RE: Global warming by the numbers

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Global warming by the numbers

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Global warming by the numbers

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Global warming by the numbers - 8/20/2012 11:48:44 AM

ToyOfRhamnusia

Posts: 99
Joined: 8/4/2012
Status: offline

What matter is this: Is the measured change CAUSED by human activity? If so, WHICH ONE? and: What can we do about it.

The Powers-that-be want to control us, and they found a great way of doing that: tax the air we breathe! Yes, we all produce about 4% carbon dioxide in our exhaled air. That's 40,000 ppm! Also, all plants depend on carbon dioxide - it is simply their main food! No plants can grow any faster than what the amount of carbon dioxide available will dictate. In other words, by cutting down the carbon dioxide contents in the atmosphere, we can CAUSE a major food crisis on this planet - and, as David Rockefeller clearly said last year, "All we need now is a major crisis - then the world's population will accept our New World Order government".

Now, this isn't PROOF of anything, but it is outright stupid if we ignore it.

The proof is here: The concentration of carbon dioxide CANNOT cause the temperature increase we have measured! Here is why:

Let's assume that this 200 ppm increase in carbon dioxide causes the climate change we can observe.

Let's go with the conservative figures saying that we have had a 1 degree average increase over the last 10 years. (Some scientists agree that it is higher, at least in many locations, but let's remain conservative and not try to exaggerate anything...)

So, that was presumably caused by a 200 ppm increase. This means that 200 ppm is causing a 1 degree increase, right?

Before plants existed on earth, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. All the 20% oxygen we currently enjoy as the very foundation of animal life was generated by plants, by turning the then 20% carbon dioxide into carbon (= organic material) and free oxygen, through the well-known photosynthesis everyone should have learned about in school.

Pay attention to the numbers now: 20% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - that's what we had back then. Today we have a little less than 400 ppm = 0.0400% - which is an increase over the last 150 years from 200 ppm.

Question: what would the increase be if that 200 ppm were 20% = 200,000 ppm instead? In essence, we increase the carbon dioxide concentration 1,000 times... You will notice that this is the situation we had before plant life on Earth...

We should then expect a temperature increase of something like a 1,000 times also, shouldn't we? I mean, if the original claim were correct, then this WOULD be true...

Citing Sherlock Holmes, "My dear Dr. Watson, when we exclude that which is impossible, that which remains, however unbelievable we might find it, must contain the truth."

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Global warming by the numbers - 8/20/2012 1:12:43 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Someone actually thinks that nonsense is logic?

(in reply to ToyOfRhamnusia)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Global warming by the numbers - 8/20/2012 1:19:44 PM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

FR

I propose that we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere in order to test the hypothesis. Permission bonds at one cent per tonne of CO2 can be acquired from me.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Global warming by the numbers - 8/20/2012 4:03:06 PM

ToyOfRhamnusia

Posts: 99
Joined: 8/4/2012
Status: offline

It is actually not completely nonsense - that's the problem. Carbon dioxide DOES have a measurable "green house effect", but it cannot account for more than maximum 3% of the changes we have measured. There are other factors in play that are way more important, but when "we" downplay those, carbon dioxide becomes "something we can DO something about"! And, in the moment useful idiots grab that with their brains and use their democratic powers, we are led to disaster... At the same token, it fits nicely with the paradigm of many "green" grass-root organizations that fight pollution, so when they can be convinced that carbon dioxide should be classified as a POLLUTANT, then the political victory is secured. This is all possible only when you do NOT consider numbers but run all reasoning on emotions.

And it also helps when you refuse to accept that SOMEONE with as much power and money like the rich banksters truly want MORE of what they already have in such abundance. It is called "conspiracy theory", and politically correct folks will of course refuse to buy into that as a realistic description of what is going on behind the scenes, because it is "too unbelievable".

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Global warming by the numbers - 8/20/2012 4:49:16 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

It is actually not completely nonsense - that's the problem. Carbon dioxide DOES have a measurable "green house effect", but it cannot account for more than maximum 3% of the changes we have measured. There are other factors in play that are way more important,

You are simply wrong. No other factor has changed enough to cause the warming we're eperiencing.

quote:

but when "we" downplay those, carbon dioxide becomes "something we can DO something about"! And, in the moment useful idiots grab that with their brains and use their democratic powers, we are led to disaster... At the same token, it fits nicely with the paradigm of many "green" grass-root organizations that fight pollution, so when they can be convinced that carbon dioxide should be classified as a POLLUTANT, then the political victory is secured. This is all possible only when you do NOT consider numbers but run all reasoning on emotions.

And it also helps when you refuse to accept that SOMEONE with as much power and money like the rich banksters truly want MORE of what they already have in such abundance. It is called "conspiracy theory", and politically correct folks will of course refuse to buy into that as a realistic description of what is going on behind the scenes, because it is "too unbelievable".

The political and economic power is on the other side so your "theory" i wrong on its face. Basically you've bought into the lies of the old energy industry.

(in reply to ToyOfRhamnusia)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Global warming by the numbers - 8/20/2012 5:58:31 PM

ToyOfRhamnusia

Posts: 99
Joined: 8/4/2012
Status: offline

OK - this can continue without my input from here.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 26