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

I don't use the ignore button. I don't mind reading the hate arriving from the Democrats. But I don't need to reply back to them either.

When they lack the brains and balls for debate, they attack posters. I guess it makes them feel better that rather than debate, they attack.

 

I would like to point out that the Weaver video has her talking to various subjects. She seeks not her position, but their position. She has them at city council meetings. I can't find some google cite for that. She got the videos and I don't plan to chase like a tail how she got them. Videos speak as well to a topic as movies. We watched film in school so teachers felt video works very well. TED talks has a lot of videos.

If people need to learn more, they watch the video ... check they figure what they want more information over ... check they may need more data and they may want to use google scholar trying for things they feel important .... check when they are done, they are happy or unhappy. But that is all up to them.

I have no clue why I get told by Democrats they won't watch videos. I spent time locating those. To tell me I must be their librarian is kind of insulting to me. I think I did plenty to help them learn.

I want to comment on sources.

I have many times given them accurate sources. Did that work out for me?

No it has been terrible. I even offer books. I when able will even try to locate quotes from said books.

But I am not their servant. I post for a few odd reasons. But none of them are to insult other people reading what I write.

Democrats do post to taunt and insult.

Sad but so true.

 

That is loaded with so much prejudice. The irony is what I get in return amounts to taunts and insults. Even if not at me, the sources.

 

I decided you don't debate.

So you do complain. And you did it above again. But an insult so far as I am concerned is to accuse me of not summarizing a video, they you presenting some blog that you refused to summarize.

 

You have demonstrated how lazy you are. For you to tell me to do your job for you galls me. That is why i do not care now.

 

When 10 percent of Earth is covered by ice, and 25 percent is land, that much land covered by ice to me signals we are still in the ice ages. 75 percent of the water is remaining of Earth. Little of the sea is ice covered. We are told so often by the alarmists the ice of the north pole is vanishing, that means most of the problem is at sea.

 

Yup. Any time someone is wringing their hands about ice balance and talking about Greenland or the Arctic, you are dealing with a dummy. 90% of the world's ice and 70% of the planets freshwater is locked up at the South Pole.

During warm earth conditions, there are little to no deserts. All that is currently desert, is naturally producing food.

 

Much of the land is still covered with ice.

It might be hard for the alarmists to accept, but this is only math.

 

And the bottom line is that they do not meet academic standard ergo they are simply someone's opinion and not science

You want to argue science and not opinion and politics then you have to do so by the rules of science and you tube does not meet the grade, unless it too is of acad mic standard a few are but very few

 

What?? Last paper I read on this said that when the Antartic was free of ice the entire tropics were desert

Do you have a scientific paper to back your assertions?

 

Can I keep this as an example of really really bad reasoning?

 

Not academic standard

Does the video have any references or is it someone spouting an unsupported opinion

 

Not by me. But keep your reply to me as a good example of taunting and insulting.

 

Look, 90 percent of what you say fails your own test. This forum is not academia.

 

Projection,;blaming someone else for your shortcomings.
The fact is you can't support your claim with a valid source.

 

Honestly this is my problem. No matter what you get shown, first you would blame me for the source. And you would urinate on any source I show you. And you would keep this nonsense going.

I have dealt with your type for many years. I learned from those who were even worse than you are.

When a person is too lazy to watch a video, they prove how lazy one can be.

 

Robert is good at stonewalling and making excuses,providing credible sources... not so much.

 

Lazy? When we spend hours searching for research articles. No it is not laziness to insist on academic standard when discussing sience

 

Something more about the present ice age.

Some assume for their to be an ice age, they must have ice around where they live. They do not speak of the vast amount of land on earth covered in ice unless they think it proves man warms earth.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

Just how can man warm earth? Remove carbon dioxide from the discussion and what else do they have left to offer?

Nothing at all. They ignore water vapor. They don't know anything about clouds. They have no clue the ocean collects carbon dioxide or they would speak of that.


Here is my major complaint.

They ignore solutions.

They only crave one alleged solution and they do not present the math nor science behind ways it could cool off or change climate.

I have presented data on hurricanes trying to help them get informed. They shun it.

If it is Carbon Dioxide they wet the bed about, I seek them to first personally solve it in their own life. Do not lecture me if you operate any vehicle using or producing carbon dioxide.

If you burn natural gas in a heater, you produce carbon dioxide. Lay off me when you are guilty.

Should you fly in a commercial jet, do not bother me with your nonsense. You and Al Gore do not live up to your own principles.

When you get on me over my use of an Engineer from NASA, do not counter with your own engineer (Bill Nye the science guy) as you try to rip the NASA engineer to shreds. Do not use NASA as a site when you shun some of the NASA experts yourself.

I suggested carbon dioxide scrubbers and got back, nope ,,, nope, can't do that.

Seawalls around Florida to prevent massive flooding.
nope.... nope, won't do that.

The complaining by the alarmists is shrill and loud. They do not want solutions that work. They want to manage my life. Well, I want to manage theirs right back since that is the case.

 

Cosmo, you proved to me you do not accept anything I present.

 

Robert, my Friend, I have a message for you in particular. I cannot seem to find a method for sending a private message here.
Please tell me how to do so. I'm pretty sure you will find my website of interest, perhaps several of them. There are sixty.

 

.

yep and I will put money on the fact that only a handful have academic referencing and those cherry pick data to a fare thee well

 

This is not a post on climate change it is a list of grizzles

 

You proved to me you can't present a credible source for your claim about windmills.

 

I have the fossil record. If a paper doesn't support the hard facts of the fossil record, always go with the fossil record. The Eocene for example, the poles were ice free and the following is a description of the plant life:

At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.

Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.

Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.

Cooling began mid-period, and by the end of the Eocene continental interiors had begun to dry out, with forests thinning out considerably in some areas. The newly evolved grasses were still confined to river banks and lake shores, and had not yet expanded into plains and savannas.

The cooling also brought seasonal changes. Deciduous trees, better able to cope with large temperature changes, began to overtake evergreen tropical species. By the end of the period, deciduous forests covered large parts of the northern continents, including North America, Eurasia and the Arctic, and rainforests held on only in equatorial South America, Africa, India and Australia.

Antarctica, which began the Eocene fringed with a warm temperate to sub-tropical rainforest, became much colder as the period progressed; the heat-loving tropical flora was wiped out, and by the beginning of the Oligocene, the continent hosted deciduous forests and vast stretches of tundra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

Those are the Warm Earth Conditions you live in fear of. One of the enduring impressions one takes from the fossil is that the earth at various times, just teems with life, an amazing amount of life, during these warm earth conditions.

As for deserts in warm earth conditions, the three largest deserts are the South Pole, the North Pole and the Sahara, in that order. The first two are not deserts during warm earth conditions and the Sahara was green and lush, just 7,000 or so years ago.