Why climate alarmism and carbon taxes are a scam.

[blackbird]

"CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. 97% of that trace gas comes from nature. The total CO2 is about 400 PPM. Man only produces 3% of this trace gas or about 12 parts per million out of 400 parts per million. Out of that Canada only produces 1.5% of the 12 PPM that man produces. That is about 0.18 PPM, a tiny, minuscule, almost insignificant amount. If we used an Olympic swimming pool to represent the earth's atmosphere, Canada's CO2 emissions wouldn't quite fill a medium Tim Horton's cup. So tell me again why Canada's CO2 emissions are such a problem."    -unknown author

[eyeball]

Why doesn't it ever occur to you to think for a minute about how miniscule the amount is of natural CO2 that sustains life on our planet before dismissing the miniscule amount that could make life impossible?

Given how little it takes to sustain life we're talking about something that is obviously very potent.

Think of it as being like a powerful drug where it's easy to overdose if the dose is merely twice as much as necessary.

Edited July 20 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why doesn't it ever occur to you to think for a minute about how miniscule the amount is of natural CO2 that sustains life on our planet before dismissing the miniscule amount that could make life impossible?

Given how little it takes to sustain life we're talking about something that is obviously very potent.

Think of it as being like a powerful drug where it's easy to overdose if the dose is merely twice as much as necessary.

Dude nobody takes you or your comments seriously.  And if you look at how much atmosphere there is even a small percent of it being carbon means that there's an insane amount of carbon there, not a 'minscule amount'.  220,000,000,000,000 tonnes of the stuff. That's your 'minicule' amount.  It takes craptonnes to sustain life.  It's not particularly potent at all. 

The earth's atmostphere used to contain 200 times as much carbon as it does now. The stuff is not all that potent at all. 

Which brings us back to the question you can never seem to answer - why is this a crisis. 

 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which brings us back to the question you can never seem to answer - why is this a crisis.

Numbskulls like you.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Numbskulls like you.

aaannndddd.......  still no answer as to why it's a crisis. 

Sigh. And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a liar and an !diot.   This is why you and the left failed so badly with 'climate change',  pretending you could tax it away and yet also claiming it was this super serious crisis that you can't explain and nobody can show much evidence of but it rained in toronto so it MUST be climate change and we're all going to die. 

I will never understand how people like you can look at a mirror without vomiting.  Gave you a simple and straight forward question and you couldn't even answer that and once again your stupidity is somehow my fault. 

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

aaannndddd.......  still no answer as to why it's a crisis.

Why it's a crisis, what do you mean by it exactly?

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

"CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. 97% of that trace gas comes from nature. The total CO2 is about 400 PPM. Man only produces 3% of this trace gas or about 12 parts per million out of 400 parts per million. Out of that Canada only produces 1.5% of the 12 PPM that man produces. That is about 0.18 PPM, a tiny, minuscule, almost insignificant amount. If we used an Olympic swimming pool to represent the earth's atmosphere, Canada's CO2 emissions wouldn't quite fill a medium Tim Horton's cup. So tell me again why Canada's CO2 emissions are such a problem."    -unknown author

Because globally, it causes temperature to change.  And all countries would need to agree to lower emissions to have an effective approach.

And Canada emits more than other countries with a similar population, example Poland.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because globally, it causes temperature to change.  And all countries would need to agree to lower emissions to have an effective approach.

And Canada emits more than other countries with a similar population, example Poland.

First there is no proof human-caused emissions are causing any climate change.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere.  It is 0.04% of the atmospheric gases.  Of that 0.04 %, nature contributes 97% of the 0.04% and mankind contributes 3% of 0.04%.  Wow.  Time to wake up and realize you are beating a dead horse.  The amount man contributes is so miniscule it is almost unbelievable that anyone would blame that for climate change.  But we do have those kind of people in the world.  Blame man for anything and everything.  Man supposedly has intelligence and therefore he must be responsible for everything that is happening.  It's completely nuts.

So lets consider it from the point of view of parts per million or PPM.  The fact is human emissions are so small as to be miniscule.   Out of the approximately 400 PPM of the CO2 in the atmosphere man only contributes 12 PPM or 3% of the total.  Out of that 12 PPM, Canada only contributes 0.18 PPM.  So really anything Canada does is not going to make any difference to the total.  This is particularly true when other countries, like China and India, are increasing their emissions far beyond any reduction in emissions that Canada might make.  And we are doing that at great harm to ourselves and our country.

