Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant!

[BuckToothMoron]

You're right. Our grandkids will discuss AGW in the same vein as the Dutch Tulip Bulb Mania and the Salem Witch trials. In 50 years you won't be able to find a single person who will admit to believing the man-caused global warming myth.

Well, here's the thing... I've looked at their science and to an extent, they are right. Humans do create carbon dioxide. All we have to do is breathe. Every breath you exhale has converted a small amount of oxygen to carbon dioxide. It's also true that human industrialization processes produce some amount of CO2. Couple this with the fact that CO2 as a greenhouse gas, does have an amplification effect on warming the planet. But the thing is, there is no evidence that it changes the global temperatures to any significant degree over time. According to all the relevant data, the effect is inconsequential.

Just because science theoretically supports something, doesn't mean there is a necessary correlation with effect. Here's an analogy.... When a vehicle drives down the road, the tires create friction as energy moves mass... friction creates heat. This is scientifically valid. But what is the risk of many vehicles traveling down the road causing the roadway to catch on fire from the heat generated? It's "theoretically" possible but it's never going to happen because other factors are in play. The energy conversion isn't creating enough heat to ever reach a point of ignition and cool air is constantly mitigating any heat that is produced. Therefore, the roadway will never catch on fire.

Even if humans tried 24/7/365 to churn out as much CO2 as possible, we wouldn't significantly change the climate. To any extent we did, it would simply create more abundant plant life which uses CO2. Ironically, we could actually generate so much vibrant plant growth that it depletes our CO2 levels and causes an ice age.

Actually, I take a different path to questioning the conclusion of AGW. I have had a few Fluid Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Geology courses. What we have to understand is how relatively new climate science is; there are literally 1000's of variables that effect weather and climate; past climate events like the Little Ice Age, and the Emergence of the Sahara desert from a green oasis are still not completely explained or understood. Given those facts, it is absurd to think we can categorically define cause and effect regarding a rise in global temperatures now. And when you consider the motives, politics and money involved you'd be a fool not to question these conclusions. It is not science at this point, it is propaganda.

 

[SSDD]

But the thing is, there is no evidence that it changes the global temperatures to any significant degree over time.

Except for the evidence. But the invincible ignorance of dumb fuck rightards is invincible, that's a given.

Data.GISS

NOAA Climate.gov

Aside from the fact that proxy study after proxy study refutes your second graph, what do you think couple of temperature graphs prove with regard to our contribution to the climate?

 

[SSDD]

[

Either you want to prove it's harmless or not.

Younwackos are always demonstrating that you lack any sort of context...which goes a long way towards explaining how you came to be duped in the first place.

For example, submarines try to maintain a CO2 level of about 3500 ppm...but levels as Gish as 11,000 ppm are not unusual. Before the ice age that the earth is still climbing out of began, the atmospheric CO2 level was about 1000ppm and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm. Medicine tells us that CO2 becomes toxic at concentrations of about 5%....or at about 50,000ppm; a concentration that burning all the fossil fuels on earth couldn't produce...The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 400ppm...so again...what sort of idiot point were you trying to make.

 

[SSDD]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

The most disingenuous post today.

Either you want to prove it's harmless or not.

Plants breathe it liar, and give us O2.

So? Fish breath water too. That doesn't mean it can't be harmful to us. Stick your head under water for a while, and then you can add water to the list of things you proved are harmless.

Fish don't breathe water mr science...they breathe the same gasses we breathe...they just extract them from their environment in a different way than we do. Let me guess....science wa never your best thing...was it?

 

[SSDD]

So? Fish breath water too. That doesn't mean it can't be harmful to us. Stick your head under water for a while, and then you can add water to the list of things you proved are harmless.

Fish do not breathe water.

Fish do not actually breath in the sense that we do. They take water in their mouth and then force it across their gills where the 02 is absorbed. It is a reasonable comparison to breathing though.

I'm curious ... do you teach science professionally?

Considering the state of education, it would not surprise me in the least...I had confrences with some real g ms when my kids were in school..

 

[SSDD]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

...and there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt. I guess you have the same excuse for all them too?

You are aware aren't you...or maybe not...that government work doesn't tend to attract the best and brightest...no matter who the president is.

