Is CO2 a pollutant?

[skookerasbil]

Its a trace gas...............

Wanna get a good laugh.........watch THIS >>>

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

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.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

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

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

But nobody is caring s0n!!!

25 years of this crap and where is it mattering in the real world??


The answer is........its not. In fact, in 2014, its nothing more than an internet hobby for climate crusaders with OCD.

If it did matter, renewable energy wouldn't still be a joke!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040-2.png.html][/URL]



Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing and was released a month ago!!!!


Nobody cares about the consensus.



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Kool-aid-mobile-wallpaper.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Crick]

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.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

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.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

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

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Qouting Nutter-Cellie...???? OMG to funny.. One of the original nuts who made up the lie... Circular Review of Claims... You seriously posted this as proof of the lie? One of the liars proving his own lie.....

Looks to me like he's quoting the work of the Koch Brothers-funded research.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

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.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

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

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Qouting Nutter-Cellie...???? OMG to funny.. One of the original nuts who made up the lie... Circular Review of Claims... You seriously posted this as proof of the lie? One of the liars proving his own lie.....

Looks to me like he's quoting the work of the Koch Brothers-funded research.

SO.... The UN IEA is now a Koch funded industry?

 

[Crick]

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

Can you not read?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

And Just what would that displacement level be... I can tell you it has not been seen in several hundred million years on this planet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

Can you not read?

Think Progress... A Left wing hack site not worth reading because they produce lies like the one you just posted. Circular logical Fallacy.. And to put words in the mouths of those who never said them.. They call that LYING!

 

[ralfy]

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.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

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.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

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

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

But nobody is caring s0n!!!

25 years of this crap and where is it mattering in the real world??


The answer is........its not. In fact, in 2014, its nothing more than an internet hobby for climate crusaders with OCD.

If it did matter, renewable energy wouldn't still be a joke!!!






Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing and was released a month ago!!!!


Nobody cares about the consensus.

Except that military organizations, multinational banks, insurance firms, and more are talking about it, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/u...rming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html

Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

Top investment funds warn on dangers of climate change - Telegraph

Lloyd s calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk Business The Guardian

So much for that theory of no one "cares."

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

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.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

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

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

But nobody is caring s0n!!!

25 years of this crap and where is it mattering in the real world??


The answer is........its not. In fact, in 2014, its nothing more than an internet hobby for climate crusaders with OCD.

If it did matter, renewable energy wouldn't still be a joke!!!






Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing and was released a month ago!!!!


Nobody cares about the consensus.

Except that military organizations, multinational banks, insurance firms, and more are talking about it, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/u...rming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html

Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

Top investment funds warn on dangers of climate change - Telegraph

Lloyd s calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk Business The Guardian

So much for that theory of no one "cares."

Welcome to my ignore list.

Only progressives hit the ignore button = ghey. No balls.........when you get pwned, you take your bat and ball and go home.

I learned decades ago that words mean shit in life........guess some people missed the memo.

AGW is a hobby and that's all it is. All the talk is having zero effect in the real world = fact. ( see energy graph above )

An interesting environmental topic for banter I suppose, but its impact on world energy is dick. That's all I care about.........and bring it to the table in this forum rather bluntly.


More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

380+ pages.......almost 4,000 posts..........and heading to 200K views......high ranking search result ( page one )on BING!!!



Only limpwristed weenies hit the "ignore" button.........fucking ghey!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/8abb9baf6-4.jpg.html][/URL]






[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing_3.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

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.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

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

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

But nobody is caring s0n!!!

25 years of this crap and where is it mattering in the real world??


The answer is........its not. In fact, in 2014, its nothing more than an internet hobby for climate crusaders with OCD.

If it did matter, renewable energy wouldn't still be a joke!!!






Obama EIA graph displays the exact same thing and was released a month ago!!!!


Nobody cares about the consensus.

Except that military organizations, multinational banks, insurance firms, and more are talking about it, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/u...rming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html

Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

Top investment funds warn on dangers of climate change - Telegraph

Lloyd s calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk Business The Guardian

So much for that theory of no one "cares."

Welcome to my ignore list.

Anyone who makes a PROFIT off the scam.. If you had a group of fools willing to give up their rights, property and wealth for a lie would you not continue it until you get caught? You GOT CAUGHT and so did they.

