Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Global warming is hogwash. In my area, we actually have cloudy days, all created by chemtrails. The weather reports this as if it's normal, a front moving in - it is not. What it does is insulate us, and create a blanket, so the readings will say it's warmer. They are manipulating the weather, then will say "see see, it's true, we have to do something". It's all lies to promote a global agenda.
You should really warn people before making a post like this. That would give us time to don our tinfoil hats.
Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...fDM_story.html
Because the amount of water vapor doesn't change independently of temperature.
That's called absolute humidity and with a rise in temperature the relative humidity decreases which increase evaporation rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Imagine if all the water vapor in the atmosphere could magically be removed. What would happen? Within a few weeks water would evaporate (the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is very small compared to the total of on land and ocean) to replace it back to about the old concentration. Conversely, if we could magically increase the humidity of the atmosphere, the extra water vapor would rain out and it would return back to the old amount.
The "raining" would depend on the temperature and saturation levels. It might be very small or it might be huge depending on the temperature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The concentration of water vapor is determined by the earth's temperature. Hotter air can hold more vapor. So if you warm the earth a bit, for example, by adding CO_2, more water will evaporate and the water vapor concentration will increase, warmer the earth further.
I agree with that but I swear you just stated something completely different.
Vapor pressure also has other influences, not just temperature. For example, where the water is in the atmosphere and where it is geographically... barometric pressure.
The sane freethinking population has long since accepted this reality. I have little hope that this or any study will change the minds of the easily persuaded, profoundly deluded amongst us that rely on radio/TV hosts to craft their opinions on things that are scientific. I just hope the numbers of those deluded by foolsihness continues to dwindle so we can one day start to clean up our planet so it will be inhabitable for future generations.
Wow...reread yourself, "sane freethinking", "deluded by foolishness". Wouldn't happen to be one of those flea partiers sleeping in the park would ya?
You should really warn people before making a post like this. That would give us time to don our tinfoil hats.
Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.†Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight. The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate - The Washington Post
baloney
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.
Even President Obama has been criticized by former Vice President Gore for failing to do enough when it comes to climate change legislation. The now-defunct congressional climate bill failed because the Democrats realized it was political suicide. The new political expediency in Washington is global warming skepticism. The U.N. global warming treaty process lies in shambles.
The promoters of man-made climate fears are now reduced to claiming -- as University of California, Berkeley, professor Richard Muller did last week -- that any warming trend equals some sort of "proof" of man-made warming. Those of us who laugh at Gore's mythical "climate crisis" tip our hat to Obama for not pushing very hard for the Congressional Climate Bill and for being so tepid at U.N. climate conferences.
Of course, Obama is still threatening to unleash the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate that harmless trace essential gas we exhale from our mouths -- CO2 -- but that effort will most likely wait until after the next presidential election.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-climate-change-dead#ixzz1bkviw1m6 - broken link)
Now if we could just get Gov. Jerry Brown to tell the truth before he depopulates all of CA.
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.
Even President Obama has been criticized by former Vice President Gore for failing to do enough when it comes to climate change legislation. The now-defunct congressional climate bill failed because the Democrats realized it was political suicide. The new political expediency in Washington is global warming skepticism. The U.N. global warming treaty process lies in shambles.
The promoters of man-made climate fears are now reduced to claiming -- as University of California, Berkeley, professor Richard Muller did last week -- that any warming trend equals some sort of "proof" of man-made warming. Those of us who laugh at Gore's mythical "climate crisis" tip our hat to Obama for not pushing very hard for the Congressional Climate Bill and for being so tepid at U.N. climate conferences.
Of course, Obama is still threatening to unleash the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate that harmless trace essential gas we exhale from our mouths -- CO2 -- but that effort will most likely wait until after the next presidential election.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-climate-change-dead#ixzz1bkviw1m6 - broken link)
Now if we could just get Gov. Jerry Brown to tell the truth before he depopulates all of CA.
Wow...So many lies in this article I don't know where to begin....
The classic mark of antiscience thinking is the cherry picking of sciency-sounding bits of data to support a rhetorical argument designed to convince someone of a predetermined conclusion. Rhetorical arguments are OK and are the way most of us navigate life to get what we need. But they become antiscience when we use them to attempt to refute data-based arguments by only presenting the data that support our position, instead of also considering the data that do not support it. Shawn Lawrence Otto: Another Climate Denial Argument Bites the Dust
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping;
Because the amount of water vapor doesn't change independently of temperature.
Imagine if all the water vapor in the atmosphere could magically be removed. What would happen? Within a few weeks water would evaporate (the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is very small compared to the total of on land and ocean) to replace it back to about the old concentration. Conversely, if we could magically increase the humidity of the atmosphere, the extra water vapor would rain out and it would return back to the old amount.
