Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[flacaltenn]

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power..

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC.

I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen. But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC..

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions.. For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

I'm out a lot.. LOVE the environment and outdoors. Do quite a bit myself to keep it clean.

All I've done in that post is to summarize 1566 pages of USMB Enviro forum debate into a couple concise paragraphs.. I'm a skeptic and I ACCEPT the GREENHOUSE effect and the numbers that Physics provides for an atmos doubling of CO2 (with a couple caveats)..

The ONLY difference between you and me --- is your silly belief that ONE DEGREE (or less) of temperature change is gonna MAGICALLY MORPH into FOUR or EIGHT degrees of Planet killing climate change.. All because you TAKE IT ON FAITH --- that the planets' climate system is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE and will self-destruct from a 1degC change..

'Bout sum up our disagreement bud??

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

The generic doing damage to the planet does not, by automatic extension, mean that the damage involved leads to the global environmental apocalypse that the AGW merchants of doom are peddling.

 

[westwall]

* * * *



Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain: to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific. You merely propound your faith.

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

That is a false statement. And, more to the point, who cares. The last 16 years of cooling has put paid to the failed theory of AGW. Period.

 

[westwall]

But then, water vapor has a very short residency in the atmosphere. Moreover, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is also dependent on the concentrations of both aerosols and GHGs that reside in the atmosphere, both of which have a human component, components we can control.



Actually, there is a limit to which our global biosphere can sustain high levels of oxygen before serious damage occurs. Excess oxygen not only is damaging to the forests, it is also damaging to the oceans, and to vital anaerobic processes that break down organic compounds. Yes, dude, too much of a good thing is also a pollutant.



Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

Don't care what the atmos residency of water vapor is. Man's LAND USE and industries provide a NEW and INCREASING burden of water vapor into the atmos..

Right. That's why the Australian continent is 90% dry as a bone. That's why there is a long-term drought with no end in sight in the Western U.S. That is why the Gobi desert is growing by leaps and bounds. Because we are putting an "increasing water burden on the atmosphere". Perhaps you should restate your bullshite argument.

Build a road or a parking lot and you've POLLUTED.. Because you've increased the atmos H20 vapor content. Insist on farming irrigation? You've polluted because you've provided a NEW steady supply of GHGas...

Roads increase run off. They do not increase the water vapor in the atmosphere.


You don't even KNOW what the atmos residency of CO2 really is..

CO2 has a short residence time

In the IPCC 4th Assessment Report glossary, "lifetime" has several related meanings. The most relevant one is:

“Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.”​

In other words, life time is the average time an individual particle spends in a given box. It is calculated as the size of box (reservoir) divided by the overall rate of flow into (or out of) a box. The IPCC Third Assessment Report 4.1.4 gives more details.

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).[/QUOTE]







Oz has ALWAYS been dry you ignorant fool. Further the native flora REQUIRES wildfires as an essential part of its life cycle. olfraud, you are simply a broken record and you forgot which persona you were again... Time to get you and all of your clones banned. You waste bandwidth...

 

[orogenicman]

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

The generic doing damage to the planet does not, by automatic extension, mean that the damage involved leads to the global environmental apocalypse that the AGW merchants of doom are peddling.

What do you think would happen to the atmosphere and the biosphere if the majority of the world's forests were cut down and not replaced (keeping in mind that 30% has already been irreversibly destroyed)? What do you think would happen if we irreversibly damage the ocean's food chain by wiping out vital plankton and fish populations?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

The generic doing damage to the planet does not, by automatic extension, mean that the damage involved leads to the global environmental apocalypse that the AGW merchants of doom are peddling.

What do you think would happen to the atmosphere and the biosphere if the majority of the world's forests were cut down and not replaced (keeping in mind that 30% has already been irreversibly destroyed)? What do you think would happen if we irreversibly damage the ocean's food chain by wiping out vital plankton and fish populations?

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

But none of that is going to happen either, with a breathtakingly miniscule uptick in total atmospheric CO2.

 

[orogenicman]

The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power..

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC.

I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen. But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC..

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions.. For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

I'm out a lot.. LOVE the environment and outdoors. Do quite a bit myself to keep it clean.

All I've done in that post is to summarize 1566 pages of USMB Enviro forum debate into a couple concise paragraphs.. I'm a skeptic and I ACCEPT the GREENHOUSE effect and the numbers that Physics provides for an atmos doubling of CO2 (with a couple caveats)..