 

[Lewdog]

Another long time member of the EPA resigned after THIRTY Years of working there. She is like the fourth person in the EPA with several decades of experience to do so since Trump and Pruitt took over. She wrote a scathing letter that included:

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,”

Senior EPA official resigns with scathing message for Trump and Pruitt

Southerland is a far left wing enviro-wacko with serious ties to far left wing advocacy groups like the sierra club and Greenpeace.. She wouldn't know real science if it hit her in the damn head.. Elizabeth is are real winner when it comes to propaganda...

Its about time we get this left wing trash out of there..

She isn't the only one, and she has worked there for 30 years under various administrations. She knows more than Pruitt...

Hmmm she has a PhD in environmental science and engineering, what do you have?

She is an activist hack and has been for a long time... I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and am currently working for my PhD. Most of what she espouses is not based in science.

...and there have been at least 3 other higher ups in the EPA with 30 years of experience or more quit because of Trump and Pruitt. I guess you have the same excuse for all them too?

You are aware aren't you...or maybe not...that government work doesn't tend to attract the best and brightest...no matter who the president is.

I pointed that out when it comes to computer hackers... but with the environment it is different because it is a matter of passion. People don't study environmental engineering to get rich... unless you are like my buddy from high school who did and got a job at AK Steel because his father headed up the Environmental Department for the entire company.

 

[miketx]

Fish breathe water! LMAO!

 

[jc456]

The Warmers will boast of how it's "settled science" and that scientists have reached a "consensus" on climate change and man made global warming. This is absolute bunk. What they should tell you, if they were being honest, is about 97% of research "scientists" who rely on government grants, agree that we should continue to research the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The other 3% are probably bored with getting free government handouts to parrot the Warmer narrative.

One area of science you'll never hear a Warmer mention are Botanists. Botany is the scientific study of plants. Scientists who specialize in botany will tell you that it's an absurdity to presume our carbon dioxide levels are alarmingly too high. Through years of scientific testing and observation, we know that plant life on Earth reproduces optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why every commercial greenhouse pumps in CO2 to promote healthy and vibrant plant growth.

Now, why would Mother Nature give us plants which thrive optimally at such a high level of CO2 if those levels were abnormally high? It makes no sense whatsoever. Through studying the history of plant life, we've discovered that until a few hundred years ago, plants were actually starving for CO2. If you could go back 10-20k years ago, you'd find a much higher CO2 level and lush vegetation where deserts presently exist.

As a matter of fact, the ice age prior to the last one, was caused as a result of not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Large massive plant life covered the planet and there was very little mammal life producing CO2. The plants were consuming it all and it created an imbalance which caused our climate to plunge into an ice age when the Milankovitch cycle hit it's minimum apex. You see, plants use CO2 and produce oxygen. So how did the planet recover from this? Well, the ice age killed off the vegetation and the dead and decaying plant life caught fire in an oxygen-rich climate. Great fires raged around the world, producing carbon dioxide and warming the planet again.

All of this took place long before Al Gore and the Warmers. It had nothing to do with Industrial Revolutions or manmade carbon dioxide. It's simply a balance of nature and our amazing self-correcting ecosystem which has functioned for over 3 billion years. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of that ecosystem and life as we know it couldn't exist otherwise. It is NOT pollution!

If you're so convinced that carbon dioxide is harmless, I invite you to prove it once and for all. Since we exhale large quantities of CO2, why don't you just put your head inside a non permeable enclosure (plastic bag) and seal it around your neck so it is air tight. After just a few minutes, it should be obvious just how harmless that CO2 is. As an alternative, you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine. Just attach a hose to the tail pipe, and run it into the passenger compartment where you will be sitting. It encourage you to invite another RWNJ or even several RWNJs inside the car with you to witness your proof. Crank the engine and roll the window up enough to keep the hose from falling out, and you should soon have unquestionable proof of how harmless CO2 really is. Right wingers will call you a hero for proving that all that talk about CO being harmful is just bullshit.

exhaust from a car is carbon monoxide so, fail!!!

 

[jc456]

you could always make use of the harmless CO2 gas coming from the exhaust of any internal combustion engine.

Actually, Mr. Science Wizard, automobiles exhaust is primarily Carbon MONoxide (CO), not CO2, a very different gas, along with Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen oxides.

Yes. lots of constituents in exhaust gasses. CO is part of the exhaust every time the motor is cranked. If you don't trust the proof done that way, you are free to go with the plastic bag method. That will always be close to 100% CO2.

don't humans breath oxygen? so if there is no oxygen, we keel over. right?