I don't believe you quite understand the relationships or the overall argument here ... nor do you seem to recognize the contradictions within your own statements, or in the accounts you choose to accept as truthful.
Even though Water Vapor represents 95 % of the supposed "Greenhouse Gases", according to you, removing all of that would have no effect, and would self correct in a couple of weeks? Yet, CO2 which represents just a tiny fraction (3%), and man made CO2 just a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction ... removing that tiny amount of CO2 would have profound effects on climate? Does this even remotely make sense? No, it doesn't.
Do you not see the problem you have? The facts are, it's impossible to prove a fallacy, and every attempt to do so will fail miserably. It's like a lie ... tell one lie, and then you'll have to tell a dozen more less believable lies just to support the first one ... which pretty much sums up the Global Warming argument. And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you are personally lying ... only that you are being lied to, and apparently believe these things which in turn, you then choose to promote them.
The truth is, water vapor and CO2 are variable based on temperature and other factors, which is another way of saying that temperature dictates these levels and not the other way around. This is the big clue you're ignoring, and why blaming CO2 for global warming is so obviously wrong. These gasses do not create warming, but are a result of warming. And Water Vapor accounts for about 95% of the so-called "Green House Gases", which varies between winter and summer months, as well as geographically ... i.e. low levels over deserts and arid lands, higher levels over oceans. Conversely, CO2 represents just a tiny fraction of the overall variable Greenhouse gasses, and fluctuates primarily with ocean temperatures (which is the largest of the CO2 sinks) ... the cooler the temperature of the oceans, the more CO2 is dissolved and retained (kept out of the atmosphere) ... the warmer the ocean, the more CO2 is released, adding to the atmospheric levels. Another of the most important CO2 sinks is vegetation. The more CO2 available, the more plant life prospers and grows abundantly, using that CO2. And this symbiotic relationship is very beneficial, as vegetation is the source of both food and oxygen for the rest of us creatures that do not employ photosynthesis as a means of survival.
While Water Vapor may increase and decrease rapidly in response to temperature changes by means of evaporation or lack thereof (as evidenced by the constant changes in Relative Humidity that fluctuate daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally).... the CO2 cycle takes a lot longer, because warming of the land surface temperature doesn't immediately translate into warmer oceans or increased vegetation .... it takes quite a while to raise the ocean temp even slightly ... which is why there is this 800+ year lag time between global warming periods and increased levels of atmospheric CO2 which show up much later on.
This is the most compelling evidence that CO2 does not cause warming, but is only a result ... and a very delayed result at that. But there are many other common sense issues that demand skepticism of this CO2 cause of global warming ... none the least of which is the pure double talk that is so obvious. Truthfully, it's hard to imagine why everyone doesn't fall out of their chairs laughing at this "heads I win, tails you lose" style of scientific debate ... and I use the term "scientific" very loosely here.
Take any of the sources of this so called "Global Warming" theory and simply analyze what they say. A great example is this site called "Skeptical Science" who's motto is "Getting skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism" (You gotta love that Orwellian double think nonsense).
Here, on this page they claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels had been steady for Thousands of years ... and also claim that CO2 levels are higher today than they have been for 15-20 Million years, no doubt due to modern post-industrial man's contributions:
Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years
This suggests a massive, and modern CO2 problem to those who aren't up to speed on the subject, and therefore easily bamboozled. The reality is, Man made CO2 accounts for about 3% of the total CO2 level, with 97% naturally occurring. Of that 3%, they admit that 40% of this extra amount from man's activity is absorbed into the CO2 cycle, with the remaining amount going into the atmosphere. That means that roughly 98.2 % of atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring, while 1.8 % is man made. The inference is, don't worry about the 98.2 percent ... it's that last 1.8 % that's the killer .. that's going to cause the global catastrophe? Let's see ... current levels are 384 ppm CO2 .... 377 ppm is natural, and 7 ppm is man made. That 7 ppm .... well, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, aye? This lends new meaning to the saying ... "there's a sucker born every minute".
Now, if this nonsense doesn't immediately make you want to shout BALONEY .... just wait ... it gets much better. The very same publication ... different page says this:
However, when we look back over the Earth's history, we see many periods where CO2 is higher than current levels of 384 ppm. Intriguingly, for some of those periods where CO2 was higher than now, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2?
