Slashdot Mirror

Well, science doesn't tell us anything. Science is simply a collection of facts and theories of various quality. We draw our own conclusions. Anyone who tells you that the climate debate is over is full of shit and not a scientist in any way. The AGW crowd wants to shut down debate because their theory isn't panning out and more people are blowing them off by the day.

FYI, the Paris climate accord is non binding, meaning that agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on... I am 99% certain that China will wipe their ass with it before they flush it into the ocean, along with the metric tons of toxic waste that they discharge. If China does anything it is because they have a true pollution problem (with serious pollution that will damage your lungs if you breathe it unprotected.)

Regarding CO2 being a problem, I would be right there with you that CO2 is a problem if we got up into the 850PPM range. Unfortunately for you, the current levels are around 400 (we think; that value is from a single observatory in Hawii that can see the daily CO2 levels vary 400 ppm IN 24 HOURS). It is scientific and historical fact that pre industrial revolution CO2 levels were measured as high as 550 ppm and the average of all the measurements (essentially what they do today) were about 400ppm... Oh look at that! The same CO2 level as we have today! This is shocking, almost like there is some other mechanism that is absorbing the CO2 released by fossil fuels, like for instance PLANTS... If you want to wrap your head around some actual science instead of the horse shit shoveld by the MSM, "climate scientists" and politicians, give this article a read:

http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... BTW, it is not valid to argument that this is just one guy and his data is invalid. That is not how science works. One guy with the truth can be right (and often is, see Heliocentric orbit, flat earth theory, etc.). Before we accepted many scientific theories as fact, the majority of scientists were wrong. Majority rule works for government, not truth. You must show that either his data (pulled from historical documents) is invalid (which you can't) or explain how the pre industrial scientists got it wrong (you can't because they didn't).

Beyond that, the entire thesis that CO2 is creating an increasing green house effect is pure bullshit foisted on the ignorant masses. CO2 absorbs 3 frequencies in the IR band. The earth's atmosphere is already completely opaque in those 3 bands, and probably always has been. Heat still escapes quite nicely (which is why on a clear night you will freeze your nuts off outside, all that radiant heat is just escaping between the bands that CO2 blocks. CO2 is not nor has it ever been a wide band IR absorber/reflector like water and glass. http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.htm...

I have 20 years experience in applied thermodynamics and heat transfer. I have researched the global warming topic thoroughly and at least at this point, from a global warming perspective, CO2 just isn't a problem. If it got close to 1000 ppm then it becomes a problem for human and animal health (plants would love it though). The only reason the AGW myth is still even around is because there is money to be made and "climate deniers" in academia are excommunicated (i.e. their work can't get published and they usually get fired). But yeah, in another 30 years the AGW crowd will be viewed the same as the anti vaxers an the Luddites, unless they take over the world and go 1984 on our asses.

You need some citations that contain actual statistics for your "facts". The green jobs lie was just that, a lie. Coal jobs were lost because Obama essentially banned coal fired power plants via regulations making them cost negative to operate. Not even gassfied coal plants could operate at a profit.

Well let's see, the price of natural gas plummetted in 2008 which is a direct result of Bush's 2005 energy policy which exempted natural gas from just about all regulation. However, feel free to point out which executive order he made to make this happen before he came into office.

CO2 is produced by every living organism, and plants need it to live.

Interesting fact, plants absorb and expel it. Until recently, animal life has been living in the margins of what could be absorbed.

It has historically been at higher levels pre industrial revolution, http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... [drtimball.com] it already blocks all the IR bands at 100%, and adding more will not change that (don't try to feed me that speculative BS about upper vs lower atmospheric diffraction, that is pure speculative BS with zero science to back it up), but somehow we are teetering on the apocalypse, never mind the science and historical evidence.

Adding more will make it more difficult to extract CO2 from the atmosphere which is something that must be done lest we become the next Venus. So if in if fact the we are blocking 100% of the IR, it will make it that much more difficult to undo the damage done. Secondly, the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the oceans to become increasingly acidic. This in itself is causing rapid ecological changes.

As far as the ACA goes, the Repubicans only got 90% consensus in their own party, while not a single democrat voted for the repeal/replace,

Well, i suppose you'd be surprised to learn how the ACA actually got passed in the first place. https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

so Republicans have decided to let the ACA explode (which it is)

According to who? The mago-in-chief? Please link a CBO document.

and let the Dims ride that sinking ship into oblivion in the next election.

