• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
From Bman's link.



There's your problem. That number right there.
He cites this website.
Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

The weird part is the number I circled appears nowhere on this page. This is not surprising. He's claiming that nature has added about 68ppm to the atmosphere. Where does he get this number? The page he links only gives pre-industrial baseline and the new concentration, it does not mention a difference between natural and man-made additions.
The glaring problem is that nature is a net CO2 sink. Nature emits a lot of CO2, but every single plant on the planet also absorbs CO2 when it grows. Not only is nature not increasing the CO2 levels, it's actually absorbing some of the CO2 we're emitting.
CO2 Emission Sources | Real Science
The image is a good representation of what I'm talking about. Ironically, this writer makes exactly the same mistake. He apparently didn't see the giant arrows pointing back down, the ones with numbers larger than the upward arrows.

The other issue is the addition of pre-industrial levels to the calculation in the first place. Because of this, his whole calculation is referencing the total greenhouse effect instead of what the discussion is actually about: the change in global temperatures from those pre-industrial levels. As I mentioned before, the way he calculates things is referencing an atmosphere without any greenhouse gasses. No water vapor. No CO2. Nothing. Earth would be about 33C colder in such a situation. Nobody references this number because it's useless. The baseline used is the pre-industrial climate, not a theoretical ball of ice!

End result? The number I circled should be negative, and the pre-industrial column probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
Last edited:
From Bman's link.



There's your problem. That number right there.
He cites this website.
Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Ok, so the numbers were correct in 2000, this chart doesnt change anything, except that the data is more recent.

The weird part is the number I circled appears nowhere on this page. This is not surprising. He's claiming that nature has added about 68ppm to the atmosphere. Where does he get this number? The page he links only gives pre-industrial baseline and the new concentration, it does not mention a difference between natural and man-made additions.
The glaring problem is that nature is a net CO2 sink. Nature emits a lot of CO2, but every single plant on the planet also absorbs CO2 when it grows. Not only is nature not increasing the CO2 levels, it's actually absorbing some of the CO2 we're emitting.
CO2 Emission Sources | Real Science
The image is a good representation of what I'm talking about. Ironically, this writer makes exactly the same mistake. He apparently didn't see the giant arrows pointing back down, the ones with numbers larger than the upward arrows.

No, that is natural additions as in, the surplus produced by animal life above and beyond what was used by the plant life on earth... that was based off of that little tidbit you mentioned about how to differentiate between CO2 that comes from animals through respiration or through the use of machines...

The other issue is the addition of pre-industrial levels to the calculation in the first place. Because of this, his whole calculation is referencing the total greenhouse effect instead of what the discussion is actually about: the change in global temperatures from those pre-industrial levels. As I mentioned before, the way he calculates things is referencing an atmosphere without any greenhouse gasses. No water vapor. No CO2. Nothing. Earth would be about 33C colder in such a situation. Nobody references this number because it's useless. The baseline used is the pre-industrial climate, not a theoretical ball of ice!

End result? The number I circled should be negative, and the pre-industrial column probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

Ok, but you are actually completely off base, and I don't expect you made it past that first graph before attempting a debunking, because you helped make a few points :
1 - This guy was using the same chart you provided back in 2000
2 - His attempt was to show how much of the total man-made causes have impacted the overall temperature change in that time.
3 - His pre-industrial levels were not 0.
4 - He first goes into the concentrations and then contributions NOT counting water, and then adds in water vapor to illustrate how water vapor trumps the rest combined.
5 - If I didn't know better you were just making stuff up because your position was at risk... I mean even your second link says humans are only responsible for 3% of the additions...which is the SAME NUMBER that I sourced.
 
Last edited:
Asia faces climate-induced migration ’crisis’

"SINGAPORE, Feb 6, 2011 (AFP) - Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme, the Asian Development Bank warns.

A draft of an ADB report obtained by AFP over the weekend and confirmed by bank officials cautioned that failure to make preparations now for vast movements of people could lead to "humanitarian crises" in the coming decades.

Governments are currently focused on mitigating climate change blamed for the weather changes, but the report said they should start laying down policies and mechanisms to deal with the projected population shifts.

"What is clear is that Asia and the Pacific will be amongst the global regions most affected by the impacts of climate change," said the report entitled "Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific".

