The man-made climate change is a fraud.

[blackbird]

The problem is the great scam of claiming man is causing climate change. 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. Mankind only contributes 3% and of that, Canada's contribution is miniscule. What website articles are saying is man's 3% contribution increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times from 280 parts per million to 420 parts per million today. How could 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere cause a CO2 increase of that amount in the atmosphere?  It just doesn't add up.  If man only contributes 3%, then man's contribution should only be 8.4 parts per million of the increase.  The 70% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution had to have been caused by nature, not man, since 97% of the CO2 is natural.  Where is the proof that man caused the 140 PPM increase?  There is no proof.  Nobody has to be a genius to figure this out.  It is simply math or arithmetic.

Where did the other 140 parts per million of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age come from? Do you see the contradiction? Something just doesn't add up. Where's the proof man is the cause?  Speculation or conjecture is not proof of anything.

Edited January 18, 2024 by blackbird

[Moonbox]

Oh wow.   That's so interesting.  I've never heard this before.  This is the sort of rigorously skientific argument that we needed all along.  Debate settled.     

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Where did the other 140 parts per million of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age come from?

Beelzebub?

[herbie]

Satan's science is making our own eyes lie to us. We must go back to drooling about the Garden of Eden not questioning anything.

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

The problem is the great scam of claiming man is causing climate change. 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. Mankind only contributes 3% and of that, Canada's contribution is miniscule. What website articles are saying is man's 3% contribution increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times from 280 parts per million to 420 parts per million today. How could 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere cause a CO2 increase of that amount in the atmosphere?  It just doesn't add up.  If man only contributes 3%, then man's contribution should only be 8.4 parts per million of the increase.  The 70% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution had to have been caused by nature, not man, since 97% of the CO2 is natural.  Where is the proof that man caused the 140 PPM increase?  There is no proof.  Nobody has to be a genius to figure this out.  It is simply math or arithmetic.

Where did the other 140 parts per million of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age come from? Do you see the contradiction? Something just doesn't add up. Where's the proof man is the cause?  Speculation or conjecture is not proof of anything.

You are living proof that a little knowledge can just make a person more ignorant.

3% per year is 100% over 33 years if the planet doesn't have a big enough sink to absorb the excess and change it back to oxygen.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Beelzebub?

Hell already has a huge global warming issue - why are you blaming the victims? 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

3% per year is 100% over 33 years if the planet doesn't have a big enough sink to absorb the excess and change it back to oxygen.

You are mistaken in the meaning of the 3%.

Out of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere, man contributed 3%.  That 3% does not change significantly.

It was probably near zero before the industrial age, but gradually went from near zero to 3% in the last 150 years of the industrial age.

[Aristides]

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are mistaken in the meaning of the 3%.

Out of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere, man contributed 3%.  That 3% does not change significantly.

It was probably near zero before the industrial age, but gradually went from near zero to 3% in the last 150 years of the industrial age.

3% of how much? Link please. The last time CO2 levels were this high was 14 million years ago.

https://scitechdaily.com/ancient-air-modern-peril-geoscientists-reveal-a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide/

Edited January 19, 2024 by Aristides

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

3% of how much? Link please. The last time CO2 levels were this high was 14 million years ago.

https://scitechdaily.com/ancient-air-modern-peril-geoscientists-reveal-a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide/

People who think they know more than scientists, who have studied this their whole lives, built upon decades of others who did the same.

It's ridiculous.  Whatever they do for a living, do they think that I could waltz in and tell them how to do it?

Really you should just leave this ridiculous stuff alone.

[PIK]

I read that the some scientists that were shamed and shut down,put out their own report. We are at the end of a ice age and the next few years will be warmer, but the cooling will start around 2035. Maybe the cooling scare of the 70s is going to show up. But at least it could happen in our life time. Who knows.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, PIK said:

I read that the some scientists that were shamed and shut down,put out their own report. We are at the end of a ice age and the next few years will be warmer, but the cooling will start around 2035. Maybe the cooling scare of the 70s is going to show up. But at least it could happen in our life time. Who knows.