The ONLY difference between you and me --- is your silly belief that ONE DEGREE (or less) of temperature change is gonna MAGICALLY MORPH into FOUR or EIGHT degrees of Planet killing climate change.. All because you TAKE IT ON FAITH --- that the planets' climate system is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE and will self-destruct from a 1degC change..

'Bout sum up our disagreement bud??

Since I've never stated anywhere on USMB what I think the level of increase in global temperatures is likely to be, strawman, dude. Nor have I stated what I think the breakpoint could be. So again, strawman, dude.

As for the planet's climate being inherently unstable, the geologic record doesn't actually support this scenario. Does it change, sometimes drastically, sometimes suddenly? Yes. There are also thousands of feet of strata from different eras indicating millions of years of relatively stable climate over very broad regions of the planet.

It isn't as simple as you would have us believe.

 

[orogenicman]

Don't care what the atmos residency of water vapor is. Man's LAND USE and industries provide a NEW and INCREASING burden of water vapor into the atmos..

Right. That's why the Australian continent is 90% dry as a bone. That's why there is a long-term drought with no end in sight in the Western U.S. That is why the Gobi desert is growing by leaps and bounds. Because we are putting an "increasing water burden on the atmosphere". Perhaps you should restate your bullshite argument.

Build a road or a parking lot and you've POLLUTED.. Because you've increased the atmos H20 vapor content. Insist on farming irrigation? You've polluted because you've provided a NEW steady supply of GHGas...

Roads increase run off. They do not increase the water vapor in the atmosphere.


You don't even KNOW what the atmos residency of CO2 really is..

CO2 has a short residence time

In the IPCC 4th Assessment Report glossary, "lifetime" has several related meanings. The most relevant one is:

“Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.”
​

In other words, life time is the average time an individual particle spends in a given box. It is calculated as the size of box (reservoir) divided by the overall rate of flow into (or out of) a box. The IPCC Third Assessment Report 4.1.4 gives more details.

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

Oz has ALWAYS been dry you ignorant fool.

Always? Ahem. Are you suggesting that these Devonian-aged reef fossils in Australia resulted from Noah's flood?

 

[orogenicman]

The generic doing damage to the planet does not, by automatic extension, mean that the damage involved leads to the global environmental apocalypse that the AGW merchants of doom are peddling.

What do you think would happen to the atmosphere and the biosphere if the majority of the world's forests were cut down and not replaced (keeping in mind that 30% has already been irreversibly destroyed)? What do you think would happen if we irreversibly damage the ocean's food chain by wiping out vital plankton and fish populations?

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

But none of that is going to happen either, with a breathtakingly miniscule uptick in total atmospheric CO2.

Are you suggesting that we can run slipshod across the planet without consequence? It would not surprise me if you actually believed that. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

What do you think would happen to the atmosphere and the biosphere if the majority of the world's forests were cut down and not replaced (keeping in mind that 30% has already been irreversibly destroyed)? What do you think would happen if we irreversibly damage the ocean's food chain by wiping out vital plankton and fish populations?

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

But none of that is going to happen either, with a breathtakingly miniscule uptick in total atmospheric CO2.

Are you suggesting that we can run slipshod across the planet without consequence? It would not surprise me if you actually believed that. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

I'm suggesting what George Carlin suggested years ago:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]George Carlin on The Environment - YouTube[/ame]

What I'm also suggesting is that you are far too dour and super-duper-whooper-serious to recognize when you're being mocked, for the hysterical fool that you are.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

I'm out a lot.. LOVE the environment and outdoors. Do quite a bit myself to keep it clean.

All I've done in that post is to summarize 1566 pages of USMB Enviro forum debate into a couple concise paragraphs.. I'm a skeptic and I ACCEPT the GREENHOUSE effect and the numbers that Physics provides for an atmos doubling of CO2 (with a couple caveats)..

The ONLY difference between you and me --- is your silly belief that ONE DEGREE (or less) of temperature change is gonna MAGICALLY MORPH into FOUR or EIGHT degrees of Planet killing climate change.. All because you TAKE IT ON FAITH --- that the planets' climate system is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE and will self-destruct from a 1degC change..

'Bout sum up our disagreement bud??

Since I've never stated anywhere on USMB what I think the level of increase in global temperatures is likely to be, strawman, dude. Nor have I stated what I think the breakpoint could be. So again, strawman, dude.