No, it doesn't, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
They don't say! Imagine that! CO2 isn't the ONLY driver of climate? Who would have guessed given this constant beating of the drum about CO2 being the Global Warming gremlin! Can we say ... CO2 is the only driver of climate when these lying frauds find it convenient? As in only today, and never before? That's the issue in a nutshell .... never did before ... but trust us ... it is now? Trust them because they say so? Please!!!
Now, let's critically analyze and summarize what we have gone over so far .... they said that CO2 today is higher than the at any time in the last 15-20 Million years ... then they say CO2 has been higher many times in the past, even during times of Glaciation ... but pay no attention to this ... it's not a contradiction because they say so ... and there were other factors that prevented those higher CO2 levels from causing warming back then! There must have been global cooling factors offsetting the CO2 global warming factor? Uhh .. got it. (If your head isn't spinning now, its only because you are blindly accepting these BS stories as truthful, without actually analyzing what is being claimed.)
The real kicker is that these past higher CO2 levels which didn't cause global warming were up to 7000 ppm!!! That's right ... 18 times higher the total amounts that exist today, or 1000 times as much as modern man contributes today.
So, they want us to believe that today's inconsequential increase of 7 ppm of atmospheric CO2 due to man's activity is going to cause global catastrophe ..... but the prior levels of 6,616 ppm higher than today's TOTAL amount in the past apparently didn't destroy the earth? How freaking dense and ridiculous can one argument become, for God sake?
The more these Global Warmists talk, the more ridiculous they sound. And there really is no excuse for anyone to believe this nonsense, because if you can read and write, and dress yourself in the morning ... you have all the tools you need to understand how nonsensical these explanations are.
The bottom line here is that those who believe this Man Made CO2-Global Warming nonsense MUST simply accept what they are being told, and choose to believe it without actually taking the time to think critically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The concentration of water vapor is determined by the earth's temperature. Hotter air can hold more vapor. So if you warm the earth a bit, for example, by adding CO_2, more water will evaporate and the water vapor concentration will increase, warmer the earth further.
As already well documented, CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature one way or the other .... this is proven by the fact that we have measured simultaneous increases in CO2 levels while temperatures were in decline (and as admitted above, during glacial periods). The reality is, there is no direct, correlative association showing an increase in temperatures due to increases in CO2 levels ... not today, not yesterday, and never before in the Hundreds of Thousands of years of historical climate data found in the ice core records.
The most OBVIOUS conclusion that logic would demand suggests that if CO2 was actually capable of causing global warming ... it would have done so at some point, and you'd expect to see evidence of that ... but such evidence is totally absent. What the long term data shows is we have CO2 and Temperature levels fluctuating in both directions .... high CO2 during periods of Glaciation, and low CO2 during periods of warming ... for which both directly contradicts the notion that CO2 causes Global Warming.
The only thing that is absolutely clear here is that climate science is made up of perhaps the largest collection of corrupt snake oil salesmen and dishonest bureaucrats ever to be assembled to promote one single agenda. And the underlying secret to all of this is that agenda is not to "Save the Planet".
And it's high time the adult population in this country start behaving like adults ... which includes recognizing fairytales for what they are. We can no longer afford to blindly trust and accept the lies and distortions being fed us constantly ... and that is true whether the subject is war and terrorism .... or global warming.
It's precisely this failure to take personal responsibility as citizens to ensure that we are educated and knowledgeable about the important issues of the day, that has left us in the mess we find ourselves. The price of continued ignorance is too costly, especially regarding matters with such implications and severe repercussions.
These global warming snake oil salesmen are trying to convince everyone to accept solutions to non-existing problems that in reality promote our own self destruction. By agreeing to accept the premise that CO2 is BAD, you literally are embracing Orwellian double think. CO2 is only bad if you hate life and abundance, because that is what warmer climate and higher CO2 leads to ... abundant and prosperous life.
These double talkers might as well say Oxygen is bad and needs to be reduced ..and I wonder how many would accept that at face value? I probably don't want to know the answer.
Wow...So many lies in this article I don't know where to begin....
With so many to choose from, why not pick one of them to prove such an allegation? Why not? Oh ... because it's just easier to make a baseless claim rather than actually provide substance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
The classic mark of antiscience thinking is the cherry picking of sciency-sounding bits of data to support a rhetorical argument designed to convince someone of a predetermined conclusion. Rhetorical arguments are OK and are the way most of us navigate life to get what we need. But they become antiscience when we use them to attempt to refute data-based arguments by only presenting the data that support our position, instead of also considering the data that do not support it. Shawn Lawrence Otto: Another Climate Denial Argument Bites the Dust
HAHAHAHA .... the irony is beyond definition, particularly when it comes to this aspect of the argument ... that of global temperature measurements and a charge of "cherry picking" data from the side caught red handed lying, and manipulating data to fit a predetermined conclusion..
