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

1. Your very name is terribly misrepresentative. You're not "center" at all. You're far left-wing.
2. You avoid the name of Al Gore like you avoid the name "liberal." Both embarrass you, and for good reason.
3. The "fetish" is those who claim *climate change* is, to quote hypocrite Obama, "the greatest security threat facing us," while flying and driving and eco-touring up the ying-yang, a la Hollywood.

Temperature changes precede the parallel changes in CO2 by several hundred years or more (Mudelsee, 2001; Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Siegenthaler et al., 2005)

 

Sticks and stones.

 

Even if you are one yoogly dude.... (snort, snort)

 

Who remains good looking at age 78?

 

Consider the well known El Nino.

Were there really Northern hemisphere warming, as the hockey stick confines itself to proving, El Nino would not release it's hold and La Nina, the cooling take over.

Many do not realize the hockey stick was not global, but local to the north hemisphere.

 

Damn! One foot in the grave.
Reminds me of a great saying:

The older I get the more I don't give a ****.

 

Everyone knows that some places will benefit from warming. Why not be honest and post a world view?

 

Why?, the hockey stick only presents part of Earth.

 

When i was a kid, that was a lot more funny. LOL (Damn! One foot in the grave.)

 

Contrary to denier stories, the tropospheric warming is well-documented. "There's no tropospheric hotspot!" is an old debunked denier myth.

No, it doesn't. You might want to look at the projections, which show a rather linear warming.

And as nobody predicted such a thing, that's a validation of the theory, and a refutation of your mangled version of it. A steady linear warming has occurred, just as the theories predicted.

You just confirmed my point, which is that you don't understand the difference between "positive feedback" and "runaway warming". They are not the same thing, no matter how stridently you declare they are.

 

First, they obviously adore his pudgy body. Denier men tend to swing that way.

Second, Gore is a sort of messiah to the deniers, albeit an evil messiah. Religious cults do that kind of thing. They need to keep their mindless followers in a constant state of hysteria, to stop them from thinking at all costs. They do that by demonizing certain people and telling their followers to hate those people. Gore is one of the people that deniers have told their followers to hate. He's kind of an antichrist figure in the denier cult mythology.

You don't see any of the rational people here talking about Gore. He's not a scientist, so we don't care. You don't see the rational people here deflecting from the science by demonizing anyone. We have the science backing us up, so we can talk about the science. All the science contradicts the denier cultists, so they have to talk about something else.

 

Would you kindly stop trolling? Stick to the topic, which is CO2, not your repeated fantasies that everyone is picking on poor little you.

So, you want to talk about your OP now? Excellent. You ran from that discussion before, so it will be good to get you to address it for the first time.

Your OP was about the toxicity of CO2. That has nothing to do with climate. CO2's ability to absorb IR and raise temperature, even at very low concentrations, has nothing to do with its toxicity at high concentrations or lack of toxicity at low concentrations. They are entirely separate issues.

Given that they are separate issues, your "CO2 isn't toxic at low concentrations, so CO2 can't cause warming" argument makes no sense at all. Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise.

Now, you could try discussing that, but I imagine you won't. You'll most likely scream that you refuse to talk to me because I'm such a big meany. Convenient, how that charade allows you to run from every post that rips apart your awful cult pseudoscience.

 

Name calling, by a member of the global warming death cult? Don't make me laugh! Bahahahahahaha!

I don't fear warmth, I welcome it. We are in interglacial period of an ice-age in the aftermath of the little ice-age and on a slight warming trend, thank goodness! Of course there is atmospheric warming, the concern is the accuracy of the models. Over the last 25 years or so, the model prediction of troposphere temperature rise is about 300 percent the measured amount, or 170 percent if you adjust (fudge) the data to take into account the outright cooling of the stratosphere.

And you again erroneously misstate what I said, again. There is no runaway warming scenario with the positive feedback assumption.

If I said: There is no covering a 60 mile trip in an hour on foot, you would need a car. Your response is: "You don't understand the difference between a 60 mile trip, and a car!"

 

Look at your dialogue and see if that seems as if it is on point rather than trying to make me the gist of your discussion.

This is the subject.

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

So, in keeping with my own topic, I posted on the influence of Carbon Dioxide on the human being. I figured it would help understand if we need fear high CO2 levels as humans. I recall, even if you do not, that EPA labels the gas a pollution. Rather than polluting, it greens Earth. You act as if it is your job to make my points for me rather than discuss points made. I believe most posters understood what I was showing the forum.

I don't think my point was CO2 can't somehow be related to warming. But I believe it is reverse related as posed by the alarmist cult. Far too many scientists tell us that the levels of Carbon Dioxide follow and do not lead warming.

Either way, when you quit making posts about me, you might even discuss actual points made.

I feel pretty well grounded based on the hundreds of scientists that I base what i say upon.

 

You could not get the imminent Dr. Richard Lindzen nor Dr. Curry to name but 2 of hundreds of renowned Climate scientists to so testify were the alarmists correctly rooted in science.

They grasp the science. The math and physics of this topic far more than the alarmists grasp it. We do not deny warming. We essentially gut the argument humans control climate / warming. Further we gut the argument that trace amounts of carbon dioxide are believed by the other side either or they would grasp solutions that even I have offered and got behind them.

For instance I know there are industrial grade carbon dioxide scrubbers today that are available. Government were serious would drop this windmill notion and rather embark on the scrubber solutions. But they do not take themselves serious. I reviewed again Mann's contentions and will quote him here.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

 

You are completely off topic.

This topic is about carbon dioxide, not Al Gore. It is not about posters that work hard to stay on the debate topic.

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

 

CO2 is over rated.
What are you going to believe?
The biological and historical written records or
scientific estimates of historical CO2 as proof
of thermal warming beyond historical records.


Food production at times of Blue Zone if reduced.
It is good to live in an Orange Time

Moi

r > g

​

 

None of the posters control climate. For them to claim they do makes no sense to me.

 

Sure. You claimed CO2 would not harm people in any way, because it wasn't toxic to breathe.

You did not restrict the lack of harm to "not choking and dying". You said no harm at all. You implied CO2 would not cause any harm by global warming as well.

And now you're backpedaling.

Then you probably shouldn't have stated CO2 can't do any harm at all, eh?

And now you're doing it again, switching topics from toxicity to global warming.

People pointed out that was sleazy. They're right. Stick to one topic (toxicity) or another (warming). Don't keep switching them up mid-sentence.

 

I've lost track of how many times violent deniers have called for my death. Your denier cult is very violent at it's core. I haven't yet met the denier who doesn't want a mass killing of liberals.

That's nice. But it's a red herring.

It's also not all about you. Try to let that point sink in. You might not be affected, but millions will be. And your attitude is "Meh. Not my problem. I've got AC. Let 'em die."

No, absolutely wrong. We're in a crazy fast warming trend, caused entirely by humans. Prior to that, we had been in a slow cooling trend for the past 6,000 years, and that slow cooling trend should have continued. The LIA was a rather insignificant blip on that trend.

They models been excellent. Anyone familiar with the science knows that. Denier cultists, alas are not familiar with the actual science. They've fallen for the fraud that their masters have passed down to them.

That would be an example of one of those frauds. The statement has no relation to reality. Eventually, you'll come to understand that everything your cult leaders have told you is a lie.

There is no runaway warming scenario at all, except in your mind. That's the point you keep evading.

No, I'd say there is no runaway warming scenario at all, except in your mind. Your cult just faked a story about runaway warming.

 

More like they grasp the paycheck they get from fossil fuel interests. That gives the mainstream scientists added credibility, the fact that they've refused such bribes and have essentially taken a pay cut, just so they can continue to do good science. If you follow the corrupting money, it all goes to deniers.

Most of you do, whenever the mood strikes you. You constantly flipflop between "There's no warming!" and "The warming is natural!". You'd have more credibility if you'd pick one position and stick to it.

No, you haven't. You've never put forth a single sensible argument that refutes the fact that increasing CO2 warms climate.

All your "solutions" are laughably bad on an engineering level. All you have is pie-in-the-sky fantasies. That's why we reject them, because we have engineering common sense. That reflects badly on you, not us. Your scrubbers? Not capable of removing significant CO2 at any realistic price. Massive tree plantings? Not capable of removing much CO2. All your ideas simply won't work in the real world with real money.

You know what we do support? Things that work, and which make a profit, like renewable energy and energy conservation.

 

Actually those solutions are not proven to work well at all.
What renewable that you allege works is working?

Windmills for instance are proving a health risk where they exist. People report ill health. Cattle die off.

For you to prove they work requires you explain your solar system and your windmill.
Bet you are on the grid.

 

The truly arrogant would have us believe they can control climate. They tell us how they do it. The tell us they inject Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. After that they want to lay a guilt trip on the rest of us. Figure that out if you dare.

We have hundreds of great climate scientists calling bunk on this. Those paid a lot are paid to keep this scheme going by blaming me for the entire globe warming. If they want to blame humans, blame China.

 

Shut up
Debate does not mean I am the target.

 

Tell me how in the world are windmills causing poor health and killing cattle? This is complete bunk unless you have proof. Making false claims and innuendo do nothing to help your case. It just shows desperation in a losing argument.