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

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

But no scientists who will be able to understand the importance of your breakthrough.  It would be irresponsible of you to withhold conclusions that could potentially save trillions of dollars and put our planet on an entirely new path.

[Black Dog]

Just now, blackbird said:

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?

You don't understand the basic principles of debate. You made a specific claim ("total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change.") so it's up to you to prove it.

The larger question of whether a) the climate is changing and b) that change is the result of man made emissions is irrelevant here.

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, it is you that needs to provide proof.

This would be so much easier if you people would be honest about things and declare you simply don't care one way or the other.

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

But no scientists who will be able to understand the importance of your breakthrough.  It would be irresponsible of you to withhold conclusions that could potentially save trillions of dollars and put our planet on an entirely new path.

You are lying.  I never made any claims of a scientific nature.

All I am doing is pointing out simple facts that are on wikipedia.  It simply says fossil emissions from man are miniscule.  It says 99.8 or 99.9 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural or coming from nature.  That is what makes life possible.

So I am making no scientific claims as you falsely say.

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are lying.  I never made any claims of a scientific nature.

All I am doing is pointing out simple facts that are on wikipedia.  It simply says fossil emissions from man are miniscule.  It says 99.8 or 99.9 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural or coming from nature.  That is what makes life possible.

So I am making no scientific claims as you falsely say.

So when you said "total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change" you weren't making a scientific claim? You were what, just throwing crap at the wall?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

1. 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.

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

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

1. The accusation that people are lying for their salaries is pretty thin. Any scientist that came up with conclusive proof that climate change was not an issue or was not caused by humans would be a global savior and would be hailed.

2. It's pretty easy to understand how it works.  If you know that there's a lot of uncertainty in the theory of human caused warming, post the papers that are disputing that.

3. Exactly. Look at my signature.  Who is proposing another theory?

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You don't understand the basic principles of debate. You made a specific claim ("total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change.") so it's up to you to prove it.

No its not up to me to prove anything.  I have already given my evidence.  You must prove I am wrong.

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

So when you said "total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change" you weren't making a scientific claim? You were what, just throwing crap at the wall?

  I simply reported what I read about miniscule emissions and my belief that man is not the cause of global warming.  Take it or leave it.  

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

So when you said "total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change" you weren't making a scientific claim? You were what, just throwing crap at the wall?

Of course it is not a scientific claim.  Never said it was.

[Black Dog]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No its not up to me to prove anything.  I have already given my evidence.  You must prove I am wrong.

You haven't given any evidence. That's why I'm asking for evidence.

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  I simply reported what I read about miniscule emissions and my belief that man is not the cause of global warming.  Take it or leave it.  

Your belief is not evidence.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The accusation that people are lying for their salaries is pretty thin. Any scientist that came up with conclusive proof that climate change was not an issue or was not caused by humans would be a global savior and would be hailed.

2. It's pretty easy to understand how it works.  If you know that there's a lot of uncertainty in the theory of human caused warming, post the papers that are disputing that.

3. Exactly. Look at my signature.  Who is proposing another theory?

Many of the scientists that are against the so called consensus have been ostracised. You should know that's not how science works. I had some theories bookmarked from a couple of years ago. They have now mysteriously disappeared.

Science should by wide open to all theories but since it has become politicised it's not true science anymore.

Just ask Galileo about the inquisition.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

You haven't given any evidence. That's why I'm asking for evidence.

Your belief is not evidence.

Everyone is entitled their beliefs.  Grow up.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Everyone is entitled their beliefs.  Grow up.

Yes they are but that still doesn't make them evidence. Some people still believe the world is flat.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes they are but that still doesn't make them evidence. Some people still believe the world is flat.

Maybe you believe it is flat.  

I gave the evidence to demonstrate the likelihood of man-made climate change is nil.  You can do a search and verify the numbers or go to wikipedia.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Your belief is not evidence.

You haven't given any evidence I am wrong.

[Black Dog]

33 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Everyone is entitled their beliefs.  Grow up.

See you're getting closer and i'm about to tell you where.

 

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Maybe you believe it is flat.  