I mean really ... the Climategate emails are a bloody confession of chicanery in manipulating the data to "hide the decline", and to stonewall release of raw data, and to engage in character assassination of those who dare challenge consensus lies ...err I mean consensus opinion. It's really quite rich.
And, the topic of this link of yours suggesting that Muller was a climate skeptic turned believer base on the facts is just another laughable lie amongst a river of lies. Muller is a first rate shill, and has been pretending to be a skeptic, yet his history of being an AGW proponent is easily documented. It's not even a good deception ... but then neither is claiming CO2 to be a pollutant.
One thing is consistent on your side ... you all either love to lie or love being lied to, and it's hard to determine which definition fits whom.
I don't believe you quite understand the relationships or the overall argument here ... nor do you seem to recognize the contradictions within your own statements, or in the accounts you choose to accept as truthful.
Even though Water Vapor represents 95 % of the supposed "Greenhouse Gases", according to you, removing all of that would have no effect, and would self correct in a couple of weeks? Yet, CO2 which represents just a tiny fraction (3%), and man made CO2 just a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction ... removing that tiny amount of CO2 would have profound effects on climate? Does this even remotely make sense? No, it doesn't.
Do you not see the problem you have? The facts are, it's impossible to prove a fallacy, and every attempt to do so will fail miserably. It's like a lie ... tell one lie, and then you'll have to tell a dozen more less believable lies just to support the first one ... which pretty much sums up the Global Warming argument. And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you are personally lying ... only that you are being lied to, and apparently believe these things which in turn, you then choose to promote them.
The truth is, water vapor and CO2 are variable based on temperature and other factors, which is another way of saying that temperature dictates these levels and not the other way around. This is the big clue you're ignoring, and why blaming CO2 for global warming is so obviously wrong. These gasses do not create warming, but are a result of warming. And Water Vapor accounts for about 95% of the so-called "Green House Gases", which varies between winter and summer months, as well as geographically ... i.e. low levels over deserts and arid lands, higher levels over oceans. Conversely, CO2 represents just a tiny fraction of the overall variable Greenhouse gasses, and fluctuates primarily with ocean temperatures (which is the largest of the CO2 sinks) ... the cooler the temperature of the oceans, the more CO2 is dissolved and retained (kept out of the atmosphere) ... the warmer the ocean, the more CO2 is released, adding to the atmospheric levels. Another of the most important CO2 sinks is vegetation. The more CO2 available, the more plant life prospers and grows abundantly, using that CO2. And this symbiotic relationship is very beneficial, as vegetation is the source of both food and oxygen for the rest of us creatures that do not employ photosynthesis as a means of survival.
While Water Vapor may increase and decrease rapidly in response to temperature changes by means of evaporation or lack thereof (as evidenced by the constant changes in Relative Humidity that fluctuate daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally).... the CO2 cycle takes a lot longer, because warming of the land surface temperature doesn't immediately translate into warmer oceans or increased vegetation .... it takes quite a while to raise the ocean temp even slightly ... which is why there is this 800+ year lag time between global warming periods and increased levels of atmospheric CO2 which show up much later on.
This is the most compelling evidence that CO2 does not cause warming, but is only a result ... and a very delayed result at that. But there are many other common sense issues that demand skepticism of this CO2 cause of global warming ... none the least of which is the pure double talk that is so obvious. Truthfully, it's hard to imagine why everyone doesn't fall out of their chairs laughing at this "heads I win, tails you lose" style of scientific debate ... and I use the term "scientific" very loosely here.
Take any of the sources of this so called "Global Warming" theory and simply analyze what they say. A great example is this site called "Skeptical Science" who's motto is "Getting skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism" (You gotta love that Orwellian double think nonsense).
Here, on this page they claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels had been steady for Thousands of years ... and also claim that CO2 levels are higher today than they have been for 15-20 Million years, no doubt due to modern post-industrial man's contributions:
This suggests a massive, and modern CO2 problem to those who aren't up to speed on the subject, and therefore easily bamboozled. The reality is, Man made CO2 accounts for about 3% of the total CO2 level, with 97% naturally occurring. Of that 3%, they admit that 40% of this extra amount from man's activity is absorbed into the CO2 cycle, with the remaining amount going into the atmosphere. That means that roughly 98.2 % of atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring, while 1.8 % is man made. The inference is, don't worry about the 98.2 percent ... it's that last 1.8 % that's the killer .. that's going to cause the global catastrophe? Let's see ... current levels are 384 ppm CO2 .... 377 ppm is natural, and 7 ppm is man made. That 7 ppm .... well, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, aye? This lends new meaning to the saying ... "there's a sucker born every minute".