As for the planet's climate being inherently unstable, the geologic record doesn't actually support this scenario. Does it change, sometimes drastically, sometimes suddenly? Yes. There are also thousands of feet of strata from different eras indicating millions of years of relatively stable climate over very broad regions of the planet.

It isn't as simple as you would have us believe.

Oh but it IS that simple.. We both agree as to the effects of CO2 and the GHouse effect.. The diff is that AGW is all about a theory that USES that "trigger" to construct nightmarish scenarios for the sake of public policy persuasion.. If you don't believe the Earth's climate is sooooooo fragile that it will DESTROY itself over a 1degC trigger ---- Then YOU'VE wasted a lot of time and energy defending AGW...

Clear as day.. That's the diff...

And you can't step away that easily.. You argue that the MODELS are correct.. You spend PAGES telling us how accurate the predictions are --- Yet somehow --- you think you've never committed to a 4degC temp change because of "positive feedbacks" and "accelerators".. Git off my cloud clown...

 

[orogenicman]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

But none of that is going to happen either, with a breathtakingly miniscule uptick in total atmospheric CO2.

Are you suggesting that we can run slipshod across the planet without consequence? It would not surprise me if you actually believed that. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

I'm suggesting what George Carlin suggested years ago:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4"]George Carlin on The Environment - YouTube[/ame]

What I'm also suggesting is that you are far too dour and super-duper-whooper-serious to recognize when you're being mocked, for the hysterical fool that you are.

As much as I love and respect a lot of what George Carlin said when he was alive, he was an entertainer, a comedian. He doesn't go out on the fishing trawlers and see that the catches are coming up ever short each year - so much so that Europe called a moratorium on Cod fishing because they, a species human beings heavily depend on, are nearly gone in many of the ocean's prime fishing regions. He never lived down gradient from a power plant's fly ash landfill. He never depended on a contaminated well for his drinking water. That Carlin made fun of the environmental movement (and made a pay check from doing it) doesn't surprise me. What would have surprised me is if he had gotten off his arse and visited a gold mine in New Guinea that leaches mercury into the environment, killing many species, and harming the people who live and work there. He is right, the people are fucked up. He is right. The planet is a dangerous place to live. But that doesn't excuse irresponsible human behavior when it comes to the environment that we all depend on for our survival and our children's future. Yes, most life on earth that has ever lived is extinct. No we didn't kill all of them. But that's part of the point. WE are killing them now, and the fact is that we simply do not have a right to play god with the biosphere. It is a dangerous game, not only for other life forms, but for our own future. Life is hard enough on this planet without humans unnecessarily adding to the misery.

 

[Kosh]

Even when one enters a value of zeros into a climate model they still will always predict a warming.

 

[Rebelitarian]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

How old are you ?

Have you ever heard of the carbon cycle ?

You know CO2 is used by plants via photosynthesis along with water to make glucose right ?

Were you educated in the South ?

 

[elektra]

I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

Everything the IPCC did was all part of a HOAX.

The IPCC's findings did not support the Theory of Global Warming, amazing, the theory failed and the masses of drones simply continue to jump off the cliff.

I guess this is the result of Money, Greed, Power, and the Socialist Religion of Creating Utopia. All hail the United Nations and the new Socialist saviors of the World. Never mind that they perpetrated a fraud with the IPCC and destroyed the data and who knows what else to cover up the fraud, its your ideal of Utopia that counts, you sense of how your ideals make you better person, a more intelligent person, who must impose your belief on all of us, for the planets own good, even in this thread I see the intelligent Socialist patting himself on the back, for all the one does in their lives on a daily basis, saving the planet.

Well, the Nazi's had the Jews to rally against, The Marxist who killed tens of millions had Capitalist to hate, and todays new Socialists have Global Warming deniers.

 

[orogenicman]

I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

Everything the IPCC did was all part of a HOAX.

The IPCC's findings did not support the Theory of Global Warming, amazing, the theory failed and the masses of drones simply continue to jump off the cliff.

I guess this is the result of Money, Greed, Power, and the Socialist Religion of Creating Utopia. All hail the United Nations and the new Socialist saviors of the World. Never mind that they perpetrated a fraud with the IPCC and destroyed the data and who knows what else to cover up the fraud, its your ideal of Utopia that counts, you sense of how your ideals make you better person, a more intelligent person, who must impose your belief on all of us, for the planets own good, even in this thread I see the intelligent Socialist patting himself on the back, for all the one does in their lives on a daily basis, saving the planet.

