OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[healthmyths]

You're right. It's over 99%
From Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

References
2. Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
149. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
151. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
152. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
153. ^ Ramanujan, Krishna. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change". Cornell Chronicle. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved 20 October 2021.

Then how do you explain your numbers...
Hey... I liked his made up number as it just increased the amount of CO2 absorbed according to him from 3 trillion trees @ 48 lbs or 72 billion tons of Co2 absorbed to
127.632 billion tons of Co2 by 5.1 trillion trees, thus more than enough to cover all the Co2.
So you add up the below and get Net of emitted of 800 gigaton But 788 absorbed, so using Crick's number there are 127 billion tons absorbed...more than enough!

I keep thinking about the story about the little kid that told the authorities who were puzzled on how to remove a truck stuck on an bridge.."why don't you let the air out of the tires"???
I remember reading a story about a truck driver that was driving cross country and stopped along his route because the tractor trailer got stuck underneath of a low bridge. The height clearance for the bridge was something like the 14′ 0” and the truck was 14′ 6.” The traffic behind the truck got very backed up because the truck could not move. Eventually, the police arrived and looked for situations to ‘un-stick’ the stuck truck. For a while they worked on a solution to no avail, finally a child in one of the cars from the traffic back-up asked “Why don’t they just let the air out of the tires?” While this seemed like such a silly question from a child, it also presented a creative solution to the problem

Can we just let the air out of the tires? | all

 

[jc456]

Hey... I liked his made up number as it just increased the amount of CO2 absorbed according to him from 3 trillion trees @ 48 lbs or 72 billion tons of Co2 absorbed to
127.632 billion tons of Co2 by 5.1 trillion trees, thus more than enough to cover all the Co2.
So you add up the below and get Net of emitted of 800 gigaton But 788 absorbed, so using Crick's number there are 127 billion tons absorbed...more than enough!

View attachment 746013

He wants us to take him seriously and he admitted making it up!! Hahaha

 

[Crick]

Then how do you explain your numbers...

No. How do you explain YOUR numbers? I just demonstrated that my numbers re the consensus are correct and yours are not.

Hey... I liked his made up number as it just increased the amount of CO2 absorbed according to him from 3 trillion trees @ 48 lbs or 72 billion tons of Co2 absorbed to
127.632 billion tons of Co2 by 5.1 trillion trees, thus more than enough to cover all the Co2.
So you add up the below and get Net of emitted of 800 gigaton But 788 absorbed, so using Crick's number there are 127 billion tons absorbed...more than enough!

Using a number at the low end of the range I found it would take 13 times the area of the entire 50 states, which currently does NOT have trees, to be planted with those trillions of seedlings you can get at your local nursery. So, please don't waste any more of our time with this one.

I keep thinking about the story about the little kid that told the authorities who were puzzled on how to remove a truck stuck on an bridge.."why don't you let the air out of the tires"???
I remember reading a story about a truck driver that was driving cross country and stopped along his route because the tractor trailer got stuck underneath of a low bridge. The height clearance for the bridge was something like the 14′ 0” and the truck was 14′ 6.” The traffic behind the truck got very backed up because the truck could not move. Eventually, the police arrived and looked for situations to ‘un-stick’ the stuck truck. For a while they worked on a solution to no avail, finally a child in one of the cars from the traffic back-up asked “Why don’t they just let the air out of the tires?” While this seemed like such a silly question from a child, it also presented a creative solution to the problem

Can we just let the air out of the tires? | all

Do you know what the term apocryphal means? Your story is apocryphal. That means, don't tell it to an actual truck driver if you don't want to risk a punch in the nose.

View attachment 746034

The conclusion of the article at your link:

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

 

[jc456]

No. How do you explain YOUR numbers? I just demonstrated that my numbers re the consensus are correct and yours are not

In your dreams

 

[healthmyths]

No. How do you explain YOUR numbers? I just demonstrated that my numbers re the consensus are correct and yours are not.

Using a number at the low end of the range I found it would take 13 times the area of the entire 50 states, which currently does NOT have trees, to be planted with those trillions of seedlings you can get at your local nursery. So, please don't waste any more of our time with this one.

Do you know what the term apocryphal means? Your story is apocryphal. That means, don't tell it to an actual truck driver if you don't want to risk a punch in the nose.

The conclusion of the article at your link:

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

Earth's Fossil records reveal atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million.

Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!

The new convention is to refer to "global warming" (something many have told us to worry about) as "climate change" (meaning pretty much the same thing since it's supposed to be bad and caused by us anyway). The main difference appears to be that climate change is even worse, since [...]

www.forbes.com

The global average carbon dioxide set a new record high in 2021: 414.72 parts per million

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

the global average temperature was 90° Fahrenheit (32°C) as opposed to the 20th-century global average, which was about 57° F (14°C) according to modern measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Oct 10, 2022

PolitiFact - No, research doesn’t show the Earth was 2 degrees Celsius warmer 55,000 years ago

Former oil executive Dan Peña has made his stance on climate change clear. As far as he is concerned, it’s not an issue.

www.politifact.com

And people like you and climatechangeistas like Gore told us the following:
Gore didn’t make this prediction himself but was citing findings from a climate researcher. He did, however, appear to misrepresent the data.
“These figures are fresh,” Gore said on Dec. 14, 2009, during the COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen (here).
“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

Al Gore did not âpredictâ ice caps melting by 2013 but misrepresented data

A 2009 comment by former U.S. vice president Al Gore that the North Pole would be ice-free by summer 2013 has gone viral in tandem with COP26 climate talks in Glasgow. The quote has been used to claim he made bogus predictions. While he did say something similar, the claim misrepresents his...

www.reuters.com

 

[jc456]

No. How do you explain YOUR numbers? I just demonstrated that my numbers re the consensus are correct and yours are not.

here is an example of your use of logical fallacies,

What is the consensus? never once have I seen you provide it.

 

[westwall]

I strongly suggest you read up on circular arguments

Why? You are the expert at them.

 

[Crick]

Why? You are the expert at them.

What relevance would that have to my suggesting someone else read up on them? If I WAS the expert, than my advice is even better.