That's the first important point which you seem to ignore.

Secondly, where is the proof that reducing the 400 PPM by a few PPM is going to affect climate change?  Give us the proof, not the speculation by the idol worshipers of Mother Earth.  

Thirdly, it makes no difference how much CO2 per capita is released.  There is only one atmosphere around the earth.  So we are talking about the total CO2.  That is what the alarmists claim is affecting the climate, not the per capita amount.  Using per capita as any kind of argument sounds more like a political ploy.

Canada's emissions are only 1.5% of all human emissions, which again is only about 0.18 PPM (parts per million) of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Finally, CO2 is only a very small, miniscule gas in the atmosphere.  It is natural and required for life.

Did you ever consider there could be some other reason the United Nations and the leftists are big believers in man-made climate change?  Maybe a political reason.  How about using it as a fear tactic to gain more votes and control?  Did you ever consider that?  

Did you ever look at the agenda of the U.N. called the SDG or Social Development Goals.  They do have a global agenda whereby they think they are going to create a global utopia.  Of course they would strongly believe the only way they could hope to achieve that goal is by gaining political control over the world.  People like Trudeau and liberals/left believe in that too.  What better way than creating a global crisis with climate change that only they can solve?

 

Edited July 20 by blackbird

[Goddess]

Everyone knows the climate changes naturally, on its own. 

Everyone knows population and pollution likely influence.

The question is How much? How much influence does 8 billion humans on one planet in an entire solar system of influence, have on the weather on this planet?

The problem is climate alarmists have exaggerated weather conditions to the point that +22 days are now accompanied by maps showing waves of lava washing over the land and include death warnings.  Manipulated data. Used the "crisis" to scam billions of dollars from working people into the pockets of billionaires. 

Climate is no longer a science, it's a billion dollar industry.

If there is a crisis that is going to cause the earth to spontaneously combust any second now, as they claim, the climate alarmists have lost credibility due to all the above.

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, blackbird said:

First there is no proof human-caused emissions are causing any climate change.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere.  It is 0.04% of the atmospheric gases.  Of that 0.04 %, nature contributes 97% of the 0.04% and mankind contributes 3% of 0.04%.  Wow.  Time to wake up and realize you are beating a dead horse.  The amount man contributes is so miniscule it is almost unbelievable that anyone would blame that for climate change.  But we do have those kind of people in the world.  Blame man for anything and everything.  Man supposedly has intelligence and therefore he must be responsible for everything that is happening.  It's completely nuts.

So lets consider it from the point of view of parts per million or PPM.  The fact is human emissions are so small as to be miniscule.   Out of the approximately 400 PPM of the CO2 in the atmosphere man only contributes 12 PPM or 3% of the total.  Out of that 12 PPM, Canada only contributes 0.18 PPM.  So really anything Canada does is not going to make any difference to the total.  This is particularly true when other countries, like China and India, are increasing their emissions far beyond any reduction in emissions that Canada might make.  And we are doing that at great harm to ourselves and our country.

That's the first important point which you seem to ignore.

Secondly, where is the proof that reducing the 400 PPM by a few PPM is going to affect climate change?  Give us the proof, not the speculation by the idol worshipers of Mother Earth.  

Thirdly, it makes no difference how much CO2 per capita is released.  There is only one atmosphere around the earth.  So we are talking about the total CO2.  That is what the alarmists claim is affecting the climate, not the per capita amount.  Using per capita as any kind of argument sounds more like a political ploy.

Canada's emissions are only 1.5% of all human emissions, which again is only about 0.18 PPM (parts per million) of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Finally, CO2 is only a very small, miniscule gas in the atmosphere.  It is natural and required for life.

Did you ever consider there could be some other reason the United Nations and the leftists are big believers in man-made climate change?  Maybe a political reason.  How about using it as a fear tactic to gain more votes and control?  Did you ever consider that?  

Did you ever look at the agenda of the U.N. called the SDG or Social Development Goals.  They do have a global agenda whereby they think they are going to create a global utopia.  Of course they would strongly believe the only way they could hope to achieve that goal is by gaining political control over the world.  People like Trudeau and liberals/left believe in that too.  What better way than creating a global crisis with climate change that only they can solve?

 

Well I got one answered the question you posed.  Then your post didn't respond to my points but just restated what you already said about Carbon, and Canada's size in the world.

Why would I respond again when you did that?

Then you threw in a conspiracy theory at the end that the UN is trying to control us through fear?  How could I even disprove a speculation that a secret plan like that exists?

The global utopia is the one that you imagine that we would have if only we cut the Carbon Tax, I suspect.  That's too simple.

 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why it's a crisis, what do you mean by it exactly?

Oh weren't you paying attention to what you were talking about ?  well i shouldn't be surprised, nobody else does. 

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because globally, it causes temperature to change.  And all countries would need to agree to lower emissions to have an effective approach.

And Canada emits more than other countries with a similar population, example Poland.

I did basically answer your comments.  You just didn't read and absorb it.

You like to post lists of numbered comments that don't really address things.

You claim globally it causes temperature to change.  But that is very broad unproven claim.  I gave you a clear reason why it is unlikely human emissions will have any affect on changing atmospheric temperature changes, but you ignored it.  Again the amount man emits and the miniscule amount Canada emits will likely have no affect on climate change.

There are most likely other causes of climate change but the U.N. and liberal-left loves to blame man for everything as if man is god.  It is Mother Earth worship and part of it is to blame man for everything bad.

Again you repeat the same nonsense about Canada emitting more than some other small country.

Canada only emits 1.5% of global man-made fossil emissions.  Why do you not understand that?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

1. But that is very broad unproven claim. 

2.I gave you a clear reason why it is unlikely human emissions will have any affect on changing atmospheric temperature changes, but you ignored it.  

3. Again you repeat the same nonsense about Canada emitting more than some other small country.

Canada only emits 1.5% of global man-made fossil emissions.  Why do you not understand that?

1. It's proven as much as it could ever be proven.  See the Greenhouse Effect 

2. "Trace gas" is meaningless and irrelevant.

3. I addressed that.

You are part of a small and shrinking minority who believes only what they're told by their tribal leaders...

Edited July 20 by Michael Hardner

[Moonlight Graham]

Anyone who isn't a scientist need to STFU.

Self-edited for language:  Non-scientists pretending to scientists.  Please stop embarrassing yourselves.

Edited July 20 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

My favorite climate scientist is Donald Trump, who's yours?

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My favorite climate scientist is Donald Trump, who's yours?

Some of the climate scientists and doctors (particularly the vaccine specialists) on this forum are pre-eminent in their fields.  

Did you not read the 84+ page thread on how deadly the COVID vaccines turned out to be?  HELLO!??? 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Anyone who isn't a scientist need to STFU.

Self-edited for language:  Non-scientists pretending to scientists.  Please stop embarrassing yourselves.

You think science is infallible?

Here are a few debacles from science:

"

In the last two decades, glorious scientific and technical achievements have altered our lives forever. Try, for example, to imagine the world without the existence of those two little words personal and computer. But there have also been — how can this be put delicately?— blunders.

Some were errors in concept: Bad science chasing a bad idea. Some were errors in execution: This would have worked so well if only it hadn't blown up. Others were cases of deliberate fraud, out-and-out hoaxes, or just dopey moments that made us laugh. Perhaps Albert Einstein said it best: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." 

Challenger

Surreal in its beauty, a plume of white smoke ushered in the end of America's romance with space travel after the shuttle Challenger blew up 73 seconds into its scheduled six-day flight on January 28, 1986, at 11:39:13 a.m.

The rocket was traveling at Mach 1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet as it incinerated all seven astronauts aboard. According to the presidential commission that investigated the accident, the explosion was caused by the failure of an O-ring seal in the joint between the two lower segments of the right-hand solid-rocket booster.

This failure permitted a jet of white-hot gases to ignite the liquid fuel of the external tank. The O-ring was known to fail in cold temperatures, but the launch had been delayed five times.

Darsee and Slutsky and Fraud, Oh My!

Following the "greed is good" mantra of the 1980s, some scientists could not resist shortcuts. "The psychological profile of these people is interesting," says Mario Biagioli, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University. "You usually get B-plus, A-minus scientists who get into hyperproduction mode."