Well, the Nazi's had the Jews to rally against, The Marxist who killed tens of millions had Capitalist to hate, and todays new Socialists have Global Warming deniers.

Godwin's law. You lose.

 

[Abraham3]

Bingo!

 

[Abraham3]

How old are you ?

Have you ever heard of the carbon cycle ?

You know CO2 is used by plants via photosynthesis along with water to make glucose right ?

Were you educated in the South ?

59. You?

Yes.

Yes.

Partially. I grew up in Kansas but attended four universities in Florida.

Pray tell, what does "the South" have to do with it? You're not one of those fools who think folks in the south are preternaturally stupid, are you?

 

[elektra]

I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

Everything the IPCC did was all part of a HOAX.

The IPCC's findings did not support the Theory of Global Warming, amazing, the theory failed and the masses of drones simply continue to jump off the cliff.

I guess this is the result of Money, Greed, Power, and the Socialist Religion of Creating Utopia. All hail the United Nations and the new Socialist saviors of the World. Never mind that they perpetrated a fraud with the IPCC and destroyed the data and who knows what else to cover up the fraud, its your ideal of Utopia that counts, you sense of how your ideals make you better person, a more intelligent person, who must impose your belief on all of us, for the planets own good, even in this thread I see the intelligent Socialist patting himself on the back, for all the one does in their lives on a daily basis, saving the planet.

Well, the Nazi's had the Jews to rally against, The Marxist who killed tens of millions had Capitalist to hate, and todays new Socialists have Global Warming deniers.

Godwin's law. You lose.

Actually you lose, human behaviour does not change, it repeats itself over and over, its clear that Liberals hate Conservatives, Godwin's law is what the ignorant throw around when they have no rebuttal, no position, no facts nor ability to defend their beliefs and opinion.

You cite the IPCC as evidence, you lose, the IPCC and its work has all been a fraud, when the results from the data concluded no Global Warming caused by CO2, the IPCC began deleted the data.

The IPCC proved there was no Global Warming, threw away the data and results confirming no Global Warming, and lied to the entire World about it.

CO2, better at keeping stuff cold, its called Dry Ice, but in the world of Liberalism, white is black and black is white and Dry Ice actually warms things up, not keep them cold.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see people are quoting the IPCC, the same IPCC that faked data, destroyed data, and excluded scientist that did not go along with the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

Everything the IPCC did was all part of a HOAX.

The IPCC's findings did not support the Theory of Global Warming, amazing, the theory failed and the masses of drones simply continue to jump off the cliff.

I guess this is the result of Money, Greed, Power, and the Socialist Religion of Creating Utopia. All hail the United Nations and the new Socialist saviors of the World. Never mind that they perpetrated a fraud with the IPCC and destroyed the data and who knows what else to cover up the fraud, its your ideal of Utopia that counts, you sense of how your ideals make you better person, a more intelligent person, who must impose your belief on all of us, for the planets own good, even in this thread I see the intelligent Socialist patting himself on the back, for all the one does in their lives on a daily basis, saving the planet.

Well, the Nazi's had the Jews to rally against, The Marxist who killed tens of millions had Capitalist to hate, and todays new Socialists have Global Warming deniers.

Godwin's law. You lose.

Actually you lose, human behaviour does not change, it repeats itself over and over, its clear that Liberals hate Conservatives, Godwin's law is what the ignorant throw around when they have no rebuttal, no position, no facts nor ability to defend their beliefs and opinion.

You cite the IPCC as evidence, you lose, the IPCC and its work has all been a fraud, when the results from the data concluded no Global Warming caused by CO2, the IPCC began deleted the data.

The IPCC proved there was no Global Warming, threw away the data and results confirming no Global Warming, and lied to the entire World about it.

CO2, better at keeping stuff cold, its called Dry Ice, but in the world of Liberalism, white is black and black is white and Dry Ice actually warms things up, not keep them cold.

All that flap-yap, and not a single link to a real scientific site.

Dry ice, do you know have any idea of the amount of energy used to create dry ice? And the CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas, just in case you have not noticed.

That thing sitting in front of you has several search engines you can use to gain knowledge above that of a third grader. I suggest you use it.