Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[blackbird]

1.  Man-made CO2 is 0.1% to 0.2% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gases.

2. The fossil CO2 emissions of several countries in percentages of all fossil emissions for all countries for 2022 is:

Canada  1.511%

Australia  1.021%

Brazil  1.212%

China   32.884%

Japan  2.810 %

U.S.   12.600%

India   6.991%

Russia  4.956%

   ---  List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

     The total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change.  It appears that 99.8 or 99.9% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are natural.  This is according to information on wikipedia.

China's emissions are 32.884% of total man-made CO2 emissions.  So no matter what Canada does it will make no difference to the total fossil emissions in the world because Canada's emissions are only 1.511% of the world's fossil emissions.  That should be obvious to any reasonable person who looks at these figures.

[Legato]

I asked  a Trudeau supporter how much CO2 was in the atmosphere, she said I don't know but it must be in the high 90% range. Then I told her that nitrogen has the highest percentage ratio,  Her response, well that's also a pollutant. This is a person with an arts degree.

Go figure.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada is 12th on the per capita list.

I'm not sure why we're talking about fossil fuels percentage in greenhouse gases. Climate change is from anthropogenic causes. Flipper

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Canada is 12th on the per capita list.

I'm not sure why we're talking about fossil fuels percentage in greenhouse gases. Climate change is from anthropogenic causes. Flipper

Wow!  The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change.  You obviously didn't even bother reading it or never absorbed it.

Are you sure you know what the word "anthropogenic" means?

Edited March 22, 2024 by blackbird

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Wow!  The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change. 

Why on Earth are you in here wasting your time trying to get thru to us troglodytes?

Have you presented your conclusions and how you arrived at them to the IPCC or any number of highly reputable scientific academies and institutions around the world?

If you're right you'll be in line for a Nobel Prize, millions in research funding, high schools will be named in your honor and of course, you'll risk being buried under a pile of panties that would make Beelzebub Himself blush.

[cougar]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

1.  Man-made CO2 is 0.1% to 0.2% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gases.

2. The fossil CO2 emissions of several countries in percentages of all fossil emissions for all countries for 2022 is:

Canada  1.511%

Australia  1.021%

Brazil  1.212%

China   32.884%

Japan  2.810 %

U.S.   12.600%

India   6.991%

Russia  4.956%

   ---  List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

     The total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change.  It appears that 99.8 or 99.9% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are natural.  This is according to information on wikipedia.

China's emissions are 32.884% of total man-made CO2 emissions.  So no matter what Canada does it will make no difference to the total fossil emissions in the world because Canada's emissions are only 1.511% of the world's fossil emissions.  That should be obvious to any reasonable person who looks at these figures.

Did you not post this garbage in another identical thread you started months ago?

Why are you even allowed to do that?

This thread should be removed.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Wow!  The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change.  You obviously didn't even bother reading it or never absorbed it.

Are you sure you know what the word "anthropogenic" means?

Your "idea" - what there is of it - is conveyed in the subject line.   The idea that humans are causing climate change has been accepted and is beyond reasonable doubt at this point.

You have to start looking at yourself at this point, to see what is wrong with your approach to knowledge.  It's called reflection, and I can't help you with it.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 The idea that humans are causing climate change has been accepted and is beyond reasonable doubt at this point.

Is that your only proof that it must be true?  I get it;  if an idea is accepted it must be fact.   Sorry to inform you but many things have been later found to be false.  Take a look at the Neanderthal pig's tooth and pre-human remains that were later found to be non-human or false claims.  What the mobs believe proves nothing.

[Aristides]

From the very article you link.

Quote

The data only consider carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry.^{[n 2]} Over the last 150 years, estimated cumulative emissions from land use and land-use change represent approximately one-third of total cumulative anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.^[7] Emissions from international shipping or bunker fuels are also not included in national figures,^[8] which can make a large difference for small countries with important ports.

 

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Is that your only proof that it must be true? 
2. if an idea is accepted it must be fact.   
3.  What the mobs believe proves nothing.

1. No - click my "click to learn why" link in my signature to learn why human-caused climate change is true.
2. Not true
3. Science is not "the mob"

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No - click my "click to learn why" link in my signature to learn why human-caused climate change is true.
2. Not true
3. Science is not "the mob"

Which science, your science or the other guy's science, they are not the same.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Legato said:

Which science, your science or the other guy's science, they are not the same.

Science is science... when they disagree, science arbitrates it.  It's fine to talk about Galileo but pretty extreme outlier.  Contentious issues are fought back and forth, such as the black holes & multiverse questions Stephen Hawking talks about in A Brief History of Time.  But this issue has far more consensus, and the need for action is also great.

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Science is science... when they disagree, science arbitrates it.  It's fine to talk about Galileo but pretty extreme outlier.  Contentious issues are fought back and forth, such as the black holes & multiverse questions Stephen Hawking talks about in A Brief History of Time.  But this issue has far more consensus, and the need for action is also great.

The only consensus I see is scientists scrambling for next years funding. They will easily fall in line with the wishes of those providing the grant money.

Any one who say's the science is settled has little knowledge of how science works.

Science is only true until a new theory comes along which disproves the current science... ad infinitum.