"Such impacts include significant temperature increases, changing rainfall patterns, greater monsoon variability, sea-level rise, floods and more intense tropical cyclones," it said.

The report, expected to be released in the next few weeks, comes as flooding overwhelms parts of Asia-Pacific, most recently in Australia, where a powerful cyclone worsened the impact of weeks of record inundations.

"Asia and the Pacific is particularly vulnerable because of its high degree of exposure to environmental risks and high population density. As a result, it could experience population displacements of unprecedented scale in the next decades," said the report, primarily targeted at regional policymakers."



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Asia faces climate induced migration crisis/4231667/story.html#ixzz1DG7T05Sr
 
Asia faces climate-induced migration ’crisis’

"SINGAPORE, Feb 6, 2011 (AFP) - Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme, the Asian Development Bank warns.

A draft of an ADB report obtained by AFP over the weekend and confirmed by bank officials cautioned that failure to make preparations now for vast movements of people could lead to "humanitarian crises" in the coming decades.

Governments are currently focused on mitigating climate change blamed for the weather changes, but the report said they should start laying down policies and mechanisms to deal with the projected population shifts.

"What is clear is that Asia and the Pacific will be amongst the global regions most affected by the impacts of climate change," said the report entitled "Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific".

"Such impacts include significant temperature increases, changing rainfall patterns, greater monsoon variability, sea-level rise, floods and more intense tropical cyclones," it said.

The report, expected to be released in the next few weeks, comes as flooding overwhelms parts of Asia-Pacific, most recently in Australia, where a powerful cyclone worsened the impact of weeks of record inundations.

"Asia and the Pacific is particularly vulnerable because of its high degree of exposure to environmental risks and high population density. As a result, it could experience population displacements of unprecedented scale in the next decades," said the report, primarily targeted at regional policymakers."



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Asia faces climate induced migration crisis/4231667/story.html#ixzz1DG7T05Sr

A report on GW... from a bunch of bankers? That's proof? Where's the peer-reviewed study from climatologists? :rofl:
 
Ok, so the numbers were correct in 2000, this chart doesnt change anything, except that the data is more recent.



No, that is natural additions as in, the surplus produced by animal life above and beyond what was used by the plant life on earth... that was based off of that little tidbit you mentioned about how to differentiate between CO2 that comes from animals through respiration or through the use of machines...



Ok, but you are actually completely off base, and I don't expect you made it past that first graph before attempting a debunking, because you helped make a few points :
1 - This guy was using the same chart you provided back in 2000
2 - His attempt was to show how much of the total man-made causes have impacted the overall temperature change in that time.
3 - His pre-industrial levels were not 0.
4 - He first goes into the concentrations and then contributions NOT counting water, and then adds in water vapor to illustrate how water vapor trumps the rest combined.
5 - If I didn't know better you were just making stuff up because your position was at risk... I mean even your second link says humans are only responsible for 3% of the additions...which is the SAME NUMBER that I sourced.

You know what? Go back and read my post more carefully, because you seem to have missed a ton.
Also, when did I provide that chart? I wasn't even a member here in 2000. :confused:
You seem to know the source of that number I circled. Point me to it.

Here's the simple analogy for you, since you seem to have missed this a couple times already:
If I add $5000 to your bank account, and then withdraw $6000 from your bank account, have I:
A) Increased your cash by $5000
B) Decreased your cash by $6000
C) Decreased your cash by $1000

In the CO2 situation, you're arguing A. (I'm nature)
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why I still visit this thread anymore. I'll bet my 2 cents that it will go over 300 pages, full of statistics, graphs, charts, and idiotic comments from ptif
 
A report on GW... from a bunch of bankers? That's proof? Where's the peer-reviewed study from climatologists? :rofl:

If you read carefully, you'll note that the report wasn't actually blaming manmade activity for the climate change, only suggesting that measures be taken to prepare for the changes that are happening. You do agree that changes are happening, right?
 
Asia faces climate-induced migration ’crisis’

"SINGAPORE, Feb 6, 2011 (AFP) - Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme, the Asian Development Bank warns.

A draft of an ADB report obtained by AFP over the weekend and confirmed by bank officials cautioned that failure to make preparations now for vast movements of people could lead to "humanitarian crises" in the coming decades.