Reforming it is a much better idea than repealing it. If you want to replace it, it has to be a better for the people involved, which i recall Trump promising (“insurance for everybody.” comes to mind). Needless to say, the ACA isn't perfect. Frankly, it seems like a single unified national health care system would be a better and cheaper solution.

You might want to learn some actual facts before you spout off.

Take your own advice.

For example, the state of California spends ~42% of all funds on education, yet private schools produce better results with less than half the funding that public schools get. Clearly room for improvement and reform. We could get far better results cutting the budget in half, privatizing all schools and giving parents a portable voucher every year

LOL! Well, you obviously haven't taken a close look because it's hit-or-miss on both sides of public/private schools. I do not deny that education needs to be reformed but full privatization is exceptionally problematic.

7% of the entire state budget is spent on corrections and rehabilitation of criminals. In the past it was much lower because they used to execute those on death ro

You need some citations that contain actual statistics for your "facts". The green jobs lie was just that, a lie. Coal jobs were lost because Obama essentially banned coal fired power plants via regulations making them cost negative to operate. Not even gassfied coal plants could operate at a profit.

No one is complaining about clean air and clean water, but when you start treating a key atmospheric component that is essentially plant food (CO2) as a pollutant without real science (screaming and stomping your foot, claiming majority rule in science, and/or claiming the science is "over" are not valid science, but rather logical fallacies committed by those with weak arguments that lack hard science to back up their claims) that is a real problem for industry.

CO2 is produced by every living organism, and plants need it to live. It has historically been at higher levels pre industrial revolution, http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... it already blocks all the IR bands at 100%, and adding more will not change that (don't try to feed me that speculative BS about upper vs lower atmospheric diffraction, that is pure speculative BS with zero science to back it up), but somehow we are teetering on the apocalypse, never mind the science and historical evidence.

"The poor pay zero taxes because their pay hasn't increased for the last 40 years while the value of their income has decreased for the last 40 years which has caused them to fall below the poverty line. Yes, for some reason, you can have a full time job and still be impoverished because assholes aren't paying you what you are really worth."

Actually, that is a lie. If you look at stratification of poor who are working (i.e. not on welfare) before Obama, ~65% stayed below the poverty line an average of 8 years or less, meaning with hard work they were able to enter the middle class. There are some working poor with either mental or psychological defects that prevent them from ever moving out of poverty, but that is just a fact of life and has always been the case since time immemorial. The welfare class and working poor exploded under Obama because he paid off campaign contributors using the stimulus package instead of shoring up the housing market, and he allowed massive illegal immigration, rubber stamp H1B immigration all while his policies destroyed millions of jobs. All that works together to create a glut of unskilled and skilled labor while simultaneously reducing the number of available jobs. Stack the socialistic redistribution of wealth through Obamacare, mainly borne out by the middle class and he got a long way to destroying the main voting block of the conservatives: the middle class. This is how you get the 27 year old Millennials living in their parents basement who have a college degree and other marketable skills but can't get a job.

As far as the ACA goes, the Repubicans only got 90% consensus in their own party, while not a single democrat voted for the repeal/replace, so Republicans have decided to let the ACA explode (which it is) and let the Dims ride that sinking ship into oblivion in the next election. The ACA has a few good ideas mixed in with an implementation designed to create more dependency, not reduce the cost of health care. It has already cost the US economy $100s of billions of dollars more than projected, and the markets are collapsing across the country. For those who actually buy their insurance, it has jacked up rates between 50% and 200% while at the same time increasing co pay and deductibles 300% to 1000%. That is an abject failure at containing costs if you pay for your insurance. If you are a freeloader with lots of medical problems, it is great for you, but that is only because the ACA is stealing from others to pay for your coverage, and that is unsustainable.

"Yeah, who needs the police, firefighters, hospitals, schools or any of that shit, right?

Or to further your analogy, I have 20 years experience in applied Thermodynamics and a PhD in the field. The science is far from settled. I have done a lot of research on the topic and there is good, hard science that CO2 levels are not rising from historic, pre-industrial levels: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

As long as you are quoting Dumball, we know you have no PHD.

You might what to stop making a fool out of yourself and read the facts about pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists and how they stack up with current CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

The US has just had 8 years of "green jobs" which turned out to be BS. https://www.bloomberg.com/news... AGW mitigation work is the same as bureaucracy, not only does it waste the life energy of the worker trying to solve the wrong problem, it places an unnecessary burden on the rest of us.