I gave the evidence to demonstrate the likelihood of man-made climate change is nil.  You can do a search and verify the numbers or go to wikipedia.

No you didn't.You said man-made CO2 is 0.1% to 0.2% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gases (fact) and that you don't think that's enough to alter the climate (opinion). That's not evidence, that's a statement of belief.

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You haven't given any evidence I am wrong.

Well, apparently I don't need evidence, I just have to BELIEVE. lol

Edited March 22 by Black Dog

[blackbird]

18 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

See you're getting closer and i'm about to tell you where.

 

No you didn't.You said man-made CO2 is 0.1% to 0.2% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gases (fact) and that you don't think that's enough to alter the climate (opinion). That's not evidence, that's a statement of belief.

Well, apparently I don't need evidence, I just have to BELIEVE. lol

The world believe the Neanderthal man was a real human once.   There were other fake ancestors that were found to be incorrect or false claims.  Much of the world are anti-Semitic, again proving the world is corrupt and many people believe anything including yourself.

If you have evidence that I am wrong in my beliefs, lets see it.

Anything I post as my own opinion is just that.  Never said opinion was fact.  

You are obviously trying to find something to accuse me of.  Good luck with that.  That is not meaningful discussion.  How old are you?

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Well, apparently I don't need evidence, I just have to BELIEVE. lol

I just posted what I read.

"“SCIENTIFIC FACT: Man-made CO2 constitutes only 0.1 to 0.2% of atmospheric greenhouse gases. "

- usa today      Incidentally, what is claimed as "scientific fact" should always be taken with reservations.  There are very few things that can be 100% absolute and trustworthy in science.  History proves that.  So the figure of 0.1 or 0.2 % could be only an estimate.  It may be very difficult or impossible to actually measure something like that.  There is no information either as to where this figure came from.  I would not put too much credence in it.

This figure is also very hard to find if you do a search.   Most websites and climate activists do not want you to know about this figure.   The reason is it casts doubt on the climate alarmist claims.

The reason it is not widely published on climate alarmism websites is obvious.

The figure of 0.1 to 0.2% is so miniscule that anyone with half a brain should know it is very unlikely that man is the cause of climate change.   Global warming is normal and climate has always changed.  I am not convinced man is the cause of excessive global warming.  There are many things in nature that likely affect global warming.

So whether one believes that man is the cause or doesn't believe it, is strictly a matter of personal opinion.  Why is that?   Because there is no proof man is the cause.  It is something that is not possible to prove or know.

Edited March 22 by blackbird

[Black Dog]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The world believe the Neanderthal man was a real human once.   There were other fake ancestors that were found to be incorrect or false claims.  Much of the world are anti-Semitic, again proving the world is corrupt and many people believe anything including yourself.

If you have evidence that I am wrong in my beliefs, lets see it.

Anything I post as my own opinion is just that.  Never said opinion was fact.  

You said you posted evidence to support your belief. You did not. Also this in't just a question of opinions. "I think cilantro is gross" is a subjective opinion. "I think that man made CO2 is not present in sufficient quantities to alter the climate" is a falsifiable statement.

Onto the next thing:

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The figure of 0.1 to 0.2% is so miniscule that anyone with half a brain should know it is very unlikely to be the cause of excessive global warming.   Global warming is normal and climate has always changed.

Anyone would half a brain would consider the possibility that even a small change in c02 levels could serve to throw off the balance of the carbon cycle, leading to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and thus greater warming. Prior to industrialization, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was fairly static and subject to natural processes of absorption. So for hundreds of thousands of years, atmospheric C02 was well below 300 ppm. Now it's well above 400 ppm. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Many of the scientists that are against the so called consensus have been ostracised. You should know that's not how science works. I had some theories bookmarked from a couple of years ago. They have now mysteriously disappeared.

Science should by wide open to all theories but since it has become politicised it's not true science anymore.

Just ask Galileo about the inquisition.

So - post their papers then.  "I had some bookmarked theories that have mysteriously disappeared" ... why would you even post that ?

You don't believe the science is settled - your words.  And you don't have a single link to an actual paper that is giving a counter theory.

Why are you wasting our time on here ?