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, Legato said:

The only consensus I see is scientists scrambling for next years funding. They will easily fall in line with the wishes of those providing the grant money.

Any one who say's the science is settled has little knowledge of how science works.

Science is only true until a new theory comes along which disproves the current science... ad infinitum.

You see what you want to see, it has nothing to do  with science.

[blackbird]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But this issue has far more consensus, and the need for action is also great.

So consensus is now proof?  

I looked at your link and it does not prove anything.  Just a claim.

Funny the comments below your link oppose what you say.

Edited March 22, 2024 by blackbird

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, cougar said:

Did you not post this garbage in another identical thread you started months ago?

Why are you even allowed to do that?

This thread should be removed.

Why? Is it uncomfortable to read the truth of the matter?

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why on Earth are you in here wasting your time trying to get thru to us troglodytes?

Good question!  There are some that have common sense on here.

Edited March 22, 2024 by blackbird

[Black Dog]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Wow!  The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change.  You obviously didn't even bother reading it or never absorbed it.

Are you sure you know what the word "anthropogenic" means?

No, all your post showed was that man-made CO2 emissions are a small percentage of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, You haven't presented any evidence that amount is not going to have an affect on climate, you're counting on everyone believing that "small=harmless." Why don't we test that out by giving you a teeny tiny amount of fentanyl.

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No, all your post showed was that man-made CO2 emissions are a small percentage of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, You haven't presented any evidence that amount is not going to have an affect on climate, you're counting on everyone believing that "small=harmless." Why don't we test that out by giving you a teeny tiny amount of fentanyl.

Proponents of Climate Alarmism or man-made climate change have given no proof that this tiny percentage of fossil emissions is causing global warming.  Since you support those who are making the claim, how about you give the proof?  Have you ever heard of the basic human right "a man is innocent until proven guilty"?

I'll go with common sense, rather than climate alarmism that blames man for everything.

Edited March 22, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Science is science..

No, there has always been lots of false science.  Climate change or global warming cannot be proven in a lab.  That means it is all speculation.  Speculation is not science.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Science is science... when they disagree, science arbitrates it.  It's fine to talk about Galileo but pretty extreme outlier.  Contentious issues are fought back and forth, such as the black holes & multiverse questions Stephen Hawking talks about in A Brief History of Time.  But this issue has far more consensus, and the need for action is also great.

Is it?

Here's your "scientific consensus" Mike.

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/the-fake-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

and here...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/public/Submissions-2021/mail-submissions-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwih6JfooYiFAxUTE1kFHdyEAAk4HhAWegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0OLy9o1XfVLvdBAh6OheIC

Shall I go on? I can if you like?

The sad fact is, there is no climate crisis. Its a scam. A means of gathering power and money. Scare the crap out of the population...

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

Cancel any scientist who even dare contradict the orthodoxy.

Proceed to punish the population financially.

"YOU WILL OWN NOTHING AND LIKE IT!"

And further centralize power and control.

Its an old scam Mike and it has been used over and over again throughout history. Fear works. Its a nasty tactic but it does work. Just as any of these vaunted scientists...who have been cancelled for revealing their contradictory findings...will freely tell you.

Bottom line...Scientists do not state there is a "crisis". They say "its possible" or "it appears"...but conclusive proof of this "crisis" simply does not exist. On the other hand...proof of the economic damage being done in the name of this chickenshit...

Does Exist.

Edited March 22, 2024 by Nationalist

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You haven't presented any evidence that amount is not going to have an affect on climate,

Whenever government or anyone wants to do something that has negative consequences on other people or society in general, the onus of proof is on those who want to do something.  That means the onus of proof is on the government to prove what they claim before imposing taxes, regulations, or anything else on society.  Since man-made climate change has not been proven, it is wrong of the government to be doing what they are doing.

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No, all your post showed was that man-made CO2 emissions are a small percentage of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, You haven't presented any evidence that amount is not going to have an affect on climate, you're counting on everyone believing that "small=harmless." Why don't we test that out by giving you a teeny tiny amount of fentanyl.

Or...someone like...you perhaps...can produce proof of a "climate crisis".

[Black Dog]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Whenever government or anyone wants to do something that has negative consequences on other people or society in general, the onus of proof is on those who want to do something.  That means the onus of proof is on the government to prove what they claim before imposing taxes, regulations, or anything else on society.  Since man-made climate change has not been proven, it is wrong of the government to be doing what they are doing.

In this specific case the onus is actually on you to prove your claim that the amount of man-made CO2 is insufficient to alter the climate.

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Proponents of Climate Alarmism or man-made climate change have given no proof that this tiny percentage of fossil emissions is causing global warming.  Since you support those who are making the claim, how about you give the proof?  Have you ever heard of the basic human right "a man is innocent until proven guilty"?

I'll go with common sense, rather than climate alarmism that blames man for everything.

"Common sense" isn't science.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

In this specific case the onus is actually on you to prove your claim that the amount of man-made CO2 is insufficient to alter the climate.

No, it is you that needs to provide proof.  I am not the one imposing taxes or regulations on society.  You don't understand the basic principles of justice.

The climate has always changed.  Do you know what you are talking about?