Governments are currently focused on mitigating climate change blamed for the weather changes, but the report said they should start laying down policies and mechanisms to deal with the projected population shifts.

"What is clear is that Asia and the Pacific will be amongst the global regions most affected by the impacts of climate change," said the report entitled "Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific".

"Such impacts include significant temperature increases, changing rainfall patterns, greater monsoon variability, sea-level rise, floods and more intense tropical cyclones," it said.

The report, expected to be released in the next few weeks, comes as flooding overwhelms parts of Asia-Pacific, most recently in Australia, where a powerful cyclone worsened the impact of weeks of record inundations.

"Asia and the Pacific is particularly vulnerable because of its high degree of exposure to environmental risks and high population density. As a result, it could experience population displacements of unprecedented scale in the next decades," said the report, primarily targeted at regional policymakers."



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Asia faces climate induced migration crisis/4231667/story.html#ixzz1DG7T05Sr

You mean like Hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more powerful in Florida yet we have seen the opposite.

The predictions of GW seldom happen
 
If you read carefully, you'll note that the report wasn't actually blaming manmade activity for the climate change, only suggesting that measures be taken to prepare for the changes that are happening. You do agree that changes are happening, right?


Yet no figures on how much if any the temp changed because of man
 
I don't understand why I still visit this thread anymore. I'll bet my 2 cents that it will go over 300 pages, full of statistics, graphs, charts, and idiotic comments from ptif

It's half way there already, and is exactly what you describe.

I swore I wouldn't let myself get sucked into yet another "debate" about global warming, yet here I am. Let's see if we can shorten it. From now on, instead of posting graphs and long explanations, let's just post the numbers of the spurious arguments:

1. It's cold in (name location), which proves global warming wrong. (Weather is not climate.)
2. It has been warm in the past, too. (yes, and it's getting warmer now. So?)
3. We don't know how much of global warming is man caused, so none of it must be. (We don't know how much of the dirt on my carpet is caused by my dog, so none of it must be)
4. CO2 doesn't produce heat. (neither does that nice warm blanket you sleep under.)
5. According to this blog, a zillion scientists say AGW is bunk. (Who are those scientists?)
6. Global warming is a "religion." (a religion based on scientific research? Must be a unique one)
7. CO2 is natural, is not poisonous, and is necessary for plants to grow. (water is natural, not poisonous, and is necessary for plants to grow too. Too much of it causes some problems. Ask the folks in New Orleans or in Queensland Australia if you don't believe me.)

I think that's all. If I've forgotten one, we an add it later. Meanwhile, if we just post numbers, it should shorten the discussion and maybe keep this thread under 300... no make that 400 pages.
 
A report on GW... from a bunch of bankers? That's proof? Where's the peer-reviewed study from climatologists? :rofl:

The scientific consensus on climate change has not changed This group of business people are acting on that scientific consensus and the growing evidence of climate change and seeking to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in the coming decades.
 
coldest weather in Mexico in 6 decades. gotta love that global warming. :lamo
 
It's half way there already, and is exactly what you describe.

I swore I wouldn't let myself get sucked into yet another "debate" about global warming, yet here I am. Let's see if we can shorten it. From now on, instead of posting graphs and long explanations, let's just post the numbers of the spurious arguments:

1. It's cold in (name location), which proves global warming wrong. (Weather is not climate.)
2. It has been warm in the past, too. (yes, and it's getting warmer now. So?)
3. We don't know how much of global warming is man caused, so none of it must be. (We don't know how much of the dirt on my carpet is caused by my dog, so none of it must be)
4. CO2 doesn't produce heat. (neither does that nice warm blanket you sleep under.)
5. According to this blog, a zillion scientists say AGW is bunk. (Who are those scientists?)
6. Global warming is a "religion." (a religion based on scientific research? Must be a unique one)
7. CO2 is natural, is not poisonous, and is necessary for plants to grow. (water is natural, not poisonous, and is necessary for plants to grow too. Too much of it causes some problems. Ask the folks in New Orleans or in Queensland Australia if you don't believe me.)

I think that's all. If I've forgotten one, we an add it later. Meanwhile, if we just post numbers, it should shorten the discussion and maybe keep this thread under 300... no make that 400 pages.
coldest weather in Mexico in 6 decades. gotta love that global warming. :lamo
Prophecy fulfilled within two posts. Sir, I salute you.
 