We already have clean air and clean water, and those were as you say valuable improvements, but that is not the topic at hand. Trying to mitigate CO2 in the atmosphere is like removing Nitrogen from the atmosphere, there is no benefit because there is no problem. CO2 levels measured scientifically pre-industrial revolution are the same as today: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

The expected sea level rise is somewhere between 6 inches and 2 feet IF warming continues. The wildest projections have it at 6 feet. That is not millions of people displaced. In the modern world, we will just build seawalls, in the third world, people will just move, as this change is not like a tidal wave, it is gradual. There is a lot of evidence that sea levels have been rising for millennia: http://thechive.com/2016/11/03... Those people didn't have gills, they built on dry land and as the sea levels rose, they moved and the stuff they didn't take went under, that's just historical fact and a part of our world.

Or to further your analogy, I have 20 years experience in applied Thermodynamics and a PhD in the field. The science is far from settled. I have done a lot of research on the topic and there is good, hard science that CO2 levels are not rising from historic, pre-industrial levels: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

Since that is the main argument of AGW, I (and a lot of other scientists) are saying that there is only one hole, from natural causes not yet well understood, and rather than throwing our engine overboard, which will do nothing but cost us our engine, we should use our scientific knowledge and our engineering skills to wall/seal off the affected parts of the ship, pump the water out and patch the hole from the outside. Some people will have their rooms flooded, but that's tough shit, at least the ship doesn't go down and we can relocate the affected people or reclaim those rooms if we want (we are only talking about between 6 inches and 6 feet of sea level rise... the 1000% margin of error tells you just how inexact climate "science" really is, if it is to be believed at all, remember, these guys can't predict if it will rain a week from today with any reasonable accuracy.)

Once we remove the AGW facet of global warming, it becomes a much simpler engineering problem to solve by mitigation until the earth enters its next cooling phase. And you also remove the moralistic virtue signaling BS the SJW have been swinging around for the last 20 years.

CO2 already blocks 100% (it is opaque) in the bands of IR that it interferes with at 440PPM (and down below 100PPM) which is below the historical scientifically measured CO2 levels of 250-550PPM pre-industrial revolution... http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... It has always blocked 100% of IR radiation in those bands (but IR outside those bands can still escape). Care to try again?

Someone has no idea what they are talking about, that is for sure...

AGW "scientists" cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

AGW fraudsters falsified data to support their AGW lie: https://science.house.gov/news...

AGW is on the ropes, the drip drip drip of facts is slowly tearing it apart. Global warming happens, but evidence for AGW simply doesn't exist. The fact that you think it does just highlights the fact that you are clueless, or you worship "science" instead of practicing it.

And there are the SJW mod points. I get blasted to -1 and you have +4 for for your facist little screed. Your display name is well suited.

Meanwhile AGW has cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

AGW fraudsters have falsified data to support their lies: https://science.house.gov/news...

So I agree, no more fair and balanced hearing of both sides. We know that the AGW "climate scientists" lied their asses off to "prove" AGW. Defund all AGW research, development, mandates, etc. and anything related to AGW. If it is really a thing, the SJW can fund it out of their own pockets and we will see how long that lasts.

I'm saying if you find a fire burning the forest, you can't assume that it was man made. I don't exclude the possibility, but the AGW "climate scientists" have yet to show anyone real proof that the 0.1C rise in the last 17 years was man caused or indicative of a coming apocalypse. If it wasn't, we are pissing away $7,000,000,000 a year in the US alone that could be better spent on health care for the poor, job training for the unemployed (literally just about anything). And that doesn't even consider all of the private sector spending that could be better spent elsewhere...

AGW crowd: "CO2 levels are increasing" Nope, they lied and the cat is out of the bag. They cherry picked the scientific measurements made pre-industrial revolution to fit their narraive instead of including all the data, which agrees well with what we see today regarding CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

AGW crowd: "CO2 blocks IR from escaping, more is bad!" Nope, CO2 in the atmosphere already blocks 100% of the IR in the bands that it reflects IR and the 100% reflection happens well below 100PPM (current levels are maybe 440PPM with historic SCIENTIFIC pre-industrial measurements between 250-550PPM)...

