CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[Shareprofit]

You have shown nothing, zip, nada....

That you can understand.

 

[Sunsettommy]

If you're going to refer to me like that you can piss off pal. Ciao.

You were invited to produce any evidence and you failed thus you have nothing but useless opinions to sell thus you ARE lying.

Cheers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That you can understand.

I understand that it is too hard for you to produce the evidence YOU claim you have, thus you have no credibility.

 

[Leo123]

Were home schooled?

Marxist schooled ^^^^

 

[Leo123]

Counterpoint to what. I've provided the evidence all you have is your belief in" nah it's not happening ". Show me proof climate change is not occurring right now, I'll wait.

We have already told you Earth’s climate changes however, you have no proof humans are causing it or that more CO2 has caused any deleterious effect on the Earth or humans.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Greenland temperatures hottest in 1,000 years: Study​

A new study of Greenland’s ice cores indicates that rising temperatures bear the ‘clear signature of global warming" Greenland temperatures hottest in 1,000 years: Study

This was the heading in the first post of this thread posted by Crick and the replies exposed what the Abstract omitted and that it is a misleading paper:

LINK

You are 5 days late.

 

[Shareprofit]

Marxist schooled ^^^^

Ah Marxist is anything you right wingers don't understand, you are such a laugh.

 

[Shareprofit]

We have already told you Earth’s climate changes however, you have no proof humans are causing it or that more CO2 has caused any deleterious effect on the Earth or humans.

Yes we do from Carbon isotope ratios prove the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels that were buried underground. Naturally CO2 levels have never increased from 300 ppm to 414 ppm in just 50 years which is a very short time. So I've proved my case several times.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes we do from Carbon isotope ratios prove the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels that were buried underground. Naturally CO2 levels have never increased from 300 ppm to 414 ppm in just 50 years which is a very short time. So I've proved my case several times.

You did it again since it was 300 ppm in 1910 which is 112 years ago, already corrected you earlier today once now you get corrected again.

You haven't once showed that CO2 is driving the warming trend while I showed you the numbers that it is impossible for CO2 to drive warming trend.

Second time I ask you, what is "fossil fuel"?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ah Marxist is anything you right wingers don't understand, you are such a laugh.

Your reply suggest that is what is indeed got educated on.

 

[Shareprofit]

You did it again since it was 300 ppm in 1910 which is 112 years ago, already corrected you earlier today once now you get corrected again.

You haven't once showed that CO2 is driving the warming trend while I showed you the numbers that it is impossible for CO2 to drive warming trend.

Second time I ask you, what is "fossil fuel"?

In 1960 when I was at school atmospheric CO2 was 0.03 % or 300ppm now it's 415 ppm. That is not a natural increase. Carbon isotope ratios prove this extra amount of Carbon is comming from fossil fuels that were buried. I'm sick of proving this over and over. Now come back with your evidence for your denying BS or I'm going.

 

[Sunsettommy]

In 1960 when I was at school atmospheric CO2 was 0.03 % or 300ppm now it's 415 ppm. That is not a natural increase. Carbon isotope ratios prove this extra amount of Carbon is comming from fossil fuels that were buried. I'm sick of proving this over and over. Now come back with your evidence for your denying BS or I'm going.

You haven't supported your claims at all thus it is YOU who is pulling claims out of the air.

Wrong again and I posted the link to back up my challenge to your earlier post in this very thing, here it is again from POST 644

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels, 1800–present​

LINK

1960 it is 316.91 ppm

1910 it was 300 ppm

Today about 419 ppm

Second time I corrected you.....

 

[Leo123]

Yes we do from Carbon isotope ratios prove the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels that were buried underground. Naturally CO2 levels have never increased from 300 ppm to 414 ppm in just 50 years which is a very short time. So I've proved my case several times.

What deleterious effect has it caused? You have no proof that humans caused the fastest rise with your meager 50 year sample as well.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What deleterious effect has it caused? You have no proof that humans caused the fastest rise with your meager 50 year sample as well.

His "sample" size is actually about 111 years.

 

[Leo123]

His "sample" size is actually about 111 years.

Yeah and he still hasn’t proven what deleterious effect CO2 has caused. I noticed he avoids that question.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes we do from Carbon isotope ratios prove the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels that were buried underground. Naturally CO2 levels have never increased from 300 ppm to 414 ppm in just 50 years which is a very short time. So I've proved my case several times.

You're lying again... would you please stop it. I have shown you, as have others that this is a bald face lie.

You must prove causation. Correlation is not and does not equal causation. All of the warming is not Soley CO2 driven. Please tell me how you stopped natural variational factors. That would be the ONLY WAY CO2 could be the cause.

 

[Shareprofit]

You haven't supported your claims at all thus it is YOU who is pulling claims out of the air.

Wrong again and I posted the link to back up my challenge to your earlier post in this very thing, here it is again from POST 644

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels, 1800–present​

LINK

1960 it is 316.91 ppm

1910 it was 300 ppm

Today about 419 ppm

Second time I corrected you.....

Exactly CO2 levels have increased by 33 % in just 50 years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Exactly CO2 levels have increased by 33 % in just 50 years.

Now you are ducking your errors I keep correcting you on your 33% is all deflecting bullshit as it doesn't support anything you claim.......

Why can't you answer Leo's simple to understand question?

What deleterious effect has it caused?

 

[Shareprofit]

Now you are ducking your errors I keep correcting you on your 33% is all deflecting bullshit as it doesn't support anything you claim.......

Why can't you answer Leo's simple to understand question?

How is an increase from 300ppm to 414 not 33% in 50 years. Explain it to me and why it has increased by this phenomenal amount.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How is an increase from 300ppm to 414 not 33% in 50 years. Explain it to me and why it has increased by this phenomenal amount.

First of all, it is not a "phenomenal amount."

Stomata proxies show that these wild swings are not uncommon in the paleo record.

Your dire emergency just got smashed into a billion pieces because the current rise is not uncommon or out of the ordinary for our planet's natural variational cycles.

This one fact alone makes any pontifications about CO2 driving anything ludicrous. This is evidence that these wide swings are not uncommon in the climatic records.

That is how fast your AGW lie is destroyed. FACTS... Observed and documents facts. Not conjecture and unsupported modeling crap.