You know what? Go back and read my post more carefully, because you seem to have missed a ton.
Also, when did I provide that chart? I wasn't even a member here in 2000. :confused:
You seem to know the source of that number I circled. Point me to it.

No... The chart that you put up was the first chart from the source I had provided a few posts prior... your first link after that picture was ALSO used as a source for the first graph. The ONLY difference between the chart and the first link was that the chart was from 2000, the link was updated in 2009. Beyond that, it simply served to confirm that the raw data, in terms of concentration of CO2 is accurate AND is based off of IPCC numbers.

Here's the simple analogy for you, since you seem to have missed this a couple times already:
If I add $5000 to your bank account, and then withdraw $6000 from your bank account, have I:
A) Increased your cash by $5000
B) Decreased your cash by $6000
C) Decreased your cash by $1000

In the CO2 situation, you're arguing A. (I'm nature)

No no no... what this person is saying is that through natural sources (plant life absorbing CO2 as an offset to animal life producing CO2 from oxygen) has been +/- 97% of the increase in CO2... the second link you sourced agreed with this 3% of Co2 increase being man-made.

That is unless you've changed your mind about caring for the distinction between human produced and human exhaled co2??
 
The scientific consensus on climate change has not changed This group of business people are acting on that scientific consensus and the growing evidence of climate change and seeking to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in the coming decades.

Is it fortune 100 companies??? Because those are among those that have the most to GAIN by installing 'green measures' a la 'first global revolution' document.

But, I know, you don't care about that, because it's all GOOD THINGS these people promote, right?

Edit : Even the UN agrees with the club of rome... in the 1996 biological diversity assessment and agenda 21, they have the discussion that in order to preserve the worlds environment that they could have a population of 5-7 billion people as 'peasants', but if the world is to maintain the standard of living like the US enjoys that population needs to be maintained at a maximum of 1 billion people.

http://www.un.org/earthwatch/index.html - The homepage, there's several assessments by the UN that are relevant to the discussion and corroborate what I've been saying about global warming being a means to an end. A scam. And an attempt to create the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of humanity.
 
Last edited:
Is it fortune 100 companies??? Because those are among those that have the most to GAIN by installing 'green measures' a la 'first global revolution' document.

But, I know, you don't care about that, because it's all GOOD THINGS these people promote, right?

Edit : Even the UN agrees with the club of rome... in the 1996 biological diversity assessment and agenda 21, they have the discussion that in order to preserve the worlds environment that they could have a population of 5-7 billion people as 'peasants', but if the world is to maintain the standard of living like the US enjoys that population needs to be maintained at a maximum of 1 billion people.

United Nations System-Wide Earthwatch - The homepage, there's several assessments by the UN that are relevant to the discussion and corroborate what I've been saying about global warming being a means to an end. A scam. And an attempt to create the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of humanity.


Whoops, dag gone it, I thought you were making progress there before, arguing over the quantification of the effects of CO2...........alas, now you've backslid all the way from #4 to #6.

Edit: This new number system sure is a timesaver Dittohead Not! Thanks

I must have missed the conspiracy parts in your link ~

"The mission of the UN system-wide Earthwatch is to coordinate, harmonize and integrate observing, assessment and reporting activities across the UN system in order to provide environmental and appropriate socio-economic information for national and international decision-making on sustainable development and for early warning of emerging problems requiring international action. This should include timely information on the pressures on, status of and trends in key global resources, variables and processes in both natural and human systems and on the response to problems in these areas."
 
Last edited:
Whoops, dag gone it, I thought you were making progress there before, arguing over the quantification of the effects of CO2...........alas, now you've backslid all the way from #4 to #6.

Actually, I was hoping that you would see that even the numbers you use, the calculations, anything remotely CONCRETE absolutely fails when put under rational scrutiny.

Edit: This new number system sure is a timesaver Dittohead Not! Thanks

ALL of those points are actually facts, and the (rebuttal) is fallacious. Each time no less. And demonstrably so... but I suppose when you've got your ego so locked into a position that turns out wrong... well, very few can admit that logic had failed them.

Now, I'm an environmentalist. I want to see us be more responsible for the environment, and that's not just individually, but for corporations as well. I want to be sure that the food is good to eat, the water good to drink, the air good to breath.