AGW crowd: "All scientists believe in AGW!" Nope, that lie was based on a survey of 160 climate scientists, of which 77 responded. That is hardly all scientists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

AGW crowd: "You are evil and you want everyone to drown from sea level rise!" Nope, sea levels are projected to rise between 0.5 feet and 6 feet. It is trivial for us to build 20 ft sea walls, and they could already be built around all endangered, inhabited coastline for what we have spent on AGW research and development in the last 5 years in the US alone ($35,000,000,000). If global warming really will continue as AGW nuts project and they really were concerned, then they should encourage the redirection of their funding to start building the sea walls.... but it is not real, it is just a cash cow for the AGW green industries and research grant industry.

AGW crowd: "But, but, it feel AGW is real, and I'm terrified!" The rest of society: STFU already http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

True, but conversely, we have already dealt with nearly all real pollution in the US (we have clean air and clean water and real laws to protect against real pollution), and now we are faced with some minor temperature fluctuations; about 0.1C in the last 17 years) http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i... and the radical AWG crowd are trying to convince us to spend massive amounts of money on ineffective mitigation of a natural phenomenon, go back to the stone age and live in mud huts like the third world, or kill ourselves to "save the planet"...

Alternatively, the rational person asks first why we should spend 20% of our GDP on ineffective mitigation when AGW based on rising CO2 levels is demonstrably false (historical SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURED CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution) are on par with what we see today http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... and global warming is much more easily, economically and effectively countered with technology (climate control systems, sea walls, better building designs, etc.)

The earth is a massive sandbox, and we occupy only 10% of the land mass with everything that we do (farming, dwellings, dwellings, etc.) The rest is wild. Land only makes up 30% of the total area. All the humans on the planet could fit inside the county of Jacksonville, Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If you are crowded where you are, you should move.

Regardless of the SJW AGW crusaders here on slashdot, AGW is on the ropes in the collective consciousness of society because they have been wrong far too often and been caught violating scientific methods and ethics (faking and cherry picking data, etc.) to be taken seriously anymore. The era of "feeling" that something is right and virtue signaling is in it's death throes, welcome to a new age of enlightenment.

Sorry, you have been lied to. CO2 levels have been the same since we started to scientifically measure them pre-industrial revolution. The AGW liars cherry picked the data to support their lie, and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

CO2 levels have been flat since we have been scientifically measuring the atmospheric gas (within the ranges that have been observed pre-industrial revolution). The AGW climate scientists have lied to you by cherry picking historical values to fit their agenda. The circled data in the first graph are the values that the AGW cherry picked as historical CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

Beyond that, global CO2 levels are a lie. "Global" CO2 levels are actually just a single measurement station in Hawaii where levels can CHANGE 600PPM in a single day.

Land use 200 years ago and back was literally less than 1% of the planet's land mass surface area, and that doesn't even factor in that 95% plus of plant mass on the planet is in the ocean. So you are talking about 1% of at best 5% or 0.05% impact on plant mass, assuming other plants didn't grow 0.1% more due to the ever so slightly greater availability of CO2, totally wiping out any effect.

Pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten... The circles are the values cherry picked by "climate scientists" to support their AGW farce.

You are factually incorrect that CO2 levels are higher today than they were pre-industrial revolution. The ONLY reason that CO2 levels fit nicely into the predicted and observed temperature changes is because the data has been cherry picked to support the hypothesis, which is flat out bad science. I failed more than one student for cherry picking data like this. I am sorry, but you have been mislead. It might be worth you while to listen to a real scientist and update your knowledge and undo some of the brainwashing.

CO2 is plant food. Many scientists, myself included, believe there is strong evidence that plant growth is limited by CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are limited by plant growth (mostly plants in the ocean, but on land as well to a lesser degree) in a self balancing relationship (living and dead organic mater captures something like 99% of carbon on the planet). CO2 is a critical component for life on earth.

AGW nuts point to Venus as a cautionary tale of greenhouse effects, but FFS Venus atmosphere is like 90% CO2. CO2 in earths atmosphere is around 400PPM or 0.04% or 1/2,500 the concentration on Venus (not to mention the higher radiative intensity of the sun on Venus due to being closer. Try asking a climate "scientist" what the temperature of the planet should be right now without their supposed AGW and watch them flop around with no evidence or science. http://insider.foxnews.com/201... How can you say AGW is a real thing if you don't know where the baseline should be?

