Climate Resistance Getting Organized

[bluesmoke]

You said: "Or, maybe you're thinking of Carbon Monoxide, CO, which makes up 3% of the earths atmosphere."

LOL...

Yes I did. Because your statement that excess CO2 shouldn't be considered "pollution" until it exceeds 3% is so ridiculous and unrealistic a statement that perhaps you were thinking of CO, which coincidentally makes up 3%, the same as your figure, of the earth's atmosphere. You made an inept statement because well before that amount of CO2, we'd all be physically and mentally incumbered at .5%, a figure we'll never reach in the earth's atmosphere. Why would you come up with 3% as the standard for determining when CO2 reaches a pollution level when we'd all be dead long before that? What's your reasoning?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes I did. Because your statement that excess CO2 shouldn't be considered "pollution" until it exceeds 3% is so ridiculous and unrealistic a statement that perhaps you were thinking of CO, which coincidentally makes up 3%, the same as your figure, of the earth's atmosphere. You made an inept statement because well before that amount of CO2, we'd all be physically and mentally incumbered at .5%, a figure we'll never reach in the earth's atmosphere. Why would you come up with 3% as the standard for determining when CO2 reaches a pollution level when we'd all be dead long before that? What's your reasoning?

CO is only about 200 ppb (parts per billion) or .00002%. Not 3%.

I would say your statement is inept.

The lowest levels I have heard of CO2 causing measurable changes is starting around 600 ppm. I threw out 3% because that where some experts say it can kill you at.

I was intentionally high-balling it at 3%.

Calling CO2 a pollutant at current levels, and any possible future value, is nothing but agenda driven hype. When people do that, they are no longer credible, and have no integrity. I really shouldn't have thrown out the 3% number, 0.3% would have been more reasonable as a maximum before calling it a "poison."

Poison is a better term for high levels of CO2 than pollutant is.

How can you call anything a pollutant, disregarding levels, that is necessary for life? Do you realize how idiotic that line of thought is?

There are many toxic chemicals or elements in nature, that are also necessary for life. Borax for example is an essential micro-nutrient, but highly poisonous. So are so many other elements and chemicals.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I suggest reviewing these two MSDS links:

MSDS Carbon Dioxide

MSDS Carbon Monoxide

 

[Threegoofs]

I threw out 3% because that where some experts say it can kill you at.
.

So why do you listen to those experts?

I mean... you have ‘proven’ virtually every climate expert wrong, but you blindly accept the toxicology experts?

 

[bluesmoke]

CO is only about 200 ppb (parts per billion) or .00002%. Not 3%.

I would say your statement is inept.

The lowest levels I have heard of CO2 causing measurable changes is starting around 600 ppm. I threw out 3% because that where some experts say it can kill you at.

I was intentionally high-balling it at 3%.

Calling CO2 a pollutant at current levels, and any possible future value, is nothing but agenda driven hype. When people do that, they are no longer credible, and have no integrity. I really shouldn't have thrown out the 3% number, 0.3% would have been more reasonable as a maximum before calling it a "poison."

Poison is a better term for high levels of CO2 than pollutant is.

How can you call anything a pollutant, disregarding levels, that is necessary for life? Do you realize how idiotic that line of thought is?

There are many toxic chemicals or elements in nature, that are also necessary for life. Borax for example is an essential micro-nutrient, but highly poisonous. So are so many other elements and chemicals.

"I was intentionally high-balling it at 3%"

What a coinkydink. I was hi-balling CO at 3%, also.

“Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the nature of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bull****.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt,

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Thread about the recent farmer protests in the NL[/h][FONT=&quot]Twitter thread by Detgrim @detgrim via @threadreaderapp Oct 17th 2019, 40 tweets, 14 min read Bookmark Save as PDF My Authors Thread about the recent farmer protests in the NL >Parliament flooded with tractors>Doors rammed>Army deployed>Angry politicians This has had little to no traction outside the Dutch sphere, so Ive decided to make an English…
[/FONT]
2 days ago October 20, 2019 in Climate News.

 

[Jack Hays]

Complete BS. Not accepted by the scientific community on climate change. Deceptive piece of work there on that overlay on the graph bar for "Changes in solar irradiance" of the "Natural" section of the IPCC graph. You also completely eliminated the "Total Anthropogenic" section of the actual IPCC graph that was at the very bottom that put in perspective the minute contribution of what you pretend is significant. Quite dishonest. I have no interest in carrying on this charade of yours.

IPCC AR5 WGI Radiative forcing by Emissions and drivers — OSS Foundation

FYI: The whole point of Shaviv's graph is that the IPCC are the ones leaving out something important.

 

[bluesmoke]

.....

 

[bluesmoke]

.....

 

[Jack Hays]

The point of my reply was that your post was dishonest and the graph does not add up to anything significant. It simply does not show up in the total possible natural contribution to global warming. That's your problem. If you added up all the obscure studies you've thrown and keep throwing against the wall that say there is x% natural contribution in GW, you'd end up with more than 100%, is my guess. You, yourself, estimate AGW is responsible for 50%. That doesn't add up. Shaviv says cosmic rays and the sun contributes 50%. That's 100% right there. More Jack Hays charade. G'bye

Sorry, but all you've demonstrated is your inability to understand the data. Yes, AGW was 50% of 20th century warming. Yes, the sun contributed the other 50%. You have agreed without knowing it.

 

[bluesmoke]

FYI: The whole point of Shaviv's graph is that the IPCC are the ones leaving out something important.

The point of my reply was that your post was dishonest and the graph does not add up to anything significant. It simply does not show up in the total possible natural contribution to global warming. That's your problem. If you added up all the obscure studies you've thrown and keep throwing against the wall that say there is x% natural contribution in GW, you'd end up with more than 100%, is my guess. You, yourself, estimate AGW is responsible for 50%. That doesn't add up. Shaviv says cosmic rays and the sun contributes 50%. That's 100% right there. More Jack Hays charade. G'bye

 

[Jack Hays]

The point of my reply was that your post was dishonest and the graph does not add up to anything significant. It simply does not show up in the total possible natural contribution to global warming. That's your problem. If you added up all the obscure studies you've thrown and keep throwing against the wall that say there is x% natural contribution in GW, you'd end up with more than 100%, is my guess. You, yourself, estimate AGW is responsible for 50%. That doesn't add up. Shaviv says cosmic rays and the sun contributes 50%. That's 100% right there. More Jack Hays charade. G'bye

Sorry, but all you've demonstrated is your inability to understand the data. Yes, AGW was 50% of 20th century warming. Yes, the sun contributed the other 50%. You have agreed without knowing it.