Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

First, there are plenty of estimates on the amount of CO2 released from wild fires...try Google.

And, no one ever said man made pollution is 100% of the problem? But humans have a huge role in polluting Earth! And, if you can comprehend taking any action at all, we cannot do anything about wild fires, or volcanic eruptions, etc. but we do have some control over pollutants caused by humans. The only thing different from millions of years ago to today regarding our atmosphere are the effects caused by humans...

 

I have found that science deniers who use terms like "fanatical religious beliefs", "true religious fanatic" and "blind religious beliefs" when attacking their opponents or when trying to make their argument, hold strong Fundamentalist Christian Religious Beliefs that prevent them from looking at science objectively.

 

Or...prevent any form of objectivity...on any topic...

 

Since the science is so exact, tell us what percentage of the warming is due to man, and what percent is natural warming? And how would they then account for the Roman era having higher temps than today. And what caused that rise?

 

The CO2 from the cremation of the bodies of all the murdered Christians followed by the CO2 from the cremation of the bodies of all the murdered non-Christians?

 

One more time: "October 31, 2007

Large-scale fires in western and southeastern states can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few weeks as the states' entire motor vehicle traffic in a year" - it is now. What is about 1807, when the vegetation was more massive and there was no such human input as helicopters and planes to fight the fires?
Either Google and come up with the estimate or accept that scientists are dishonest scumbags.

CO2 is not a pollutant but a basis of life on the Earth without which the Earth wouldn't be green. Burning carbonates and hydro-carbonates naturally have been naturally supporting life on the earth since day one. Representing CO2 as a pollutant scientists and people like you have been promoting both real pollution because fighting good (CO2) one has to pollute (promoting bad).

 

Obviously it does disprove it. You say there's no effect. An effect is clearly measured. Hence, your statement is absolutely wrong.

Scientists aren't like you. They're honest. They scrupulously examine every CO2 source. They study and document everything. That's why their conclusions are good. They've been getting everything right for 40 years now, and that success give them credibility.

In contrast, your conclusions are totally irrelevant garbage. Your deliberately ignore any evidence you don't like. You constantly make up nonsense to push your agenda. That's why your side has been failing constantly for 40 years, and why you have no credibility.

The scientists come to a conclusion based on the evidence. That's science. You create evidence based on your predetermined conclusion. That's more like religion.

 

Would it shock you to know about the greening of the world? This data comports with my belief in the good Carbon Dioxide does for Planet earth.




http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/greening-of-planet-earth-a-little-crowdsourcing-project/

 

Let's go over where you got that "fact".

http://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html

Golly, maybe you're right!
---
Large wildfires in the western United States can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in just a few weeks as cars do in those areas in an entire year, a new study suggests.
---

Oh wait, no.
---
Overall, the study estimated that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about 4 to 6 percent of the amount of the greenhouse gas that the nation releases through fossil fuel burning.
---

You tried to mislead us by comparing wildfire CO2 output to the motor vehicle CO2 output in very sparsely populated states. Naughty, naughty. An honest person would have pointed out how wildfires are a small contribution compared to total fossil fuel burning across the nation.

Was your dishonesty deliberate? Or were you just clueless, parroting the dishonest line that someone else had fed you?

 

Yes. we would not get the greener world but for Carbon Dioxide. So we do not deny there is more Carbon Dioxide. We deny we humans are ruining this planet.

Don't you enjoy the greener earth?


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/greening-of-planet-earth-a-little-crowdsourcing-project/

Oh, look where you see red. Where there are almost no humans. How can humans hurt well into Argentina, part of the middle of Australia and even in Siberia?

 

Not at all. That's old news. Real science has been done on it, and confirmed the greening.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3056.html

Did you know CO2 tends to make weeds and vines grow explosively, but not trees and food crops? Poison ivy especially loves CO2. If you think the poison is worse than it used to be, you're right.

Not much of a net good, eh?

 

Robert, I am afraid there is no way to tell if there is more CO2. More that what? More CO2 now than it was during centuries when it was not measured?

 

It would be wonderful to open a post and not see denier there or comments over religion. Christian has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

I understand the people blaming man won't watch this, but it deals with removing carbon dioxide.

 

I think the greening factor shows there is more helpful carbon dioxide.

 

It is difficult to make a conclusion only based on those comments. But since you knew it for a long time, isn't it time they stopped blaming man for carbon dioxide and acted like the gas is dangerous? Weeds will do as scrubbers just fine.

 

The thing is that scientists first came up with the idiotic suggestion that changing atmosphere can warm up a planet.
Then they were pointed that CO2 is a basis of life.
That they made up studies telling that CO2 only makes weed grow awhile other things are so so.
However idiotic and contradicting to obvious reality these studies they are what the scientists are pushing on indoctrinated masses.

 

Let's review some of the science. To make it easy, grab a drink, relax and watch.

 

One more time for the crowd that must have some trained in physics.

How they measure Earth energy balance. How you can tell if there is danger due to CO2.

You will not need to see the entire video just to get here. This is a place you can back up from for a few seconds in fact.

 

So, a retired mechanical engineer with no climate science experience made a long presentation to various denier groups, which he was no doubt paid well for.

Before we waste time on it, you first need to demonstrate first that you understand it, by writing a summary of it in your own words. If you can't be bothered to do that much, it's clearly not worth anyone's time.

 

Look, I realize you think you can bully me. And to demand as you did I perform the magic rope trick for you amounts to bully tactics given the nature of your comments and the clear tone.

Those videos are for the intellectually curious. I suppose a lot of Democrats will simply drop out since they don't understand some basic science.

Frankly the Climate guys need some people like him in order to solve problems they are puzzled over.

Have you never wondered if CO2 keeps going up why the temp lines are so darned wiggly?

My instant reaction to such wiggly lines is it is lousy science to tell me carbon dioxide keeps going up but the wiggly lines don't matter. I had an intuitive feel something was wrong.

 

Asking you to summarize your hour long video is not "bullying". The point of it is to demonstrate that you have no idea of what the video you linked to actually says.You just have faith it's right, because it agrees with your politics.

People who can discuss the science, do. You can't, so you go off on political rants. The real science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's real science. Denialism is restricted entirely to right-wing-fringe political extremist groups, because it's entirely politics.

I looked at some of it. He uses the Christy temperature/model graph that was a big ol' fake. Since he uses faked data, I saw no reason to waste further time on him.

Because weather and climate have chaotic elements to them. The lines may be wiggly, but the trend is inescapably up.

So, what other "science" do you base on your feelings?

 

I'm not the one who used terms like "fanatical religious beliefs", "true religious fanatic" and "blind religious beliefs". Those terms were by a fundamentalist against people who believe in science.

I won't speak for anyone else but, I have told you many times that I will not watch a video that is posted without any context. Stop being so intellectually lazy. Watch the video and present a synopsis in your own words. Then maybe someone will bother to take the time to look at it.

 

People believing in science or anything else cannot be blind religious fanatics?
What about people believing in Allah?
What does fundamentalist mean?

 

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...mer-than-the-medieval-and-roman-warm-periods/

 

And if we could minimize pollution from humans when we have these fires or other events the overall impact on our atmosphere will be in check. Remember, Earth has always experienced wild fires and volcanic eruptions, etc. and been able to sustain itself; the only difference today is the added impact from humans...