No cites, no links... Ok PIK...

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

People who think they know more than scientists, who have studied this their whole lives, built upon decades of others who did the same.

It's ridiculous.  Whatever they do for a living, do they think that I could waltz in and tell them how to do it?

Really you should just leave this ridiculous stuff alone.

He probably goes to a plumber for his dental work because dentists don't know shit.

[PIK]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No cites, no links... Ok PIK...

My mistake. I will try and find it.

[blackbird]

43 minutes ago, Aristides said:

3% of how much? Link please. The last time CO2 levels were this high was 14 million years ago.

https://scitechdaily.com/ancient-air-modern-peril-geoscientists-reveal-a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide/

I found that 3% figure on a website which I lost in all the mass of websites I have saved.

You have to remember the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only .04% according to other websites.  That .04% of all the gases in the atmosphere.  It is very small.  So my 3% figure is 3% of that 0.04% which is an extremely small number.  

There is also a significant amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

I am searching around to find if that 3% of the total CO2 is correct.  But it is hard to find.  Many websites that promote man-made climate change do not give figures like that.  They don't want you to know.

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Really you should just leave this ridiculous stuff alone.

hahaha.  So you don't want anybody to look into these facts. Just blindly accept the fraud.  No questions allowed.

Edited January 19, 2024 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, PIK said:

I read that the some scientists that were shamed and shut down,put out their own report. We are at the end of a ice age and the next few years will be warmer, but the cooling will start around 2035. Maybe the cooling scare of the 70s is going to show up. But at least it could happen in our life time. Who knows.

There's little doubt that there's a number of scientists who dissent and many who have been threatened to shut up.

The majority believe that we are warming and that the consequences COULD be very serious. 

I find most of the people who make claims bout 'what the science says' haven't actually read the science.

Having said that i do think that the evidence is very strong that the earth is getting warmer right now and it's believable human emissions plays a  role in that. What bothers me is the fairly unsubstantiated doomsday predictions which are always on the very extreme edge of the spectrum of possibilities and the idea that if we pay a tax it'll all go away.

[Aristides]

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I found that 3% figure on a website which I lost in all the mass of websites I have saved.

You have to remember the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only .04% according to other websites.  That .04% of all the gases in the atmosphere.  It is very small.  So my 3% figure is 3% of that 0.04% which is an extremely small number.  

There is also a significant amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

I am searching around to find if that 3% of the total CO2 is correct.  But it is hard to find.  Many websites that promote man-made climate change do not give figures like that.  They don't want you to know.

hahaha.  So you don't want anybody to look into these facts. Just blindly accept the fraud.  No questions allowed.

So no link, just what comes out of your ass.

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So no link, just what comes out of your ass.

No, I honestly read it on some site quite a while ago.  But if you want to just come here to insult get lost.  I have better things to do.

Edited January 19, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Wikipedia explains the complexity of the cycles of CO2 in the atmosphere.   

Because of this complexity and the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, at 0.04% of all gases in the atmosphere, I believe it is highly unlikely man is the cause of global warming.  Out of that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere, man only contributes about 3%.  That is 3% of the total CO2.   What is 3% of 0.04%?  That is the amount of CO2 man contributes mainly with fossil fuel use to the total gases and water vapour in the atmosphere.  What is often ignored is the water vapour in the atmosphere and it is also a greenhouse gas and helps heat the earth and atmosphere.  So global warming is a part of the normal cycle of nature.  Without global warming there would be no life on the planet.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

The climate change fraud appears to have been started by the U.N.   A body of the U.N. abbreviated IPCC is the one responsible for the climate change claims along with environmental groups which automatically blame mankind for everything they can think of.  But for the U.N. it is an opportunity to increase their influence, power and control in the world.  That would fit in with their globalist Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

 

Edited January 19, 2024 by blackbird

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Wikipedia explains the complexity of the cycles of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You're citing a source that says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old when you know full well it's only 6000 years old. What in God's name are you thinking?

