And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It's the biggest boondoggle ever known to scientific research, the notion that CO2 is a pollutant. And as they say, too much lower, photosynthesis stops and the Earth becomes a barren ball. But more ! The higher it goes, the greener the world gets - and the evidence is there for the talking.
Not just the biggest boondoggle, the most stupid mission ever.
They're comparing global warming to around 1850, which appears to be the coldest point in the last half billion years. (ZeroHedge showed this two years ago: https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/msm-journos-inadvertently-reveal-shocking-truth-about-global-warming ) Their models are crap, the data they feed the models is crap and the more you study it, the worse it looks. Stuff like they're pushing the world to hit a temperature change of under 3.75 degrees by 2100 and their models' uncertainty ranges from -15 to +22.5 degrees. 10 times the allowable change. The uncertainty should be 1/10 of the desired change so they're 100 times worse.
It was never about the Co2 levels, it's always been a power/money grab. They know that they can't change the levels, but they can make immense amounts of money faking it
You can regulate and tax carbon based fuels. You can't regulate water vapor. Simple as that. Why did Robin Hood rob the rich instead of the poor? Who had the money?
This blog has the best most amazing readers! By the depth of the comments here seems we have tons of climate researchers, environmental scientists, climatologists and botanists.
I'm just not qualified to participate in this debate.
Side question. 0.02% to 0.06% alcohol in blood will give an adult a buzz. That is when changes in behavior are notable. Seems like a little amount of a product can make a big difference in some cases.
People often mistakenly conflate abundance with importance (not just with climate science, but with a lot of things). Iron makes up about 0.006% of the mass of an average human. Yet, it is completely essential for us to live (without it the hemoglobin in our red blood cells can't transport oxygen). So any argument that something is unimportant simply because it's not abundant is not valid. Also, too much iron and you will get poisoned, excess iron accumulates in internal organs, causing potentially fatal damage to the brain and liver.
You have committed the Apples To Pineapples Fallacy. -20 yards, and loss of down.
The problem with iron (and your analogy) is physiology, not mere presence. You can shove a one pound piece of iron up your tailpipe, and it won't kill you. It might be uncomfortable, but that's all. Eating a pound of iron tablets, OTOH...
So too with CO2. Pumping a ton of it into the atmosphere is benign. (If anything, the local plants will thrive.) Breathing a ton of it, however, would be fatal to anything with an oxygen addiction, like people and animals.
Presence does not equal a problem. Physiology does.
NOAA likes to point out that human production exceeds that of volcanoes, based on sketchy models. But they overlook that has only been the case for the last 150 years, and that volcanoes dump planet-wide amounts of CO2 out in a very short time. And that volcanoes were active for the last several billions of years, life thrived during that time, rather than being extinguished. In fact the earth was more prosperous then than now, with tropical plants growing from pole to pole.
So human production, being steady, is more readily handled by the planet's carrying capacity than the eons-old volcanic spikes, and neither shows much propensity for planetary harm.
The CO2 alarmists are practicing Retard Science, and using a scientific version of Three Card Monte to pretend otherwise.
No one with beyond an 6th grade understanding of reality is buying their b.s., and anyone can see why with even a basic understanding of what's being perpetrated.
But… but…. But….
ReplyDeletePanic!
DeletePANIC!!1!
you don't have to prove it to me!
ReplyDeleteCO2 is almost too low for plants. Much lower than than .003 % all plants will die.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I’m wrong but 0.04% (the amount of CO2 cited on the chart) is more than 10 times larger than .003%.
DeleteIt's the biggest boondoggle ever known to scientific research, the notion that CO2 is a pollutant. And as they say, too much lower, photosynthesis stops and the Earth becomes a barren ball. But more ! The higher it goes, the greener the world gets - and the evidence is there for the talking.
ReplyDeleteNot just the biggest boondoggle, the most stupid mission ever.
ReplyDeleteThey're comparing global warming to around 1850, which appears to be the coldest point in the last half billion years. (ZeroHedge showed this two years ago: https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/msm-journos-inadvertently-reveal-shocking-truth-about-global-warming ) Their models are crap, the data they feed the models is crap and the more you study it, the worse it looks. Stuff like they're pushing the world to hit a temperature change of under 3.75 degrees by 2100 and their models' uncertainty ranges from -15 to +22.5 degrees. 10 times the allowable change. The uncertainty should be 1/10 of the desired change so they're 100 times worse.
Cow Farts! Need more Cow Farts!
ReplyDeleteAnd bells.
DeleteHunga Tonga is back, refreshed and revisited. But the truth is, it never left
ReplyDeleteHonga Tonga puts the climate change bullshit in perspective
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/re-heated-thursday-july-17-2025-c
Water vapor is the real greenhouse gas.
ReplyDeleteDon't say that! It's the truth and there is no place for that around here!
DeleteIt was never about the Co2 levels, it's always been a power/money grab. They know that they can't change the levels, but they can make immense amounts of money faking it
ReplyDeleteYou can regulate and tax carbon based fuels. You can't regulate water vapor. Simple as that.
DeleteWhy did Robin Hood rob the rich instead of the poor? Who had the money?
This blog has the best most amazing readers!
ReplyDeleteBy the depth of the comments here seems we have tons of climate researchers, environmental scientists, climatologists and botanists.
I'm just not qualified to participate in this debate.
Side question. 0.02% to 0.06% alcohol in blood will give an adult a buzz. That is when changes in behavior are notable. Seems like a little amount of a product can make a big difference in some cases.
People often mistakenly conflate abundance with importance (not just with climate science, but with a lot of things). Iron makes up about 0.006% of the mass of an average human. Yet, it is completely essential for us to live (without it the hemoglobin in our red blood cells can't transport oxygen). So any argument that something is unimportant simply because it's not abundant is not valid.
Also, too much iron and you will get poisoned, excess iron accumulates in internal organs, causing potentially fatal damage to the brain and liver.
Oh yes, and remember according to the experts we have a little over 900 days reverse our behavior before it's too late.
DeleteJust WOW!
@Anon 6:51A
DeleteYou have committed the Apples To Pineapples Fallacy.
-20 yards, and loss of down.
The problem with iron (and your analogy) is physiology, not mere presence.
You can shove a one pound piece of iron up your tailpipe, and it won't kill you. It might be uncomfortable, but that's all.
Eating a pound of iron tablets, OTOH...
So too with CO2.
Pumping a ton of it into the atmosphere is benign.
(If anything, the local plants will thrive.)
Breathing a ton of it, however, would be fatal to anything with an oxygen addiction, like people and animals.
Presence does not equal a problem.
Physiology does.
NOAA likes to point out that human production exceeds that of volcanoes, based on sketchy models. But they overlook that has only been the case for the last 150 years, and that volcanoes dump planet-wide amounts of CO2 out in a very short time. And that volcanoes were active for the last several billions of years, life thrived during that time, rather than being extinguished. In fact the earth was more prosperous then than now, with tropical plants growing from pole to pole.
So human production, being steady, is more readily handled by the planet's carrying capacity than the eons-old volcanic spikes, and neither shows much propensity for planetary harm.
The CO2 alarmists are practicing Retard Science, and using a scientific version of Three Card Monte to pretend otherwise.
No one with beyond an 6th grade understanding of reality is buying their b.s., and anyone can see why with even a basic understanding of what's being perpetrated.
Makes one wonder if we still have a chance at day 876🤔
ReplyDelete