I dont mind being ignored by fools.. Its the ones who might be fooled by the lies and deceit of the left wing that I am here to keep off the left wing cash redistribution system.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

And Just what would that displacement level be... I can tell you it has not been seen in several hundred million years on this planet.

1) The planet isn't that old.
2) How would you know what the levels of ANYTHING were a "hundred millions" years ago.
3) If the planet really DID have harmful levels of some element that long ago why did it survive?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

And Just what would that displacement level be... I can tell you it has not been seen in several hundred million years on this planet.

1) The planet isn't that old.
2) How would you know what the levels of ANYTHING were a "hundred millions" years ago.
3) If the planet really DID have harmful levels of some element that long ago why did it survive?

The Age of the earth is widely disputed and I wont argue that point here. During the earths formation, is about the only time those gas levels could not sustain life. Once the majority of the elements settled and the earths systems found equilibrium there is little that would disrupt the balance, except for a few massive asteroid strikes, even with those strikes CO2 has never been to a level that would cause life to stop.

From each strike the earth recovered and life continued.

There is this thing called commonsense that liberals and alarmist do not posses the ability to use. Try and obtain some of it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Leading question, I motion to strike. Oxygen can be toxic in huge amounts. We are ALL Carbon based, nothing wrong with that. CO2 produced in huge amounts by our industries, ( seen any footage of Beijing smog) will leave little doubt. It isn't a Solar issue. It's human overpopulation making lots of poo poo that is tipping the scales here. Pain pure and simple.

I'll disagree about you on the smog in Beijing, there are loads more nasty pollutants than CO2, recall that they don't have all the environmental regulations we do. That's one of the reasons our industries are bleeding off to China, and other similarly unregulated locations. The environmental measures industry has to enforce here are expensive.
I do agree with your assessment about there being just too damned many human animals, and they breed exponentially. I have often wondered why none of the folks who are so adamant that humans are causing "climate change" don't take the high ground and make a very personal, self-sacrificing contribution to decreasing the number of humans on the planet.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

But plants like it. Of course, plants also use CO2 to release the oxygen that we do need to live, using the carbon component as nourishment.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

But plants like it. Of course, plants also use CO2 to release the oxygen that we do need to live, using the carbon component as nourishment.

Exactly! So all we need to do as the number of CO2 is emitted is plant more trees which will produce more oxygen. And everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

But plants like it. Of course, plants also use CO2 to release the oxygen that we do need to live, using the carbon component as nourishment.

Exactly! So all we need to do as the number of CO2 is emitted is plant more trees which will produce more oxygen. And everyone lives happily ever after.

Not necessarily. I actually favor all those who are so firmly convinced that anthropomorphic global warming is real being real stand up folks who make a great contribution to combatting the effect they believe they have on the planet. There'd be lots fewer nasty humans dirtying up the planet. That would leave so much more for those of us who are not so easily deluded.

 

[westwall]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

No. CO2 is a naturally occurring, gaseous element used by the planet in the circle of life. We may all rest easy. Now ... CO2 can be very dangerous when it's breathed into the lungs and oxygen is displaced. A person can die on the spot of suffocation.

And Just what would that displacement level be... I can tell you it has not been seen in several hundred million years on this planet.

1) The planet isn't that old.
2) How would you know what the levels of ANYTHING were a "hundred millions" years ago.
3) If the planet really DID have harmful levels of some element that long ago why did it survive?

The Age of the earth is widely disputed and I wont argue that point here. During the earths formation, is about the only time those gas levels could not sustain life. Once the majority of the elements settled and the earths systems found equilibrium there is little that would disrupt the balance, except for a few massive asteroid strikes, even with those strikes CO2 has never been to a level that would cause life to stop.

From each strike the earth recovered and life continued.

There is this thing called commonsense that liberals and alarmist do not posses the ability to use. Try and obtain some of it.

There was life on Earth before there was free O2 in the atmosphere. The first bacteria appear around 3.5 billion years ago. The atmosphere was anaerobic till around 1.7 billion years ago.

 

[skookerasbil]

In case anybody missed it.................



I have to admit.......laugh my balls off any time I post this vid up!!!