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're citing a source that says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old when you know full well it's only 6000 years old. What in God's name are you thinking?

 

wait - doesn't that mean it's still got it's extended warranty?

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're citing a source that says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old when you know full well it's only 6000 years old. What in God's name are you thinking?

 

 

 

You are correct.  I made a mistake and missed something.  I was reading something about the makeup of the atmosphere but missed some things.  I will delete that.  Good point.

 

I noticed it is becoming harder as time goes on to find websites that expose the climate change scam.  I think the search engines are deliberating blocking them and keeping only the climate change fraud and alarmism sites on the lists.

This is how powerful interests such as globalists control the narrative.  Facebook tries to control the narrative on this climate change subject too.  Freedom of speech and thought is disappearing.

 

Edited January 19, 2024 by blackbird

[Aristides]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Wikipedia explains the complexity of the cycles of CO2 in the atmosphere.   

Because of this complexity and the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, at 0.04% of all gases in the atmosphere, I believe it is highly unlikely man is the cause of global warming.  Out of that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere, man only contributes about 3%.  That is 3% of the total CO2.   What is 3% of 0.04%?  That is the amount of CO2 man contributes mainly with fossil fuel use to the total gases and water vapour in the atmosphere.  What is often ignored is the water vapour in the atmosphere and it is also a greenhouse gas and helps heat the earth and atmosphere.  So global warming is a part of the normal cycle of nature.  Without global warming there would be no life on the planet.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

The climate change fraud appears to have been started by the U.N.   A body of the U.N. abbreviated IPCC is the one responsible for the climate change claims along with environmental groups which automatically blame mankind for everything they can think of.  But for the U.N. it is an opportunity to increase their influence, power and control in the world.  That would fit in with their globalist Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

 

Why not reference the whole article

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

You are correct.  I made a mistake and missed something.  I was reading something about the makeup of the atmosphere but missed some things.  I will delete that.  Good point.

 

I noticed it is becoming harder as time goes on to find websites that expose the climate change scam.  I think the search engines are deliberating blocking them and keeping only the climate change fraud and alarmism sites on the lists.

This is how powerful interests such as globalists control the narrative.  Facebook tries to control the narrative on this climate change subject too.  Freedom of speech and thought is disappearing.

 

Maybe because of mounting proof it isn't a scam.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Why not reference the whole article

Maybe because of mounting proof it isn't a scam.

No, that is not the reason for removing websites from search engines.  It is all political.  No science involved.

[cannuck]

15 hours ago, Aristides said:

You are living proof that a little knowledge can just make a person more ignorant.3% per year is 100% over 33 years if the planet doesn't have a big enough sink to absorb the excess and change it back to oxygen.

In the words of scientists without an agenda:  "We do not have a carbon release problem, we have a carbon absorption one"....or words to that effect.

The phytoplankton of both oceans and fresh water are by far the largest and fastest reacting sink of CO2.   One species alone (diatoms) are responsible for 42% of all of the oxygen on the planet being released from absorbed (and used) CO2.   Problem is: we have managed to poison the living shit out of the oceans and have reduced their ability to use CO2 ..

A lot of the anti-carbon "science" is a populist movement to demonize the oil industry and move business into other directions.   Doing this masks the real problems of ocean pollution that we barely pay lip service to.  When money flows to support this kind of thing, "scientists" (i.e. those who produce diddly shit but need funding to pay the bills - so go where and say what will get their bux) line up to cash in.

for those who give a damn:   https://goesfoundation.com/

[Nationalist]

17 hours ago, herbie said:

Satan's science is making our own eyes lie to us. We must go back to drooling about the Garden of Eden not questioning anything.

Really? Hey what's the temperature around Europe and North America these days?