But, I fail to see ANY POINT through which CO2 can even truly be considered a toxin UNTIL it's to an extent where it is ACTUALLY TOXIC. And in ANY study I've seen provided there is literally NO CONCERN until levels of CO2 TRIPLE.

You claim to take the scientific view, but constantly argue a correlation = causation... which is simply not true.

Ex : Driving drunk CAUSES more accidents... this can be proven by having a person drive a test course sober, and then driving again under varying dosages of alcohol.

Correlations on the other hand are not necessarily CAUSES. Take pavlov's dog, the dog saw the correlation of the bell to be a CAUSE of food about to show up, when it was just a conscious decision by Pavlov to ring the bell. So, where there's a correlation between the bell and food, the bell in no way CAUSES food to show up.

I must have missed the conspiracy parts in your link ~

You've shown that you won't read that deep anyway, and the sentiment was repeated in several assessment reports...

"The mission of the UN system-wide Earthwatch is to coordinate, harmonize and integrate observing, assessment and reporting activities across the UN system in order to provide environmental and appropriate socio-economic information for national and international decision-making on sustainable development and for early warning of emerging problems requiring international action. This should include timely information on the pressures on, status of and trends in key global resources, variables and processes in both natural and human systems and on the response to problems in these areas."

Yup... and if you look through their reports, you'll see what they are suggesting to resolve the 'environmental problems'... again, 5-7 billion peasants or 1 billion people able to clothe, feed, and house themselves comfortably, as we in america have been accustomed to.

Like the last time, you'll probably read enough and think "oh my grand kids can live like that" and give it the good ol stamp of approval like you did for the few paragraphs of those other books I suggested you read if you really want to see what's at the core of this global warming issue, in the words of the people that have the type of clout to get things done on the matter.

Oh, and yes... that's a part of it, the 'world religion' is intended to be what grows out of the 'eco-fascism' calls of today.... but you didn't read that far ;)
 
Actually, I was hoping that you would see that even the numbers you use, the calculations, anything remotely CONCRETE absolutely fails when put under rational scrutiny.


Certainly, if you find some rational scrutiny, be sure to let us know!
 
No... The chart that you put up was the first chart from the source I had provided a few posts prior... your first link after that picture was ALSO used as a source for the first graph. The ONLY difference between the chart and the first link was that the chart was from 2000, the link was updated in 2009. Beyond that, it simply served to confirm that the raw data, in terms of concentration of CO2 is accurate AND is based off of IPCC numbers.
Let me try this again, because you don't seem to get this...

Your link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

On this link is this chart:


See the (1) on the chart? That indicates there's a footnote for the source of this data. Scrolling down, you find this link under (1)
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

The number 68,520 does not appear on this page. In fact, this page does not make any distinction between man-made CO2 and natural. It only compares total concentrations between pre-industrial levels and now. (and before you jump to this conclusion, no, this is not an admission that we can't tell the difference. the report simply does not cover that topic)

So. He cites a page of data that does not contain the data on his chart. It's not just being outdated information. The type of data he places on his chart is not located on the page he cites as a source.


No no no... what this person is saying is that through natural sources (plant life absorbing CO2 as an offset to animal life producing CO2 from oxygen) has been +/- 97% of the increase in CO2... the second link you sourced agreed with this 3% of Co2 increase being man-made.
That is what he's saying, but he's wrong.
I'm aware of the second link saying it's 3%. I even pointed that out. "Ironically... makes the same error." It's an error. It's an error because it ignores the absorption of carbon entirely. Do you still not understand this? The numbers shown on that chart of yours aren't the net increase, they're the emissions only. The absorption is completely left out of the calculation.
 
Last edited:
Certainly, if you find some rational scrutiny, be sure to let us know!

You mean like the 'rational scrutiny' where I'll use numbers from sources that are provided to me, with equations that are provided, and to see how that fits into the verified accurate data to match the equations with the results... and IT DOESN"T WORK... and it's IRRATIONAL that I point that out to everyone???

And you know what I get in response for pointing out this absolute flaw ??? Not "Oh, you did that wrong".. not "You were looking at the wrong points to compare", NOT "Oh maybe that equation was wrong". You know what the response was???