The greenhouse effect is basic science, but only one small part of the radiation equation, which is the basic physics that drives the radiative losses of the planet into space. CO2 already blocks 100% of the IR bands where it comes into play, so adding more CO2 has no demonstrable effect on global warming. Additionally CO2 only blocks small bands of IR, not the entire spectrum and blocks less radiation losses than cloud cover (FYI).

You give a bunch of people with no background in hard science a 5th grade level explanation of greenhouse gasses and suddenly they think they have all the answers. You mix in some good old fashioned virtue signaling and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil...

The ice age CO2 levels (i.e. not directly measured) contain assumptions (AKA educated guesses or SWAGs). Those assumptions can easily be wrong and there is no science to support those assumptions, they are just out there, yet to be proven or disproved. Thus, at best they are very weak and speculative evidence of historic CO2 levels.

Our best evidence for or against AGW is direct measurements made by real scientists before the industrial revolution. If AGW is real, and CO2 is the culprit, then CO2 must substantially rise from pre industrial revolution levels. However, if you look at the historical and non-smoothed data, CO2 levels haven't risen from what we observed pre-industrial revolution. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten...

Not a hoax invented by the Chinese (nice strawman though), a hoax invented by the climate "scientists" to drum up funding. Look at US governmental funding of climate studies from the 1960s vs today (hint: we spend over $2,000,000,000 per year on AGW research and another $4,000,000,000 per year on climate technology research. That is a shit ton of cash and a business that extorts about the same amount of money from the American people as Comcast; at least Comcast provides a semi-useful service... It is exponentially larger because these "scientists" have convinced a decent segment of the population (mostly liberals lacking in a hard science education who are looking to virtue signal their fellow liberals) and enough politicians (also looking to virtue signal) that there is a crisis...

We should already be dead and the earth a ball of fire based on their computer models, which were wildly wrong, but the AGW crowd still call it "science" and keep believing because they have no clue and no background in hard science. I am one of those mythical scientists who do not accept AGW (another lie pushed hard by the AGW crowd, the 97% number is a joke and only surveyed 160 "climate scientists". http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Everyone is a "genius" on the internet, but as background, I hold a PhD in applied thermodynamics and have worked in applied thermodynamics for nearly twenty years, along with teaching for several years at university. I work/design with the underlying physics every day and have thoroughly investigated the AGW claims and the so called "science" and most of it is hand waving, computer modeling with thousands of fudge factors not based on first principles and flat out speculation by PhDs who have never done anything in the real world (100% theoretical work). If they were in any of my Thermo classes, most of the jokers would fail outright.

Let me lay out a few facts for you. If you are truly interested in science, they should be informative:

Fact: there were higher measured CO2 levels 150 years ago before the ICE and the industrial revolution: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

Fact: current global CO2 levels are a myth, "global" CO2 levels are measured at a single recording station in Hawaii where levels can vary 600PPM or more in a single day (the smooth graphs you see are computer generated lies created by averaging and smoothing algorithms.

Fact: global temperature is a myth. Temperature on the planet varies dramatically from the equator to the poles, day and night, season to season, elevation, ocean depth, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, cloud cover, vegetation type, rainfall levels, regional geography, etc. Any of those factors plus others can cause the local temperature to vary 20-40C. Global temperature is an estimate based on fallible computer models that try to compensate and calculate using many local measurements and a bunch of fudge factors (numbers pulled out of someone's ass). Satellite measurements are also factored in to this model, but again, at a single site, temperatures can swing 20C in a single day night cycle, and easily double that from season to season. However, somehow we are supposed to believe them when they assure us that the planet has warmed 0.1C in the last 17 years (well within the margin of error, which has never been well defined, let alone validated for their global temperature model). http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i...

Far too many people worship "science" instead of understanding it and practicing it, probably because they are too emotional and not intelligent enough to do the later, so my posts get mod-bombed by ignorant, self righteous idiots looking to virtue signal with mod points... Regardless how accurate they are.

Then you should be pleased to know that you breathe far more water every day than CO2 and we will never approach even 0.5% CO2, and indeed all indications from the raw data are that global CO2 concentration is a myth (as some kind of fixed constant). CO2 concentration is actively consumed by plant life, meaning it peaks where CO2 is produced, and valleys where it is consumed by plants. CO2 is plant food and is limited not by production but by plant life (mostly in the ocean) and will never exceed 0.08% (we think we are around 0.04% right now based on one observation station in Hawii for the entire planet, but even those readings can fluctuate by 600PPM in a single day, and we have plenty of historical evidence that in the 1800s they were measuring CO2 as high as 0.06% or higher, but the data has been cherry picked to support a false narrative of increasing CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... We also have long term data (thousands of years) showing plant and animal life flourished during CO2 levels that were a little higher, so you should not be worried in the slightest. I sure as hell am not worried, I just try to post so that those who are brainwashed can get a brief glimpse of knowledge every once in a while in the hopes that it will gradually undo their brainwashing/programming, hopefully before they manage to collapse our society with their ignorance.

Actually, no. If you do some research you will find that there is ample evidence in the last century that CO2 was already at and in some cases above 400 ppm, and the low historical numbers were cherry picked to prove global warming, not because of it.

Further, the 400 ppm it'self is a myth. If you research you learn that the values are based on one observation station in Hawaii (not the "globe") and that those values can fluctuate 600 ppm in a single day! AGW in general and "global" CO2 levels in particular have holes so big you could fly a plane through...

This site is a good primer for those who actually want to know the facts on CO2: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

If 12 times more CO2 doesn't melt the ice, your little car engine isn't going to either.

It's fucking common sense, stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why these global warming idiots just don't do their own research before opening their mouths.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I can't say it more boldly, but it doesn't seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don't understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn't require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

If 12 times more CO2 doesn't melt the ice, your little car engine isn't going to either.

It's fucking common sense, stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why these global warming idiots just don't do their own research before opening their mouths.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I can't say it more boldly, but it doesn't seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don't understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn't require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

3 Global warming articles in the front page, really Slashdot?

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had more CO2 in the fucking ice age.

Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research and keep screaming about CO2.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers.

With reference to analysis of Vostok series. Still, here's the Vostok temperature graph and here's the Greenland temperature graph. Do you see unprecedented present day warming, or do you see current temperatures being well within the range of natural variation?

With respect to the laws of Thermodynamics, climate sensitivity is low, as the IPCC are slowly admitting.

This page disagrees with that data: http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/

1. The Global Average Temperature Anomaly is within the margin of error. Therefore it is inconclusive, at best, and disproves anthropogenic global warming, at worst.

2. The definition of an extreme weather event is subjective, is it not? Who decides whether a high temperature is extreme? Because we haven't recorded such a high before in that location? What if there were errors in the previous measurements? What if it reached that high shortly before temperatures were ever recorded? This kind of data is inconclusive, at best. It's illogical to say that it proves anything other than that the weather is always the weather. If the earth has been around for millions of years, who's to say that the few years in which we've measured and recorded weather and temperature data has any claims to what is "normal"?

If the claims on this page are true, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all, and in fact the USA is not among those who need to reduce their emissions: http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/ This page also claims, "According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. ... Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn't even show on the world map." If his claims are true, then either we need to crack down on those flatulent whales in the ocean, or we need to forget about CO2 and recognize that it's a political issue used by special interest groups to effect their own, self-beneficial agenda. The latter has been documented as a political movement beginning decades ago, encouraging followers to use AGW as a vehicle to further unrelated goals.

http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/

According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, "Forests soak up more CO2 than thought" and "Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study" keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn't even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.

Are these numbers true? If they are true, what do they mean?

I have no such interest. I argue that there is a debate.

For example, according to this page:

"In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons [of CO2], but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle."

By those numbers, humans produce merely 6% of total CO2 which, "is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources."

If that is true, then even measurement of human CO2 output is statistically insignificant, and therefore irrelevant to the debate. If that is true, then it would seem to invalidate the entire AGW hypothesis.

Are those numbers true?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

OK, you believe that we can predict the behaviour of the climate. That's fine, but please give more information to prove your point. At the moment, all I see is that you're claiming belief as fact.

As for my argument, that we cannot consistently predict climate behaviour, this is supported by this information:
http://drtimball.com/2011/ipcc-predictions-scenarios-always-wrong-therefore-science-wrong/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-multi-decadal-regional-climate-predictions-to-by-of-value-to-the-impacts-communities/
http://www.rosettatranslation.com/media/catastrophic-climate-change-or-maybe-not/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/

And, for the argument, I'm not denying that climate change is happening. I believe it is. I'm just not convinced we can accurately predict it.