Is CO2 a pollutant?

[Billy_Bob]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

PROVE IT MORON..

Show us the science.. the DATA, the METHODS, and how 120 ppm of CO2 has done it all... Show us ....

They can not and no one has actually done an experiment to prove it has, and why not? Because they all know it is a lie.

I have posted this 10 times and asked Crick, old Crock among others to refute it. I have received no empirical evidence, repeatable lab studies, or other evidence to disprove it to date!

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

I have given this challenge to all of them and no one seems able to refute the empirical observed evidence. THe rates are unchanged from one to the other showing that 120ppm of CO2 has had NO EFFECT on our planet that can be seen. BY the IPCC's and EPA's own standards the the "forcing" factor is ZERO.. Not 4-6 deg C per doubling. Even the standard CO2 LOG effect is zeroed out in our atmosphere.

 

[sealybobo]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Oh... now it's called "destabilized climate".

Let's recap:

Global Warming begets

Climate Change begets

Destabilized Climate.

If there were no Warming/Change/Destabilization and if the climate were static, would the next catch-phrase become Climate Stasis?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together might recognize this pattern, but many others realize all this bs has absolutely nothing to do with "climate-change-warming-whatever" and everything to do with control. Follow the money, honey!

Great point. Where does all the money politicians raise go?

And when they pay for all that advertising what does the media companies do with all that money?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Oh... now it's called "destabilized climate".

Let's recap:

Global Warming begets

Climate Change begets

Destabilized Climate.

If there were no Warming/Change/Destabilization and if the climate were static, would the next catch-phrase become Climate Stasis?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together might recognize this pattern, but many others realize all this bs has absolutely nothing to do with "climate-change-warming-whatever" and everything to do with control. Follow the money, honey!

Great point. Where does all the money politicians raise go?

And when they pay for all that advertising what does the media companies do with all that money?

Considering they are in Democrat pockets.... you tell us..

 

[hortysir]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

How have we increased GHGs "at a rapid rate"? Define 'rapid rate'.

 

[hortysir]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

Ask NASA. Man made global warming is better than a scientific theory its a fact. Same way lead poisoning and tobacco are bad for us. Dont ask us we aren't scientists. Ask the scientists. What do they say? Do you care if I can explain exactly how and why lead is bad or do you take sciences word for it? Who were the last people to believe tobacco didn't cause cancer?

CO2 is bad for us now.

Why do you hate the poor?

Increased CO2 helps plants thrive which increases crops' yields, which lowers grocery cost and that helps the poor.

 

[ralfy]

It is not a pollutant, but it can act as a forcing factor for increased warming.

Also,

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2

Please provide proof of this allegation. Current empirical evidence shows a dampening effect, which has stopped any warming whatsoever over the last 155 years, that could be attributed to CO2.

Your paper gives no evidence of such warming and only stated conjecture.

See the NAS final report:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

i.e., the section that discusses CO2 as both a feedback and forcing factor.

 

[ralfy]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Oh... now it's called "destabilized climate".

Let's recap:

Global Warming begets

Climate Change begets

Destabilized Climate.

If there were no Warming/Change/Destabilization and if the climate were static, would the next catch-phrase become Climate Stasis?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together might recognize this pattern, but many others realize all this bs has absolutely nothing to do with "climate-change-warming-whatever" and everything to do with control. Follow the money, honey!

And yet even an independent study funded by skeptics confirms the issue:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

 

[ralfy]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

Ask NASA. Man made global warming is better than a scientific theory its a fact. Same way lead poisoning and tobacco are bad for us. Dont ask us we aren't scientists. Ask the scientists. What do they say? Do you care if I can explain exactly how and why lead is bad or do you take sciences word for it? Who were the last people to believe tobacco didn't cause cancer?

CO2 is bad for us now.

Why do you hate the poor?

Increased CO2 helps plants thrive which increases crops' yields, which lowers grocery cost and that helps the poor.

CO2 is plant food

The world <> laboratory.

 

[hortysir]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Oh... now it's called "destabilized climate".

Let's recap:

Global Warming begets

Climate Change begets

Destabilized Climate.

If there were no Warming/Change/Destabilization and if the climate were static, would the next catch-phrase become Climate Stasis?

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together might recognize this pattern, but many others realize all this bs has absolutely nothing to do with "climate-change-warming-whatever" and everything to do with control. Follow the money, honey!

And yet even an independent study funded by skeptics confirms the issue:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

No one has said global warming isn't happening.
It's happened, on and off, for miliniea.

The question is, is man-made global warming having a greater effect than volcanoes and nuclear winters?

"Carbon pollution"? Really?
On a carbon-based planet?

 

[westwall]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. It's the fundamental building block of life on this planet. Only frauds and idiots think otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Wrong. Water vapor is the engine that keeps the planets temperature regulated. That and the oceans themselves.

 

[westwall]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

 

[westwall]

It is not a pollutant, but it can act as a forcing factor for increased warming.

Also,

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2

Please provide proof of this allegation. Current empirical evidence shows a dampening effect, which has stopped any warming whatsoever over the last 155 years, that could be attributed to CO2.

Your paper gives no evidence of such warming and only stated conjecture.

See the NAS final report:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

i.e., the section that discusses CO2 as both a feedback and forcing factor.

None of which has been shown to exist in the real world. All of it is based on computer models of pathetically poor performance.

 

[orogenicman]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

Yeah, it's all a great big science conspiracy. (rolls eyes).

No doubt you will tell us next that the Apollo program was a hoax.

 

[hortysir]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

Yeah, it's all a great big science conspiracy. (rolls eyes).

No doubt you will tell us next that the Apollo program was a hoax.

The Most Trusted Man in America on Climate Change Power Line

 

[Old Rocks]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

 

[mamooth]

I'd like to refute some bad denier pseudoscience, but it's getting hard to find any of it (Billy's insanity doesn't qualify). The deniers used to fake trying science, but they've given up even that pretense. Failing so hard at the science and being humiliated over and over must have taken its toll on their poor little minds, so they don't try anymore. Now it's just 24/7 power sulking about the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy and how meeeeeeaaaaaaaaan those awful liberals are.

Here's a tactic the deniers here will all approve of. In Florida, it's now forbidden for anyone in the government to say "global warming" or "climate change". Again, the frustrated deniers have given up on science, and instead are choosing to fly their Stalinist freak flag proudly.

In Florida officials ban term climate change Miami Herald Miami Herald

 

[westwall]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

No, only the ones involved in the fraud of AGW. A very small number of actual scientists. But never let a real fact get in the way of an olfraud meme.

 

[hortysir]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

And forty years ago we were on the brink of an ice age.
20 years from now it'll be something else.

Insignificant humans think they have that much sway over a planetary ecosystem

 

[mamooth]

And forty years ago we were on the brink of an ice age.

The scientists were predicting warming back then. And have been proven correct, as the steady and ongoing warming demonstrates.

In contrast, deniers have been predicting cooling pretty much nonstop for 40 years, and are still doing so. Isn't 40 years of constant failure enough to demonstrate deniers always get it wrong? If not, how long will it take?