison?

 

[ScienceRocks]

0.0004%

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

1. Can .0004% of poison harm you?
2. Water vapor stays within the atmosphere for a very short time.
3. Co2 stays within the climate system for a very long time.

Think about it.

Is CO2 poison?

No,

but it has a effect on the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Can .0004% of poison harm you?
2. Water vapor stays within the atmosphere for a very short time.
3. Co2 stays within the climate system for a very long time.

Think about it.

Is CO2 poison?

No,

but it has a effect on the atmosphere.

No? Thank goodness! Listening to some warmers, I thought it was worse than I-131.

but it has a effect on the atmosphere.

Sure does! Also helps plants grow.

 

[gslack]

Climate change sceptics are often derided as uninformed - but a new study proves that the opposite is the case.

Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.

The difference isn't huge, according to a survey of 1500 U.S. adults.


57% of sceptics are 'science literate' according to tests asking basic science and maths questions, versus 56% of believers.

Dan Kahan, Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School said, 'Political controversy over climate change cannot be attributed to the public's limited ability to comprehend science.' he said.

Researchers measured ‘science literacy’ with test items developed by the National Science Foundation.

The questions were simple questions such as 'Electrons are smaller than atoms, true or false?'


They also measured their subjects' ‘numeracy’—that is, their ability to understand quantitative information.

The controversy comes down, in effect, to a conflict over values - and informed individuals are better at fitting the scientific facts, and gaps in our knowledge, to whatever they happen to believe in.

‘In effect,’ Kahan said, ‘ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values.


'At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.’


‘More information can help solve the climate change conflict,’ Kahan said, ‘but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.’


Read more: Global warming sceptics are better-informed about science than believers | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


First, no direct referance to the supposed article. Second, quotes from a supposed psychologist, again, no direct referance to the context in which the statements were made.

Were I to hand such a writeup into one of my professors claiming it to be proof of anything, he would hang my ass out to dry. If you supposedly quote from an article or study, you state who the authors were, where it was published, and when it was published. This is an excellent example of yellow journalism.

And it's no better or worse than most of the crap you or trolling blunder post here.. Thank you for confirming that....

At least rollingthunder post links from Noaa, Nasa, etc. You post things from watts up with that, lol!!!!

No trolling blunder posts 12 year old headlines from a news aggro service. And you don't do much but post and run and do the random side attack like now..

 

[jon_berzerk]

Is CO2 poison?

No,

but it has a effect on the atmosphere.

No? Thank goodness! Listening to some warmers, I thought it was worse than I-131.

but it has a effect on the atmosphere.

Sure does! Also helps plants grow.

just wait until they start telling you about the dangers of water

--LOL