Now, if this nonsense doesn't immediately make you want to shout BALONEY .... just wait ... it gets much better. The very same publication ... different page says this:
They don't say! Imagine that! CO2 isn't the ONLY driver of climate? Who would have guessed given this constant beating of the drum about CO2 being the Global Warming gremlin! Can we say ... CO2 is the only driver of climate when these lying frauds find it convenient? As in only today, and never before? That's the issue in a nutshell .... never did before ... but trust us ... it is now? Trust them because they say so? Please!!!
Now, let's critically analyze and summarize what we have gone over so far .... they said that CO2 today is higher than the at any time in the last 15-20 Million years ... then they say CO2 has been higher many times in the past, even during times of Glaciation ... but pay no attention to this ... it's not a contradiction because they say so ... and there were other factors that prevented those higher CO2 levels from causing warming back then! There must have been global cooling factors offsetting the CO2 global warming factor? Uhh .. got it. (If your head isn't spinning now, its only because you are blindly accepting these BS stories as truthful, without actually analyzing what is being claimed.)
The real kicker is that these past higher CO2 levels which didn't cause global warming were up to 7000 ppm!!! That's right ... 18 times higher the total amounts that exist today, or 1000 times as much as modern man contributes today.
So, they want us to believe that today's inconsequential increase of 7 ppm of atmospheric CO2 due to man's activity is going to cause global catastrophe ..... but the prior levels of 6,616 ppm higher than today's TOTAL amount in the past apparently didn't destroy the earth? How freaking dense and ridiculous can one argument become, for God sake?
The more these Global Warmists talk, the more ridiculous they sound. And there really is no excuse for anyone to believe this nonsense, because if you can read and write, and dress yourself in the morning ... you have all the tools you need to understand how nonsensical these explanations are.
The bottom line here is that those who believe this Man Made CO2-Global Warming nonsense MUST simply accept what they are being told, and choose to believe it without actually taking the time to think critically.
As already well documented, CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature one way or the other .... this is proven by the fact that we have measured simultaneous increases in CO2 levels while temperatures were in decline (and as admitted above, during glacial periods). The reality is, there is no direct, correlative association showing an increase in temperatures due to increases in CO2 levels ... not today, not yesterday, and never before in the Hundreds of Thousands of years of historical climate data found in the ice core records.
The most OBVIOUS conclusion that logic would demand suggests that if CO2 was actually capable of causing global warming ... it would have done so at some point, and you'd expect to see evidence of that ... but such evidence is totally absent. What the long term data shows is we have CO2 and Temperature levels fluctuating in both directions .... high CO2 during periods of Glaciation, and low CO2 during periods of warming ... for which both directly contradicts the notion that CO2 causes Global Warming.
The only thing that is absolutely clear here is that climate science is made up of perhaps the largest collection of corrupt snake oil salesmen and dishonest bureaucrats ever to be assembled to promote one single agenda. And the underlying secret to all of this is that agenda is not to "Save the Planet".
And it's high time the adult population in this country start behaving like adults ... which includes recognizing fairytales for what they are. We can no longer afford to blindly trust and accept the lies and distortions being fed us constantly ... and that is true whether the subject is war and terrorism .... or global warming.
It's precisely this failure to take personal responsibility as citizens to ensure that we are educated and knowledgeable about the important issues of the day, that has left us in the mess we find ourselves. The price of continued ignorance is too costly, especially regarding matters with such implications and severe repercussions.
These global warming snake oil salesmen are trying to convince everyone to accept solutions to non-existing problems that in reality promote our own self destruction. By agreeing to accept the premise that CO2 is BAD, you literally are embracing Orwellian double think. CO2 is only bad if you hate life and abundance, because that is what warmer climate and higher CO2 leads to ... abundant and prosperous life.
These double talkers might as well say Oxygen is bad and needs to be reduced ..and I wonder how many would accept that at face value? I probably don't want to know the answer.
I want to save this post for study. You are a true genius when you can discuss this topic, so even I can comprehend the gist of this complicated subject. They like to confuse the issue with gobbledygook. Thank you.
Carbon Dioxide is .03% by volume of the total atmospheric air. The other gases that make up 99.998% of our air are Argon (.93%), Oxygen (20.95%) and Nitrogen (71.8%). The other .1% are trace gases.
Also water vapor decreases the density of air because more moisture is present in the same volume of air (which means there are less molecules of air in that same volume).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(If your head isn't spinning now, its only because you are blindly accepting these BS stories as truthful, without actually analyzing what is being claimed.) 