Take, for example, former Harvard researcher John Darsee. In 1981 he was found to be faking data in a heart study. Eventually investigators at the National Institutes of Health discovered that data for most of his 100 published studies had been fabricated.

Or take the case of cardiac-radiology specialist Robert Slutsky, who in 1985 resigned from the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine after colleagues began to wonder how he turned out a new research article every 10 days. University investigators concluded he had altered data and lied about the methods he used. To establish verisimilitude, Slutsky often persuaded scientists more prominent than he to put their names on his articles. 

The Debendox Debacle 

William McBride, an Australian obstetrician, was hailed as a whistle-blowing visionary in 1961 when he sounded a warning about the dangers of thalidomide, a sedative prescribed for anxiety and morning sickness. In a letter to the journal The Lancet, McBride suggested that the drug was causing infants to be born with severe limb deformities.

Although McBride's hypothesis was based on limited anecdotal observations, subsequent studies proved him right. Thalidomide was removed from the market, and the drug became almost synonymous with pharmaceutical malfeasance. Two decades later, in 1982, McBride published a report about a morning-sickness drug called Debendox that, he claimed, clearly caused birth defects in rabbits. Merrell Dow took the drug off the market amid an avalanche of lawsuits.

But there was a problem. McBride had altered data in research carried out by assistants. The results showed Debendox had no ill effects. After years of investigation, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud in 1993 by a medical tribunal."

Read some of the other failures.

20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years | Discover Magazine

Edited July 20 by blackbird

[blackbird]

It appears we have lots of know-it-alls who think science is infallible, kind of a god to them.

[herbie]

There's an X-files poster with
I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE

on it on Blackbird's wall. He'd rather believe that quip from the Bible that was amended for the masses. It used to read:
The meek shall inherit what's left of the Earth

But until the Forestry and Fire Marshall knock on his door to evacuate he'll continue to not believe.

[Moonlight Graham]

59 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Some of the climate scientists and doctors (particularly the vaccine specialists) on this forum are pre-eminent in their fields.  

Did you not read the 84+ page thread on how deadly the COVID vaccines turned out to be?  HELLO!??? 

My favorite source for vaccine science are the scientists on this forum.  I ignore my doctor, who is trying to kill me.

Edited July 20 by Moonlight Graham

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Some of the climate scientists and doctors (particularly the vaccine specialists) on this forum are pre-eminent in their fields.  

Did you not read the 84+ page thread on how deadly the COVID vaccines turned out to be?  HELLO!??? 

I read the study you posted that said they were more dangerous than covid to men under 40    As well as the one i posted.  

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

  I ignore my doctor, who is trying to kill me.

 Can you blame him? He's met you. 

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Can you blame him? He's met you. 

Stay classy!

[CouchPotato]

On 7/20/2024 at 10:56 AM, blackbird said:

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere.  It is 0.04% of the atmospheric gases.  Of that 0.04 %, nature contributes 97% of the 0.04% and mankind contributes 3% of 0.04%. 

I stopped reading here... We prefer to say "peoplekind."

Be better blackbird. 😀

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

I stopped reading here... We prefer to say "peoplekind."

 

Are you seriously assuming his species?!!?!!  Oh God i'm having an emotional solidarity conniption fit!!!  (i'll just connip over here in the corner.... )

[Political Smash]

On 7/19/2024 at 11:49 PM, blackbird said:

"CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. 97% of that trace gas comes from nature. The total CO2 is about 400 PPM. Man only produces 3% of this trace gas or about 12 parts per million out of 400 parts per million. Out of that Canada only produces 1.5% of the 12 PPM that man produces. That is about 0.18 PPM, a tiny, minuscule, almost insignificant amount. If we used an Olympic swimming pool to represent the earth's atmosphere, Canada's CO2 emissions wouldn't quite fill a medium Tim Horton's cup. So tell me again why Canada's CO2 emissions are such a problem."    -unknown author

Not one of these carbon crisis hoaxers can prove that 3% of the Earth's surface area occupied by humans raises the Earth's atmospheric temperature 0.000001 degree. It is a scam to rob us of a future, divide and conquer Western civilizations to hand it to the WEF. Watch the attached vid, it's gold in under 5 minutes.