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

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

 

Give a specific criticism that addresses my points. 

The anti-Climate Change people are amazing to me in that the claim a giant opposition to the consensus and never can post a single paper - not one - that takes down Climate Change.

[Legato]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So - post their papers then.  "I had some bookmarked theories that have mysteriously disappeared" ... why would you even post that ?
 

 

As I said. I had links to some articles which gave a much better insight into AGW. Now they have disappeared.

Even if I could find them you would find a way to ignore.

To me there's a much more to it than what the alarmists would have you think. You know the same people that throw paint a priceless paintings and glue themselves to the road. Do you align yourself with them?

 

 

[blackbird]

41 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

41 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You said you posted evidence to support your belief.

 So for hundreds of thousands of years, atmospheric C02 was well below 300 ppm. Now it's well above 400 ppm. 

Yes, I posted evidence to support my belief.  The evidence is the amount of CO2 caused by fossil fuels is 0.1 to 0.2 % of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That is evidence.  Like it or not.

 

One website says it was once in the distant past over 1,000 ppm.  So what.  CO2 is not the only thing that is a greenhouse gas.  Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.  Most of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not man-made.  Why blame man?  What proof do you have?

 

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So - post their papers then.  "I had some bookmarked theories that have mysteriously disappeared" ... why would you even post that ?

You don't believe the science is settled - your words.  And you don't have a single link to an actual paper that is giving a counter theory.

Why are you wasting our time on here ?

Give a specific criticism that addresses my points. 

The anti-Climate Change people are amazing to me in that the claim a giant opposition to the consensus and never can post a single paper - not one - that takes down Climate Change.

You think a "paper" is proof of anything.  Not a chance.

Many scientists are simply repeating what they heard others say.  Nobody has any real proof.  Papers don't prove anything.  Man-made climate change is impossible to prove.  It cannot be replicated in a lab.  

 

Edited March 22 by blackbird

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes, I posted evidence to support my belief.  The evidence is the amount of CO2 caused by fossil fuels is 0.1 to 0.2 % of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That is evidence.  Like it or not.

That's not evidence, it's a statement of fact (well, maybe, i've yet to see that corroborated, but we'll go with it for now.)

Evidence would be something that shows why that amount of would be too small to alter the climate (which is your argument). But you clearly don't have that evidence, just vibes.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

vidence would be something that shows why that amount of would be too small to alter the climate

You are confused about evidence and proof.

There is nobody on earth that can prove that amount is too small to alter the climate or prove that it can alter the climate.  It is impossible to prove.   

But I could point to a very simple example of why I believe it cannot alter the climate.

The sun shines on a clear day.  If there is 0.1% or 0.2% cloud cover, will the sun still be shining?  Of course.  You likely would not even notice 0.2% cloud cover.

If you have a glass of cold water and you have a way to measure 0.2% of the glass in boiling hot water and pour it into the glass of cold water, will it change the temperature of the glass of cold water?  Not likely. 

The whole thing is it is strictly a matter of opinion.

Same as man-made climate change.  There is no proof.  Strictly a matter of opinion.

Edited March 22 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Legato said:

As I said. I had links to some articles which gave a much better insight into AGW. Now they have disappeared.

Even if I could find them you would find a way to ignore.

To me there's a much more to it than what the alarmists would have you think. You know the same people that throw paint a priceless paintings and glue themselves to the road. Do you align yourself with them?

 

 

It sounds like you think there may be a conspiracy afoot.  Conveniently, that's hard to disprove.  

But some of your language might lead a reader to think there's actual evidence being published, not an articles or YouTube videos, but in the scientific literature.

Till you have something like that we don't have anything to talk about.

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

 

You think a "paper" is proof of anything.  Not a chance.

Many scientists are simply repeating what they heard others say.  Nobody has any real proof.  Papers don't prove anything.  Man-made climate change is impossible to prove.  It cannot be replicated in a lab.  

 

But it would be easy to publish a paper pointing out flaws if that was being done. Where is your paper?

You don't have one that we don't have anything else to talk about.

Or you can look at the link in my signature and actually refute rather than just making a passing comment.