"The graphs you used prove AGW"... IN THE FACE OF BEING PROVEN WRONG THEY CLAIM THIS PROVES THEM cORRECT AND YOU THINK YOU HOLD THE RATIONAL CRITICAL ANALYSIS?!?!?!?! Give me a friggin break...

Or how about the 'rational scrutiny' of provided sources where the opposing viewpoint quote mines a single excerpt within the first page or two that can be quoted to dismiss the rest of the documents... that are only like 150-200 pages each... and then try to shift back to the clear propaganda program.

Hell, why didn't you tell your kids to abort their children because then they wouldn't have so large a carbon footprint??? That's what TIME magazine discussed... or how about "the case for killing granny" because the resources and pollution created to keep granny alive could allow for 10 more teachers to get hired" - Bill gates paraphrased... and added "but we're not supposed to talk about death panels".

I wish you greenies would see things past the tip of your nose... read a history book about how your suggestions fit in historically, and what's happened EVERYTIME afterwards. Especially you, who claims to be fighting for the sake of your grand children and won't even go so far as to read a planning document by, what you conceded was a group of the wealthiest men, people in positions of power and influence around the world, and to find out what THEY HAVE TO SAY on the subject... and I don't mean just skimming the first few pages to find some feel good line so you can lie to yourself that they have best intentions.

You did NOT make it far enough to see how MOST PEOPLE alive today WILL NOT get to see the fruits of these efforts...

Well... Mapping the web of life
You can check at your local library, or send in to get a copy.

But here's the quotes you're looking for :
heywood2.gif

Section 11 : Discusses how to handle population numbers, densities, etc... but effectively, 5-7 billion as peasants, or 1 billion as kings.
Section 12 : This one despises the 'western world view' and religious background because of how it distances itself from nature... and would prefer to see a religion of nature worship.
Section 13 : Discusses expanding 'wild lands', and restricting activities and population densities within these pre-defined areas.

Well, I didn't find specifically what I was looking for online, but I found a whole lot of other stuff trying...

- Eric Pianka's call for airborne ebola to kill 90% of humanity
- You should have to pay for the area of trees to offset a baby (estimate 5000$)
- Ted Turner discussing overpopulation (not the first time)
- Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola goes over his treatise
- Ecoscience : written by John P Holdren (Obama) and Paul Ehrlich (Bush), both science advisors wrote about their desired policies of forced sterilizations and abortions... among other loving 'environmentalist' moves to lower carbon.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q966tz9aEHM - Planned-opolis... most of the captions are similar to what I would note (ad was government funded... as in a UN and G-8 member government)
- Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation - Times Online
- Bill Gates turn....
- Times online... babies bad for the earth??? They think so.
- Even Charlie MANSON is on board.
 
Now, I'm an environmentalist. I want to see us be more responsible for the environment, and that's not just individually, but for corporations as well. I want to be sure that the food is good to eat, the water good to drink, the air good to breath.

Good for you. Me too.

But, I fail to see ANY POINT through which CO2 can even truly be considered a toxin UNTIL it's to an extent where it is ACTUALLY TOXIC. And in ANY study I've seen provided there is literally NO CONCERN until levels of CO2 TRIPLE.

#7
 
So. He cites a page of data that does not contain the data on his chart. It's not just being outdated information. The type of data he places on his chart is not located on the page he cites as a source.

How about you look through the whole page... he goes through it all.

I mean, you don't even make it to where the contributions for water vapor get tallied in.
 
How about you look through the whole page... he goes through it all.

I mean, you don't even make it to where the contributions for water vapor get tallied in.

Why should I continue beyond step number 1 when I can't even verify the numbers for step number 1? The following calculations are all based on that first table being accurate.

It isn't.
 
Last edited:
Good for you. Me too.



#7

Thanks for making my point.

ONLY WHEN IT"S EXTREME!!!! You know what EXTREME levels are??? 1000 ppm is where most studies do a baseline of 'bad co2'... that's about where you might have difficulty breathing slightly... 2000ppm can become fatal.

For the record it's closer to 380ppm at this point. So... natural factors come into play to regulate CO2 levels... IE : plant life will be FAR more efficient at reducing co2 from 1000ppm then at their current CO2 starved state (relatively speaking).

Again... you're number 1-7 is complete BS... and repeating it won't change that fact.... as childish as a debate by numbers attempt at fail logic is in itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom