Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Professors in the universities who get huge grants from Global warming grifters in the government = benevolent.
Scientist in private firms being hired by oil companies = influenced by money.

How can you ever lose with mentalities like that? And when it comes to who pays the most and to the most "scientist", there is an easy observation of why so many more people are on the side of the alarmists than on the other side. If you think oil companies are big, then you've never seen how many people the government can purchase.

 

BAHAHAHA. "Government has limited operating budgets".

 

Where we differ is I accept the laws of physics and accept that in a controlled environment such as a mason jar they are all encompassing. Where I disagree is that in a wild and wolly environment like the planet Earth this particular C02 law of physics is just one of many factors some of which we know about and I'm sure many we don't even know exist. Earth is a dynamic environment far different from a mason jar.
Tell me this, why are AGW pushing scientist 100% sure of what's causing our climate now but scientist still debate what caused the little ice age in our very recent past?

"On the other hand, others argue that we’ve already been shaping the planet on a vast scale for much longer. Last year, a controversial study identified a surprisingly early date—1610—as a possible start for the Anthropocene for a truly haunting reason: That’s roughly when depopulation of Native Americans began reached its peak after initial prolonged contact with European missionaries. Depending on how many people were already here before the Europeans arrived with their guns, germs, and steel, as many as 50 to 90 percent of Native Americans perished over a span of little more than 100 years—that’s tens of millions of people.

That paper, and others, assert that this happened so suddenly that a continent’s worth of forests regrew, shifting weather patterns and reducing global carbon dioxide levels to the point of possibly triggering the “Little Ice Age”—a period of cooler temperatures concentrated in Europe that began around 1550 and lasted for about 300 years, though other dates are also used to define it—not long after Europeans first arrived in 1492. The resulting decline in carbon dioxide from the regrowth of America’s forests was detectable as far away as ice cores in Antarctica.

While causes and extent of the Little Ice Age itself are also controversial—solar and volcanic activity also likely played a role—a new study published in January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides clearer evidence from a team of archaeologists and climatologists that an earlier start to the Anthropocene might be the correct choice."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ne_began_in_1610_with_the_little_ice_age.html

Or is it this?

"More importantly, this narrows down the cause of the LIA: four tropical volcanoes erupted violently in that period. The ash would have darkened the atmosphere, letting slightly less sunlight down. Some of the gases emitted by volcanoes also cool the air. It seems clear these volcanoes are what triggered the Little Ice Age. But why did it last so long?"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b.../what-caused-the-little-ice-age/#.WyPCSqBlCf0

Or maybe this?

BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.

The sun isn’t as constant as it appears. Instead, its surface is regularly beset by storms of swirling magnetic fields. As a result, like a teenager plagued with acne, the face of the sun often sprouts relatively dark and short-lived “sunspots,” which appear when strong magnetic fields inhibit the upwelling of hotter gas from below. The number of those spots waxes and wanes regularly in an 11-year cycle. However, even that cycle isn’t immutable.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/05/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all

 

If you are truly concerned about rice and oceans you better stick to real pollution fears.

"China’s soil contamination is so great that it cannot adopt such a course (see map). The country is unusual in that it not only has many brownfield sites (contaminated areas near cities that were once used for industry) but large amounts of polluted farmland, too. In 2014 the government published a national soil survey which showed that 16.1% of all soil and 19.4% of farmland was contaminated by organic and inorganic chemical pollutants and by metals such as lead, cadmium and arsenic. That amounts to roughly 250,000 square kilometres of contaminated soil, equivalent to the arable farmland of Mexico. Cadmium and arsenic were found in 40% of the affected land. Officials say that 35,000 square kilometres of farmland is so polluted that no agriculture should be allowed on it at all."

https://www.economist.com/briefing/...hreat-to-public-health-in-china-is-toxic-soil

"Many ocean pollutants are released into the environment far upstream from coastlines. Nitrogen-rich fertilizers applied by farmers inland, for example, end up in local streams, rivers, and groundwater and are eventually deposited in estuaries, bays, and deltas. These excess nutrients can spawn massive blooms of algae that rob the water of oxygen, leaving areas where little or no marine life can exist. Scientists have counted some 400 such dead zones around the world."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-marine-pollution/

 

When a response from a denier is that all institutes of higher learning, most of the smartest people of the world, all our Agencies and our military are all alarmists, that’s weak.

 

Except the sun, of course....

 

No, because the earth was both warmer and colder when the sun was dimmer, independently of CO2. This proves CO2 is effectively irrelevant to temperature -- though temperature does affect CO2, through its solubility in sea water.

No, that's also false. Temperature affects CO2 levels, but CO2 has only a minor effect on temperature. While it is necessary to include that MINOR effect in paleoclimate models, that does not support AGW theory, which requires a MAJOR effect.

No, it does not.

But they aren't the same as warming, so they don't contradict my position in any way.

No, they are not. They are simply predictable effects of CO2 that are NOT warming.

What ideology might that be, pray tell?

No, the data disagree with AGW theory, so AGW screamers change the data. That makes them liars.

 

No. More accurately, it is ONLY strong over the last ~50My when temperature and CO2 were both mostly declining.

And also happens to show that temperature LEADS CO2, so the correlation results from a causal relationship in the opposite direction from the one AGW screamers claim.

Oh? Can you describe a reason why more life would not be good for people? Are you perhaps unaware that people evolved in tropical climates, and can't live comfortably outside the tropics without elaborate clothing and housing to keep warm?

 

Mars has about 15x Earth's surface CO2 concentration, and it is damn cold. Your understanding of what affects planetary surface temperatures is woefully deficient.

 

That's the way science progresses, duh.

 

No, that's just baldly false. There are lots of hypotheses.

 

Oh, and religion is fact....got you. Next time a denier has anyone close come down with a life threatening decease, let’s go directly to a theologian instead of medical science for a cure. After all....it’s all just an hypothesis. When the consensus of agreement reaches 100% among the most learned institutions and over 90% of the most learned individuals, let’s just disregard their advice. Do you know how your cell phone works ? Quantum “theory.” It’s an elementary foundation in is operation. Guess it’s just a hypothesis cause it has the word “theory” in it. Each time you try to explain yourself, you get farther into the realm of ridiculousness. Just listen to yourself. According to you, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Mass General, the US military and even the the Pope now are all frauds. Gee, even religion isn’t a respite from ignorance anymore. Even the Pope isn’t buying you guys.

Even religious base institutions are on board with climate change, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688135/BYU-University-of-Utah-unite-on-climate-change.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/europe/pope-oil-executives-climate-change.html

 

And a Creationist (who likes to evoke science) can say, - all experiments and observations demonstrate that life can appear only in presence of life and new species do not appear out of old ones, and even laws of genetics clearly state that new species cannot appear out of old ones and even post a link for everyone to see http://scienceprimer.com/punnett-square-calculator ….

Clearly beliefs of such a Creationist are more in line with hundreds years of experiments, while yours are in direct contradiction to hundred years of thousands of experiments and observations, but your beliefs are not only taught as a state religion, like scientific communism and scientific atheism were taught in the USSR but also but also they are taught as science.

And that is very wrong and extremely dangerous for both American liberties and natural sciences, more dangerous than Muslim jihad.

And the fact is that no experiment had been even attempted to be conducted to demonstrate that CO2 absorbs more heat from the Sun during the day than it emits to the infinite dead cold universe during the nights before a full swing hysteria claiming such an effect to exist and no such experiment has ever been even attempted to be conducted, but you will die fighting tooth and nail for the cult of GW and CC.

I told you that because of teaching of your beliefs instead of science in schools and colleges you cannot have any tools or knowledge to distinguish between science and religion or a set of personal beliefs.

Don’t even try.

Just tell me that I am not worth of your time and you are wishing me to have a nice day.[/QUOTE]

 

I told you, that mindlessly repeating what you are told in schools and institutions of higher learning just shows that you are growing up into a slave and it does not cut in an intelligent debate.

An intelligent debater is required to submit arguments and facts showing what makes him think that all institutions of higher learning are correct and science requires evidence.

For instance an intelligent debater can point to a theory of natural sciences and show how it requires and uses empirical evidence.

Like this:

If you ever take any theory of natural sciences starting from Newton and finishing by Einstein you will see that none of them has any use of empirical evidence.

You can use function Find to find the word “evidence’’ in this https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/planckdover.pdf

Or in this http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/alexal/pdf/electrodynamics.pdf

Or in this https://pws.yazd.ac.ir/abootorabi/Festo-Didactic-Hydraulic.pdf

Or in this http://mhriau.ac.ir/_DouranPortal/Documents/Frank%20P.%20Incropera%207th%20[tarjomekade.blogfa.com]%20_20160308_141020.pdf

Or in any other useful theory of natural sciences and you will never find a single use of evidence.

And all these theories, in spite of totally different sets of assumptions, are built on the same set of rules, and one of these rules says that empirical evidence has no place in natural sciences.

Theology and other sets of beliefs require empirical evidence, natural sciences have no regards and no use for empirical evidence as anyone who is capable of using Adobe function Find can see with his own eyes.

You have a choice – to trust to all institutions of higher learning or to your own eyes, to be an obedient slave or a free man.

 

It's cold because of PV=nRT. And note that when I said "lack" I did not mean to imply zero. Even despite Mars' incredibly thin atmosphere the greenhouse effect is still +6K on the planet.

 

You are absolutely correct. The temperature did lead CO2 concentration in the past. That makes sense actually because CO2 is in a feedback with the temperature such that if the temperature goes up more CO2 is released naturally which reinforces the temperature increase. However, CO2 is also a catalyzer for temperature change as well. In the past CO2 played the role of the feedback only because there was no artificial increase of CO2 to catalyze or initiate the temperature change. In other words, something else first caused temperatures to increase and then CO2 got involved as part of it's feedback. What's different today? Humans! We are artificially increasing CO2 concentration so it is playing the role of the catalyzer right now. That in no way means the natural feedback is turned off though. It is still very much in play as well.

 

[/QUOTE]

Your link does not provide information that backs your assertion. However

Genomics entrepreneur Craig Venter has created a synthetic cell that contains the smallest genome of any known, independent organism. Functioning with 473 genes, the cell is a milestone in his team's 20-year quest to reduce life to its bare essentials and, by extension, to design life from scratch.Mar 24, 2016

Nevertheless...Have A Nice Day

 

And what exactly is the concensus? Put it into words as to what they all concede. Here's a hint, even Judith Curry would be in your group of experts that are in the concensus and even I am in it. Think hard.

 

The mind of a Humper. Up is down and down is up.
Education is useless and only the churches of the world have access to the truth.
Guess you'll have to turn your cell phone in.

 

You have a computer. Rather then make crappola up, just go to the websites of the AAAS.

 

Sounds like you are afraid to admit the truth here.

 

The consensus is that Earth is warming and that humans are primarily responsible.

 

"Primarily responsible"? Wrong. Even Judith Curry is in the concensus and she does not think man is primarily responsible. Try again.

 

Then you disagree with every university, all the major corporations and the Pope.